-

-

-

-

70% of Nigeria's revenue

-

Somebody will just come and be merging two independent states. This thread is misleading. It is ment for nursery school children.

-

-

BeachTime:
Yes ,It's the one of wealthiest areas in not only Nigeria,but Africa.

Yes,it's wealthy,but your claim of it producing 70% of Nigeria's revenue is one big fat lie.

-

Good plan but I don't even understand why ethnicity exists in Akwa Ibom.
Just minor dialectic differences and people use that to stifle development.
The proud Efik culture, loudmouth but sophisticated Ibibios, action and shrewd Annangs, the undecided Obolos, nepotic Oron and others.
The mix is an issue

-

If the state don't get the rest of their money from all past governors they are wasting their time.

The Best the 2 states can do is to combine resources and build a mega sea port like that of Dubai , that will be a game changer in africa , with the success of this they can go ahead and build other things like the Rail Road and Airport


The current situation where each is building its own sea port is laffable and a gross waste of capital

You guys should fight for it...

The pictures you posted i don't see any Nigerian state building such infrastructure even in the next 300 years..

audio plan

before these plans will come to life, maybe 5000AD

-

Khd95:
audio plan

before these plans will come to life, maybe 5000AD

...and after the Hausa Fulani people are done with you!

viver1:
Somebody will just come and be merging two independent states. This thread is misleading. It is ment for nursery school children.

Their ‘state’ boundaries is what was bestowed on them by outsiders! Their cultural affinity and brotherhood, which is centuries old, is what was bestowed on them by God!

BeachTime:
Not as impossible as you think .It will all be a reality early as 2040.

Who will make it a reality?

Our selfish leaders or you?

.

But Akwa Ibom has shown greed.

Why should off shore derivation money accrue to just Akwa Ibom and not Cross River?

I would argue this same principle whether it is off the Coast of Lagos or Ondo.

Derivation for oil revenue that is offshore should have a different formula and be shared to states within a certain distance from the coast.
As far as geopolitical zones are concerned these two states ALON constitute a zone in my opinion and stand separate from Rivers/bayelsa(another zone) or Delta/Edo

If Oil is found of the coast of Lagos derivation should accrue to Ogun state(I am not from Ogun) etc

wiseone28:
The pictures you posted i don't see any Nigerian state building such infrastructure even in the next 300 years..

Akwa Ibom State is the highest producer of oil in West Africa, but our fraudulent revenue sharing gives us only 13% of our resources.
With 13% Akpabio changed Akwa Ibom under eight years, imagine Akwa Ibom controlling 100% of their resources.
Lagos will be empty

DankemzI:


Akwa Ibom State is the highest producer of oil in West Africa, but our fraudulent revenue sharing gives us only 13% of our resources.
With 13% Akpabio changed Akwa Ibom under eight years, imagine Akwa Ibom controlling 100% of their resources.
Lagos will be empty

Actually very little oil is produced inside Akwa Ibom

The bulk of derivation comes from off shore?

I do not see how Akwa Ibom can claim to control or own off shore oil. Before Nigeria was created how far did Akwa Ibom people travel by sea? At least we know of Ijaws.

When it comes to off shore oil I do not see how Akwa Ibom can claim a greater ownership than Cross RIver.

We must remember that all states were military creations and have little historical basis

great thread ,coming back

0monnak0da:
But Akwa Ibom has shown greed.

Why should off shore derivation money accrue to just Akwa Ibom and not Cross River?

I would argue this same principle whether it is off the Coast of Lagos or Ondo.

Derivation for oil revenue that is offshore should have a different formula and be shared to states within a certain distance from the coast.
As far as geopolitical zones are concerned these two states ALON constitute a zone in my opinion and stand separate from Rivers/bayelsa(another zone) or Delta/Edo

If Oil is found of the coast of Lagos derivation should accrue to Ogun state(I am not from Ogun) etc

Akwa ibom didn't show greed in whatever way ,The ceding of bakassi peninsula to cameroon automatically render cross river as a non littoral state,its wisdom,giving cross river a share in the offshore well automatically call Cameroon to lay claim to it's deposite...except you could be happy to see Nigeria lost all out

someone talk about offshore not being own by akwa ibom,if Nigeria was to secede ,who will control our water way for us?

powerhouse3:
Akwa ibom didn't show greed in whatever way ,The ceding of bakassi peninsula to cameroon automatically render cross river as a non littoral state,its wisdom,giving cross river a share in the offshore well automatically call Cameroon to lay claim to it's deposite...except you could be happy to see Nigeria lost all out

I think you are missing the points
1. Who defines what is "littoral?
This what an arbitrary decision.
If Nigeria were to break up today and allow both states go away would they exist separately?
Would there be peace?
History did not start in 1999 or 1960 or 1914

The same argument applies to Lagos state

Both are artificial entities created by fiat

Cross River should have a share of offshore oil the same argument would apply in Lagos/Ogun Ondo Ekiti and so on
As you will guess I am not a huge believer in 36 states.
Akwa Ibom and Cross river belong together.

It is greed that brings in this littoral states issue.

The constitution is clear and the case was lost in the Supreme court.
I think this is a shame because many people from the region do not know the facts

The constitutional position is that the littoral states have no automatic claim to offshore derivation
This was decided by the Supreme court in 2002
Having lost at the Supreme court the Niger Delta states had nowhere to go legally and had to rely on the magnanimity of other Nigerians

Therefore an Act of the National Assembly was enacted to pacify the Niger Delta under Obasanjo's government > Obasanjo objected to the 200 mile clause(continental shelf/contiguous zone argument ) and the National Assembly overruled him by 2/3 majority.
I do not think the final settlement is the 200 mile mark (need to check but I think it is under 30 miles)

The point is it is an Act not a constitutional change which means any future Federal government can repeal it in ONE DAY. Naturally this is easier when there is a Northern president(if he agrees to sign) the North have the numbers in the National Assembly

What is my point the off shore thing came about by a desire by the political class at that time to calm things down in the Niger Delta. It was a political choice backed up by legislation just like the Amnesty programme,,NDDC etc
The first major beneficiary of that change was Akpabio.

They are all creations of the Federal government and can be scrapped by the Federal government.

The 13% derivation for onshore oil cannot be scrapped by the FG

So that same political consideration should be applied when sharing revenue from offshore oil.

Consideration should be given not just to exact littoral states but close neighbours with strong affinity factors like history,culture etc.

Let the Akwa Ibom people remember how we got to this point and the constitutional basis

0monnak0da:

I think you are missing the points
1. Who defines what is "littoral?
This what an arbitrary decision.
If Nigeria were to break up today and allow both states go away would they exist separately?
Would there be peace?
History did not start in 1999 or 1960 or 1914

The same argument applies to Lagos state

Both are artificial entities created by fiat

Cross River should have a share of offshore oil the same argument would apply in Lagos/Ogun Ondo Ekiti and so on
As you will guess I am not a huge believer in 36 states.
Akwa Ibom and Cross river belong together.

It is greed that brings in this littoral states issue.

The constitution is clear and the case was lost in the Supreme court.
I think this is a shame because many people from the region do not know the facts

The constitutional position is that the littoral states have no automatic claim to offshore derivation
This was decided by the Supreme court in 2002
Having lost at the Supreme court the Niger Delta states had nowhere to go legally and had to rely on the magnanimity of other Nigerians

Therefore an Act of the National Assembly was enacted to pacify the Niger Delta under Obasanjo's government > Obasanjo objected to the 200 mile clause(continental shelf/contiguous zone argument ) and the National Assembly overruled him by 2/3 majority.
I do not think the final settlement is the 200 mile mark (need to check but I think it is under 30 miles)

The point is it is an Act not a constitutional change which means any future Federal government can repeal it in ONE DAY. Naturally this is easier when there is a Northern president(if he agrees to sign) the North have the numbers in the National Assembly

What is my point the off shore thing came about by a desire by the political class at that time to calm things down in the Niger Delta. It was a political choice backed up by legislation just like the Amnesty programme,,NDDC etc
The first major beneficiary of that change was Akpabio.

They are all creations of the Federal government and can be scrapped by the Federal government.

The 13% derivation for onshore oil cannot be scrapped by the FG

So that same political consideration should be applied when sharing revenue from offshore oil.

Consideration should be given not just to exact littoral states but close neighbours with strong affinity factors like history,culture etc.

Let the Akwa Ibom people remember how we got to this point and the constitutional basis

Oga I don't understand what you're driving at
Cross River was using Akwa Ibom's wealth to develop their State. No bad blood between us, we're not greedy Calabar can survive on tourism

0monnak0da:


Actually very little oil is produced inside Akwa Ibom

The bulk of derivation comes from off shore?

I do not see how Akwa Ibom can claim to control or own off shore oil. Before Nigeria was created how far did Akwa Ibom people travel by sea? At least we know of Ijaws.

When it comes to off shore oil I do not see how Akwa Ibom can claim a greater ownership than Cross RIver.

We must remember that all states were military creations and have little historical basis

The oil is in Akwa Ibom's nautical miles...
Check out international water boundaries.
So because Akwa Ibom are not sea fairers we should allow ijaws or Calabar to enjoy our resources