* Lamentation over Obasanjo, Attah, Odili 2006 pact that wreaked havoc

By  Ikechukwu Nnochiri, Abuja

Supreme Court has ordered Akwa-Ibom State to hands-off controversial 86 oil wells saying it belongs to Rivers State by virtue of a political agreement brokered between the two states by former President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2006.

The apex court held that, in a bid to settle the rift between the two states then, the Federal Government, under Obasanjo, convinced ex-governors of the states, Obong Victor Attah and Peter Odili, to sign an agreement which conferred ownership of the disputed oil wells on Rivers State.

The deal went awry when Attah’s successor, Governor Godswill Akpabio, vehemently kicked against the political arrangement, insisting that the National Boundary Commission, NBC, must return the ceded oil wells to Akwa Ibom State, contending that it is within its region.

Following Akpabio’s contention, Governor Rotimi Amechi of Rivers State went before the Federal High Court to challenge the Akwa State move but lost.  Not deterred, he proceeded to the apex court where his efforts finally yielded fruits on Friday.

Delivering judgment on the matter, a full panel of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloysius Katisna-Alu, maintained that Akwa Ibom was bound by the 2006 arrangement considering  that its former governor was a signatory to the agreement of 31st  October, 2006, where the 86 oil wells were yielded to Rivers State.

In his lead Judgment, Katsina-Alu held: “It is not in dispute that this agreement was reduced into writing and dated 31st October 2006. It is exhibit AMBI. It is indeed embodied in the letter written by the then President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo.

“It can be seen clearly from this letter that the parties have voluntarily jettisoned Technical and Historical Solutions. This is so because these Solutions were considered at the meeting before opting for the Political Solution. The parties faithfully implemented the terms of the agreement till the tail end of 2007 when Akwa Ibom unilaterally sought to rescind the agreement and commended its agitation for the application of the Historical Solution.

“The plaintiff avers that it accepted the Political Solution Method Agreement. So did the defendants. The parties are bound by the agreement. The parties are stopped by their conduct from disclaiming their Acts. In the present case, the defendant must accept the legal relations as modified by them in the agreement they voluntarily entered into with the plaintiff. Surely it will be inequitable to permit the defendants to walk out of the agreement which on the evidence before me was not obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or deception.
“It does not matter that in the instant case the defendants have suddenly realized that the terms of the agreement they had entered into with the plaintiff are not favorable to them.

“The plaintiff, Rivers, is the owner of the 86 oil wells by virtue of the political solution agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, Akwa Ibom, the terms of which are contained in exhibit AMBI and therefore entitled to be paid revenue derivable therefrom under the provisions of section 162 of the 1999 Constitution from April, 2009 till date and subsequently.

“The defendants are hereby directed by themselves and/or their appropriate agencies to forthwith compute and calculate all such sums of money accruing from 86 oil wells belonging to the plaintiff by virtue of the subsisting and biding political solution agreement which sums has since been unlawfully paid to the 1st defendant, Akwa Ibom, with effect from April, 2009 till date of this judgment and payment of all such sums to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant forthwith.

“There shall be interest at the prevailing commercial rate per-annum on the total sums calculated as due to the plaintiff from April 2009 till date of this judgment and thereafter at 8 percent interest per annum on the judgment debt until full liquidation of the judgment sum and interest.

Speaking with newsmen shortly after the Supreme Court judgment, Akwa Ibom State commissioner for information and re-orientation, Mr Aniekan Umanah stated: “The political solution which the Supreme Court hinged its judgment on, was entered into by the government of Obong Attah and that was because he wanted to be in the good books of the government at that time. It was a decision that sold the future and fortune of the people of the state to its neighboring states because of the ambition of one man. Now the people of the state are the ones suffering because of the selfish desire of one man.

“We have it on good authority that former Governor Attah accepted the political solution offer because he wanted to please the power that be, and as proof that he was not supporting the presidential ambition of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who was angling to succeed former President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2007. It was a selfish way of finding solution to the issue that would have a direct effect on the lives and development of the people of the state, without any consideration.

“It was because of Attah’s alleged sponsorship of the presidential bid of Alhaji Atiku that the power-that-be then, decided to move against him by allocating most of the oil wells that belonged to Akwa Ibom State to Rivers as a way of cutting down his revenue, which he allegedly used in sponsoring Atiku’s presidential ambition.

“The current administration will not be a party to any move by anybody to deny the people of Akwa Ibom State their rights and entitlements. We are currently studying the judgment and, at the appropriate time, the position of government would be made public. We will surely go back to see how the political solution that was arrived at in 2004 was implemented before this judgment which is hinged on the 2004 political solution.”
Defendants in the suit were the Attorney General of Akwa Ibom and the Attorney General of the Federation.

Transfer of oil wells mired in dispute

The Rivers – Akwa Ibom dispute over oil wells began in 2004, when, upon the abrogation of the offshore /onshore dichotomy, the National Boundaries Commission, NBC, altered the maritime delineations between the baseline/coastlines of the littoral states and the 200-meter isobath that remained a surprising shock to Akwa Ibom State in favour of Cross River and Rivers States.

Thereafter, it was one suit after the other among the three states.
While that between Akwa Ibom and Cross River states should have been settled by the October 10, 2002 landmark judgment of the International Court of Justice, on the land and maritime boundary case between Nigeria and Cameroun, as it wiped out what used to be the estuarian sector of Cross River State as a result of Cameroun, it was not until 2009, during the late President Yar’Adua’s administration, that the former got some reprieve.
Akwa Ibom, in 2007, alleged it was being denied the derivation revenue from 332 oil wells originally belonging to the state and, upon the former president’s intervention and subjection of the matter to the court interpretation, about 247 of the oil wells, being 171 from Rivers and 76 from Cross River State, were returned to it on June 9, 2009, with the derivations accruable between 2004 and 2009, totaling about N31.37 billion.
Rivers State was equally ordered to refund over N170.58 billion to Akwa Ibom State as payment of derivation revenues wrongly paid to it within the five-year period on account of those oil wells.

Although it took a while for Cross River, which as a result of the transfer of the oil wells ceased to be a member of the oil-producing states and the attendant los of the 13 percent derivation, to comply with the directive, that of Rivers State lingered until Friday’s Supreme Court judgment, which ruled that 86 of these oil wells belonged to it and not Akwa Ibom State.

When it protested the ceding of the oil wells, Akwa Ibom argued that the selective application of the equidistant principle to a localized indentation of the coast line at the mouth of Imo River gave rise to the skewed line that transferred historical oil wells to Rivers State.

Rivers State first challenged the matter at a Federal High Court, Abuja. However, the court presided over by Justice A. Bello, in late January 2010, struck out the suit, saying its decision, in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/500/08, ruled that the crux and substance of the dispute, as shown in the originating summons, is between two states, and in accordance with Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, it is only the Supreme Court that has the competence and jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes between states.

But Akwa Ibom’s victory in the first round of hearing was short-lived, as it will now be made to return the 86 oil wells as well as all the derivations it had received on their account.

Many states in the oil producing Niger Delta region, which comprises about nine states enjoying 13 percent oil derivation from the Federal Government, have suffered the loss of oil wells at one point in time or another.
Indeed, NBC, was primarily set up to primarily identify all boundary disputes with regard to the creation of states and to make recommendations to government accordingly.

At inception, there were about 55 of such disputes and boundaries were to be demarcated based on such variables such as stability, oil, national interests, security and good government.

However, the loss or regain of the oil wells became politicised based on the government in power, which was mostly done to curry political favours at the expense of the losing state.
For instance, on August 31, 2010, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan allocated nine mega offshore oil fields to Bayelsa State, his home state, amidst public outcry, and an action that also negated the Supreme Court ruling on On-shore/Off-shore Dichotomy Abrogation Act of 2004.

Similarly, states like Ondo, in July 2008, lost 260 oil wells to Delta, which was allegedly politically motivated, just as Abia and Imo states regained some of their lost wells from Rivers in December 2010 and February 2009 respectively.

Accordingly, analysts argued that there may never be an end to the oil well or boundary disputes as it were, as long as considerations are not based on equity and justice.