CALABAR— The Cross River State Consultative Forum (CRSCF) has challenged the reported assertion that the Nigeria-Cameroon international boundary lies in Akwa Ibom State, insisting that the relevant boundary interface is historically and geographically associated with Cross River State.
The Forum made the clarification in a statement issued in response to remarks attributed to Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio, during the 39th anniversary celebration of Akwa Ibom State.
According to the CRSCF, the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary in the southern sector was established through historical instruments, the 2002 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Cameroon-Nigeria boundary case and subsequent implementation arrangements.
It argued that none of those instruments transferred an international boundary with Cameroon to Akwa Ibom State.
The ICJ, in its October 10, 2002 judgment, fixed the course of the land and maritime boundaries between Cameroon and Nigeria. In the Bakassi area, the Court determined that the boundary follows the thalweg of the Akwayafe River and extends to a line joining Bakassi Point and King Point, before proceeding into the maritime delimitation.
The CRSCF said the significance of the judgment should therefore not be confused with the internal administrative boundaries of Nigerian states.
“The land and maritime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon is defined by colonial instruments, principally the Anglo-German Agreements of 1913, the ICJ judgment of October 10, 2002, and subsequent implementation agreements,” the Forum said.
It maintained that the southern Nigerian territory relevant to the boundary dispute had historically and administratively been associated with Cross River, including the Bakassi area and the Calabar axis.
The Forum said Akwa Ibom State did not acquire an international boundary with Cameroon as a consequence of the 2002 ICJ judgment.
It further argued that the judgment, which awarded sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, should not be interpreted as relocating the Nigeria-Cameroon international boundary to Akwa Ibom.
The CRSCF said the distinction between the international boundary and Nigeria’s internal state boundaries was particularly important in the continuing debate over Cross River’s maritime status and offshore oil resources.
It claimed that the Cross River Estuary remained within Nigerian territory and that the maritime delimitation between Nigeria and Cameroon in the area was still subject to further demarcation.
The Forum said correspondence with relevant federal authorities had indicated that the offshore limit of the Nigeria-Cameroon maritime boundary had not been fully demarcated.
It therefore argued that assertions concerning the precise location of the international maritime boundary should be based on the applicable legal instruments, official surveys and the work of the relevant boundary authorities.
The CRSCF also rejected what it described as an attempt to use the loss of Bakassi to suggest that Cross River had ceased to have any geographical or historical relationship with the sea.
It said the 2002 ICJ judgment was a determination of sovereignty and international boundaries and should not be presented as having altered the physical geography of the Cross River estuarine system.
The Forum's position comes amid renewed debate over Cross River's maritime status and its claim to offshore oil resources.
In its 2012 judgment on the dispute involving Cross River, the Federal Government and Akwa Ibom over offshore oil wells, the Supreme Court held that Cross River had lost its status as a littoral state following the implementation of the ICJ decision on Bakassi. The ruling had major implications for the state's claim to derivation revenue from disputed offshore oil wells.
However, the CRSCF said the legal consequences of the loss of littoral status for revenue allocation should not be conflated with the physical location of the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary.
The Forum also argued that the continuing technical work on offshore resources and maritime boundaries made it necessary for the Federal Government to rely on scientific and legal evidence in resolving the outstanding issues.
It urged the National Boundary Commission and other relevant agencies to provide clarity on the unresolved aspects of the maritime boundary and ensure that the issue was not reduced to political claims.
The CRSCF said Cross River and Akwa Ibom were neighbouring states with longstanding cultural, economic and historical ties and that the disagreement should not undermine relations between their people.
It, however, insisted that good neighbourliness must be anchored on factual accuracy.
“Good neighbourliness and parliamentary courtesy are valuable; they do not substitute for accurate geography, honest history, or equitable resource treatment,” the Forum said.
The organisation called on Akpabio to support what it described as an evidence-based resolution of Cross River's maritime and offshore resource claims.
It said the Senate President, as a national political leader and former governor of Akwa Ibom State, had an opportunity to facilitate dialogue between the affected states and the relevant federal institutions.
The CRSCF stressed that its position was not intended to create hostility between Cross River and Akwa Ibom, but to ensure that questions involving international boundaries, maritime jurisdiction and natural resources were addressed through law, official records and scientific evidence.
“Cross River and Akwa Ibom share history, culture, and destiny as South-South neighbours. Productive cooperation is possible and desirable. It must, however, rest on facts rather than convenient narratives,” the Forum said.
0 comments: