CaseLaw
A. G. Cross River State V. AGF (2012) CLR 7(g) (SC)
Judgement delivered on July 10th, 2012
Brief
Facts
The plaintiff, Cross River State, one of the 36 States, instituted this suit in the original jurisdiction of this court pursuant to Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The plaintiff filed her originating summons initiating this suit on 14th September, 2009. On the 4th of May 2010, this court directed the plaintiff to convert the originating summons into a writ of summons pursuant to Order 3 Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules 2002 and attach all other processes for service on the parties in the suit within 14 days. The defendants were ordered to file their respective frontloaded statement of defence within 45 days of service of the plaintiff's processes on them. Pursuant to this order, the plaintiff filed the statement of claim, witnesses' statement on oath and the brief of argument and replies to statement of defence of the 1st and 2nd defendants on 17th May, 2010. The defendants filed their respective statements of defence, briefs and written addresses and witnesses' statement on oath. At the hearing of this action on 14/5/2012, the plaintiff; 1st and 2nd defendants adopted and relied on the processes filed.
In the statement of claim, the plaintiff prayed for the undermentioned reliefs:-
The case of the plaintiff based on the written statement on oath of one of the witnesses for the plaintiff, Mr. Ralph Idiku Uche, the Surveyor-General of Cross River State is that the April, 2008 followed by the August, 2008 Inter-Agency Meeting was convened at the instance of President Umaru Yar'Adua. The meeting was to consider among other items, the complaint by the Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Governor Godswill Akpabio against the application of the political solution rather than the historical title principle which the parties had invoked to resolve the Akwa Ibom/Cross River State boundary dispute. At the meeting organized by the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), a decision was taken to adjust the boundary between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant; Akwa Ibom State. The boundary between the two States was not in dispute at the time of the Inter-Agency meeting. The parties were not invited to the Inter-Agency meeting before taking such a vital decision. Proper procedure was not followed by the National Boundary Commission. The Inter- State Boundary Technical Committee must be set up to look into the exercise according to Section 8 (2) of the 1999 Constitution. The .Inter- Agency meeting relied on the judgment of the International Court of Justice delivered in 2002 and the Supreme Court judgment in A-G Cross River State v. A-G Akwa Ibom State (2005) NWLR (Pt. 947) pg. 71 to conclude that Cross River State is now landlocked and no longer a littoral State. The State is presumed no longer contiguous or abuts the sea. It has no 200 meters Isobath into the sea neither does it share maritime boundary with any of the States. Cross River State is now divested of its maritime territory and oil wells. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired the oil well through proper demarcation of boundaries based on historical titles. The plaintiff also acquired 76 oil wells based on the political solution of President Obasanjo to which all parties agreed. The terms were communicated to the plaintiff, the defendants and all agencies of the Federal Government including the National Boundary Commission and the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC). The Chairman of the Revenue Mobilization based on the letter Exhibit 1, wrote the Accountant-General of the Federation furnishing him with the new indices for the distribution of the 13% derivation fund and the plaintiff's name was unilaterally omitted on the list. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant had agreed to settle their boundary issue. The International Court of Justice judgment and the cessation of Bakassi and the Cross River estuary to Cameroon did not deny Cross River State of direct access to the sea through Calabar sea port. Ships have access to Calabar sea port through Cross River State without passing through the territory of any other State or country. The entire Calabar estuarine Region is still in Cross River State. The Eastern Naval Command of the Nigerian Army is based in Calabar. The new International boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon leaves the Cross River Estuary within Nigerian Territorial waters. The judgment of this court in A-G Cross River v. A-G Akwa Ibom delivered in 2005 found oil well operated by Moni Pulo and Addax oil to be within the internal waters of Cross River State and not offshore. The Supreme Court then awarded damages for losses suffered by Cross River State by wrongful attribution of the wells to Akwa Ibom State. The wells have now been transferred to Akwa Ibom by the Inter-Agency Committee decision. The plaintiff has been deprived of 13% derivation entitlement of the d plaintiff from the 76 oil wells within the territory of the plaintiff since April, 2009 to 10th March, 2010 and from 11th March, 2010 until date of judgment and thereafter. According to the additional written statement on oath by the plaintiff's 2nd E witness, the total sum due and payable to the plaintiff from the defendants from April, 2009 to February, 2012 from the wrongful diversion of derivation revenue is N86,806,949,166.03. The court is urged to order the payment of this sum with interest at 20% to the plaintiff.