Cross River Loses Status as Oil State
…Sues RMAFC, Boundary Commission
By Davidson Iriekpen, 04.21.2009

The Cross River State government has dragged the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) before a Federal High Court in Abuja for ceding 76 of its oil wells to Akwa Ibom State and thereby depriving it of 13 per cent derivation from the Federation Account.
In the suit which has the National Boundary Commi-ssion (NBC), Accountant-General of the Federation, Attorney-General of the Federation and Attorney-[b]General of Akwa Ibom State as other defendants, the plaintiff is saying that unless the defendants were restrained by the court, the defendants would continue to deprive it of federal allocations to its prejudice.
It stated that by a letter dated March 22, 2009, the RMAFC had directed the 3rd defendant (Accountant-General of the Federation), not to include the state in the disbursement of the $1.5 billion 13 per cent derivation fund accruing to the oil-producing states, of which the state belongs.
In the suit, which THISDAY got wind of last night, the plaintiff argued that its 2009 budget was based partly on expected revenue from the 76 oil wells, adding that Federal Government's decision to hand over Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon had resulted in refugees flooding into the state which it  has to provide for at a huge cost.
It also stated that apart from the fact that if the RMAFC’s directives are implemented, the damages accruing to it could not be compensated, it also stated that the loss of revenue from Derivation Fund will mean that the state would find it hard to pay salaries to its workers and virtually stop all developmental programmes.
It disclosed that the balance of convenience was in its favour to warrant the granting of the application.
Part of the suit filed by Paul Erokoro (SAN), read: “By the said letter, the 76 oil wells lying within the 200 metre water depth Isobath contiguous to Cross River State were arbitrarily allotted to Akwa State, without recourse to due process. The 3rd Defendant is about to implement the directive of the 1st Defendant as contained in the letter of 12th March, 2008, which will deprive the Plaintiff of its entitlement.
“If this Honourable Court does not stop the implementation of the directives of the 1st Defendant, it would bring untold and irreparable hardship on the Plaintiff.  If the Defendants are not immediately prevented by an order of this Honourable Court from disbursing the $1.5 billion, the disbursed money cannot be recovered as it would have been dissipated by Akwa Ibom State to whom it would have been disbursed.”
The plaintiff revealed that to its knowledge, there was no boundary dispute between it and Akwa Ibom State other than the one that had been settled to the satisfaction of both states, since October 2006.
It further buttressed its argument with a Certified True Copy of a letter marked Exhibit "A" written by the Akwa Ibom State Governor to the President and dated January 31, 2005, stating that the boundary between the two states had been satisfactorily settled by the 2nd Defendant (NBC).
It stated that the NBC, by a letter dated 4th January 4, 2005, with reference No. NBC/SEC.32/1/485, had delineated the Cross River/Akwa Ibom maritime boundary in paragraph 4 thereof thus: "(a) The terminal point of Akwa Ibom State/Cross River interstate boundary in Cross River estuary has co-ordinates 43733N and 82439E. (b) The maritime boundary between Akwa Ibom and Cross River should be a line drawn trunk point referred to in (i) above southwards until it intersects with Nigeria-Equatorial Guinea international maritime boundary. (c)Items 4(a) and 4(b) have further implications as follows: (i) Cross River has 3509N and 81253E as co-ordinates of the terminal point on the Nigerian-Equatorial Guinea maritime boundary. (ii) Cross River state will gain 76 number oil wells. This implies Akwa Ibom will lose the same number of oil wells."
The plaintiff disclosed that on October 27, 2006, at a meeting presided over by the President of Nigeria, the two states accepted the above determination and agreed that it defined their estuarine and maritime boundary. It supported its argument with a letter which it marked as Exhibit "B", written by the President affirming the position.
It further averred that in spite of all these, the RMAFC “strangely” wrote to the President suggesting that the 76 oil wells attributed to it be given to Akwa Ibom State as it had ceased to be a littoral state since the country had ceded the Bakassi Peninsula to the Republic of Cameroon.
"Cross River State was neither represented at the retreat nor given the opportunity to defend its right to be paid 13% derivation based on the said 76 oil wells under the prevailing boundary delineation with Akwa Ibom state and the 1st Defendant raised the issue of a boundary dispute between Cross River and Akwa Ibom states suo motu and purported to resolve same against Cross River state without hearing the Plaintiff,” it said.
Supporting its argument with a letter by the NBC to the President dated January 4, 2005 as Exhibit "C", the state further argued that contrary to the assertions in the Report of the Retreat, as at 2005, when it (NBC) settled the boundary between Akwa Ibom and Cross  River states, Bakassi had already been deemed a part of the Republic of Cameroon, the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ceding the territory to Cameroon had  been delivered in 2002, adding that all that was outstanding was merely the handover of the territory, which did not change the indices of boundary delineation.
"(i) Upon becoming aware of the Report of the Kano retreat, the Governor of Cross River state protested to the President of Nigeria to ensure that the established maritime boundary between Cross River and Akwa Ibom states, which gives Cross River state the 76 oil wells in her 200 metre water depth Isobath be maintained.  A Certified True Copy of the Cross River state Government's letter dated 6th October 2008 is hereto attached as Exhibit ‘D’.
“(j) The President, in a letter dated 20th November 2008, with reference No. SH/PSP/25/9/A/14, forwarded to the 2nd Defendant the complaint from Cross River state protesting the 1st Defendant's attempt to reopen the boundary issue through the adoption of the strict technical option. (k) Pursuant to the President's letter, the 1st Defendant set up a special technical committee comprising representatives of the 2nd Defendant, the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), Nigerian Navy, Nigerian Police and the Office of the President to review the findings and conclusions of the Kano Retreat.
"(l) After due deliberations and wide consultations, the committee recommended as follows: (i) The Historical Option in determining revenue allocation to the states of Cross River and Akwa Ibom states was adopted by the Federal Government in 2005. This option has continued to apply to the satisfaction and agreement of the two states and therefore should continue.
"(ii) The standard practice of using equidistance line as a starting point and then consider any special or relevant circumstances and adjust the line if necessary", should be applied in the case of Cross River and Akwa Ibom states if there is need for a new boundary adjustment. The Akwa Ibom state's prayer was the same "historic title", option adopted in the settlement of her boundary with Cross River state should be used in the settlement of her boundary with Rivers state rather than the political solution. This clearly indicates that Akwa Ibom state is not objecting to the use of historical title option in the settlement of her border with Cross River state, therefore the status quo should be maintained. Reference to the Akwa Ibom state position paper which is annexure 2F.
"The committee is of the considered opinion that since there is a breach of the process of boundary adjustment between Akwa Ibom and Cross River states and moreover, no dispute has arisen officially between them since 2005 exercise and the President has not reversed the status quo, that the status quo ante between them should be allowed to prevail. Therefore, the case of Cross River state and Akwa Ibom state boundary should be treated in isolation from others now pending. (v) That because of the security implication and the volatility of the area, vis-a-vis the ceding of Bakassi Peninsula, the present 13% derivation allocation to Cross River State be sustained as they are an oil-producing state. (vi) The Federal Government should have the political will of forcing the oil companies to end gas flaring due to its devastating effect on the environment and loss or revenue,” it stated.
It is seeking an order restraining the defendants from enforcing or acting upon any other maritime or estuarine boundary alleged to exist between the two states, except that determined by the NBC in 2005 and accepted by the parties, and which had been in use for revenue sharing purposes for several years, pending the determination of the substantive suit.[/b]

http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=141393

Just done copy and paste or "link and run". Please learn to say something or offer at least a paragraph of opinion. So you posted this, what then? What now?

Divide and rule is what they are doing just like they tried to balkanize Igbo land. I hope Efik / Ibibio don't fall for the crap.