Governor Bassey Edet Otu’s Case Management Strategy
Governor Bassey Edet Otu, upon assuming office in May 2023, constituted the Cross River Economic Intelligence Team (CREIT) and adopted a structured, evidence-driven case management strategy to lawfully, scientifically, and diplomatically secure the recognition of Cross River State’s oil-producing status within the Nigerian federation.
This strategy is rooted in fidelity to judicial authority, hydrographic science, basin geology, and the constitutional framework for revenue derivation.
Cross River State has consistently maintained that it is not challenging the 2002 Judgment of the International Court of Justice. The ICJ ceded the Akwayafe River estuary and parts of Southern Bakassi to Cameroon, while preserving the Cross River Estuary, sections of the Ikang mangrove axis, and the Calabar Channel.
The West Point median line, as reflected in international hydrographic interpretations, protected Nigeria’s elongated continental shelf geometry and the natural seaward orientation of the Cross River Estuary.
Cross River’s case therefore proceeds, not from defiance of international adjudication, but from compliance with it, grounded in the obligation of justice to give effect to lawful entitlements — “ex debito justitiae”.
Similarly, Cross River State does not challenge the 2005 Supreme Court judgment affirming land boundary ownership between Cross River and Akwa Ibom States. As noted by Edozien, JSC, until the formal demarcation of the maritime boundary between both states, the Court could not conclusively determine offshore oil-well entitlements.
This judicial restraint underscores the scientific reality that maritime rights flow from hydrographic demarcation, not from cartographic approximations. Cross River’s reliance on subsequent technical verification is therefore consistent with the Court’s reasoning and anchored in scientific due process, rather than any attempt to reopen settled land boundaries.
In response to the 2005 judgment, President Olusegun Obasanjo brokered a political settlement in 2006 among Cross River, Akwa Ibom, and Rivers States to cushion the economic consequences of the ICJ ruling on Nigeria’s coastal configuration.
The allocation of oil wells under that political solution was a pragmatic federal intervention intended to preserve stability and equity pending scientific demarcation. The legitimacy of this political solution lies in its equitable intent and its interim character, designed to prevent economic dislocation while technical boundaries remained unresolved.
Following the exit of President Obasanjo from office, however, the National Boundary Commission, in collaboration with Akwa Ibom State, unilaterally adjusted land and maritime representations using the 2008 oil dichotomy implementation map.
This administrative act effectively reversed the earlier political allocation of oil wells to Cross River State without hydrographic demarcation or basin geology analysis. Such a unilateral administrative reconfiguration, lacking scientific foundation, cannot found legitimate entitlement and offends the principle that no right can arise from a wrongful foundation — “ex turpi causa non oritur actio”.
The 2012 Supreme Court judgment, relying substantially on the NBC cartographic representation and the post-Bakassi configuration, declared Cross River State non-littoral. Crucially, the Court did not determine geological basin ownership, reservoir continuity, or the legality of new well discoveries.
The judgment addressed coastal frontage, not petroleum geology. It did not extinguish Cross River’s entitlement to wells located within its onshore and nearshore basin system or within estuarine and sub-200 metre isobath environments. To extend the non-littoral finding into a geological forfeiture would be a misapplication of the ratio decidendi.
Between 2002 and February 2026, Nigeria’s international maritime boundary following the ICJ judgment, as well as the internal maritime boundary between Cross River and Akwa Ibom States, remain undemarcated. In the absence of hydrographic demarcation by the Nigerian Navy Hydrographic Office and international charting under UNCLOS standards, Nigeria does not possess a scientifically finalised offshore limit.
To administratively “cut off” the Cross River Estuary in such circumstances is to substitute conjecture for hydrography, an approach that undermines both international maritime law and domestic constitutional practice.
Per Adekeye, JSC, the Supreme Court in 2012 expressly directed that an inter-agency committee should locate and verify the coordinates of the oil wells lying between the offshore boundaries of Cross River and Akwa Ibom States.
This judicial directive remains the operative pathway for resolution. The long delay in implementing this technical verification does not negate Cross River’s entitlement; rather, it underscores the continuing duty of institutions to complete the scientific process mandated by the Court.
In 2024 and 2025, acting on credible economic intelligence, Governor Bassey Edet Otu petitioned the President with detailed technical dossiers, including 245 surface and reservoir coordinates across OML 114, 123, and 115.
The submissions demonstrated that reliance on the 2008 NBC map excluded significant estuarine waters within the Cross River Estuary and ignored multiple transboundary reservoir continuity straddles.
These representations were made “ex relatione amici” — in good faith, as a friend of the Nigerian state, seeking to correct technical errors with probative scientific evidence.
The subsequent inter-agency verification exercise confirmed the overwhelming majority of the submitted coordinates and attributed substantial well locations to Cross River State. The consistency between the earlier political allocation, the 2024 sub-committee findings, and the 2025 inter-agency verification underscores the scientific coherence of Cross River’s claim. In legal terms, the facts speak for themselves — res ipsa loquitur.
This coherence further dispels the artificial fear that earlier Supreme Court judgments foreclose the discovery and attribution of new wells. Judicial determinations on status do not fossilise geology; petroleum systems evolve with exploration, seismic reinterpretation, and technological advancement.
The probative materials submitted by Cross River State further demonstrate Nigeria’s entitlement to additional maritime and reservoir space under the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, extending Nigeria’s continental shelf rights beyond the conventional 200-metre isobath.
The failure to align domestic boundary practices with extended continental shelf entitlements risks not only state-level injustice but also national loss of strategic offshore resources.
Ultimately, Cross River State’s claim arises from onshore, nearshore, and offshore wells located below the littoral offshore line and short of the 200-metre isobath within the Cross River Basin petroleum system.
The State’s position is not adversarial to the courts, but complementary to judicial reasoning, grounded in hydrographic science, petroleum geology, and constitutional equity.
Governor Bassey Edet Otu’s case management strategy reflects patience, institutional respect, and strategic restraint. When vindication comes, it will come with consequences and lessons.
Cross River State stands prepared to tarry and wait, but not to relinquish scientific truth or lawful entitlement.
