Amaechi Accuses Akpabio of Taking Cross River Oil Wells, Demands Answers Over Disputed Assets

Former Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi has accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio of taking over oil wells claimed by Cross River State during his tenure as governor of Akwa Ibom State, reigniting debate over the long-running dispute between the two neighbouring states.

Amaechi reportedly made the allegation during a political town hall meeting in Calabar, Cross River State, where he challenged residents to demand an explanation from Akpabio over the disputed oil assets.

The former governor also revisited an earlier disagreement between Rivers and Akwa Ibom states over oil wells, claiming that Rivers State had successfully challenged an attempt to claim its oil assets through the courts.

The allegations have renewed attention on the complicated history of offshore oil ownership, maritime boundaries and revenue allocation among states in Nigeria’s South-South region.

However, the claims against Akpabio remain allegations attributed to Amaechi. They should not be treated as established findings of wrongdoing without supporting evidence and an opportunity for the person accused to respond.

Amaechi Challenges Akpabio Over Cross River Oil Wells

According to a report by Linda Ikeji’s Blog, Amaechi accused Akpabio of benefiting Akwa Ibom at the expense of Cross River in the controversy over offshore oil wells.

Amaechi, who served as governor of Rivers State from 2007 to 2015 and later as Minister of Transportation, reportedly urged Cross River residents to demand answers from the Senate President regarding the disputed oil assets.

He presented his criticism as an issue of public interest rather than merely a political disagreement, arguing that the people of Cross River deserved clarity about the circumstances surrounding the allocation of oil wells claimed by their state.

The dispute has remained contentious because of the potential financial implications for both states. Oil-producing states may receive additional revenue under Nigeria’s derivation principle, making the ownership and attribution of oil wells an important issue for their finances.

Amaechi’s comments have therefore added a political dimension to an existing dispute involving legal decisions, maritime boundaries and competing claims to revenue.

Amaechi Recalls Rivers State’s Dispute With Akwa Ibom

During the reported town hall meeting, Amaechi also alleged that Akpabio attempted to claim oil wells belonging to Rivers State while he was governor of Akwa Ibom.

According to Amaechi, Rivers State challenged the matter through the courts and successfully defended its interests.

The former governor referred to his experience in dealing with oil-well disputes to support his criticism of Akpabio over Cross River’s claims.

Historical reporting confirms that Rivers and Akwa Ibom were involved in a separate dispute over oil wells that reached the Supreme Court in 2011. That case concerned an agreement involving 86 oil wells and must be distinguished from the separate controversy involving Cross River State.

The existence of the earlier dispute provides relevant historical context, but it does not independently establish Amaechi’s latest allegations concerning the Cross River oil wells.

Background to the Cross River–Akwa Ibom Oil Wells Dispute

The disagreement between Cross River and Akwa Ibom is rooted in questions surrounding offshore maritime boundaries and the allocation of oil and gas resources following the International Court of Justice’s 2002 judgment on the Bakassi Peninsula dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon.

Following the judgment and subsequent boundary arrangements, the status of offshore oil wells claimed by Cross River became a contentious issue.

Akwa Ibom has maintained that relevant court decisions support its position regarding the disputed oil assets. Cross River, on the other hand, has continued to challenge the economic consequences of the boundary changes and has sought clarification and reconsideration of its claims.

The disagreement is not simply about the physical location of oil wells. It also concerns the legal interpretation of maritime boundaries, the application of court judgments and the question of which state should receive the revenue associated with the resources.

Because both states have significant interests at stake, the dispute has continued to attract political and administrative attention.

Cross River’s Oil Revenue Claims and the Federal Review

The controversy received renewed attention in 2026 following developments involving the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) and an inter-agency technical review.

A report published by Premium Times in April 2026 said an inter-agency technical committee had identified 119 crude oil and gas wells attributed to Cross River and recommended that the state receive applicable derivation revenue associated with the wells. The report also discussed a recommendation concerning revenue previously received by Akwa Ibom in relation to the disputed assets.

The development generated further debate because Akwa Ibom officials maintained that existing Supreme Court decisions supported their state’s position.

In September 2026, Cross River State reported that RMAFC had reopened the verification of disputed and newly discovered oil and gas wells after setting aside an earlier draft report and reconstituting an inter-agency technical committee.

These developments indicate that the dispute involves technical assessments and administrative processes in addition to political arguments.

The outcome of the review, and its relationship with existing court decisions, remains central to determining what steps can lawfully be taken regarding the disputed assets and associated revenue.

Akwa Ibom Government’s Position

Akwa Ibom has previously rejected claims that the disputed oil wells should be transferred to Cross River State.

In February 2026, Governor Umo Eno urged residents to remain calm, maintaining that Supreme Court judgments supported Akwa Ibom’s position on the matter.

The state has argued that the decisions of the apex court remain binding and cannot simply be overturned by an administrative or technical committee.

Cross River’s position differs, with the state seeking renewed examination of its claims and the revenue implications of the disputed oil wells.

The competing positions underline the importance of distinguishing between political accusations, technical recommendations and legally binding decisions.

A clear resolution would require the relevant authorities to establish the applicable facts, interpret the governing legal framework and determine the appropriate process for addressing any outstanding claims.

Amaechi Also Questions Federal Infrastructure Spending

Beyond the oil-well controversy, Amaechi reportedly discussed major infrastructure projects during the Calabar town hall meeting.

He explained why a proposed coastal railway connecting Lagos to Calabar, with a spur to the Obudu Cattle Ranch, was not completed during his tenure as Minister of Transportation.

According to the report, Amaechi put the estimated cost of the proposed railway project at approximately $11 billion and attributed its non-implementation to funding constraints.

He also questioned the financial priorities behind the Federal Government’s coastal highway project, which he reportedly valued at approximately $16 billion.

Amaechi’s comments raised questions about the costs of major infrastructure projects, the availability of funding and how public resources should be allocated among competing national development needs.

The figures represent estimates cited in the reported remarks and should not be treated as an independent audit of the projects’ costs or financing arrangements.

Why the Oil Wells Dispute Matters to Cross River Residents

The controversy has significant implications for Cross River State because oil revenue can influence the resources available for public services and infrastructure.

Under Nigeria’s derivation principle, qualifying oil-producing states receive a share of revenue derived from natural resources produced within their applicable areas. The amount attributable to a state depends on the relevant legal and revenue-allocation arrangements.

For Cross River residents, the central question is whether the state is receiving the revenue to which it is legally entitled.

For Akwa Ibom, the issue concerns protecting the revenue and rights that the state says have already been established by court decisions.

The dispute therefore extends beyond the political relationship between Amaechi and Akpabio. It concerns public revenue, the interpretation of legal decisions and the financial interests of the affected states.

A transparent and lawful resolution would help clarify the status of the disputed oil wells and reduce uncertainty surrounding their allocation.

Amaechi’s Allegations and the Need for a Response

Amaechi’s comments have placed Akpabio under renewed political scrutiny over the Cross River oil-well controversy.

Nevertheless, allegations made during a political meeting must be assessed separately from facts established through official records or judicial findings.

The available report does not include a direct response from Akpabio specifically addressing Amaechi’s latest accusation. His position on the particular allegation should therefore not be assumed.

The broader dispute already involves competing claims by Cross River and Akwa Ibom, historical court decisions and ongoing technical reviews. Those issues require careful examination rather than conclusions based solely on political statements.

Further clarification from the parties and relevant authorities would help the public understand the history of the disputed assets and the legal position of each state.

Former Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi has reignited the controversy surrounding Cross River and Akwa Ibom’s disputed offshore oil wells by accusing Senate President Godswill Akpabio of taking oil assets claimed by Cross River during his time as governor of Akwa Ibom.

Amaechi reportedly challenged Cross River residents to demand an explanation from the Senate President and recalled a separate dispute involving Rivers State’s oil wells.

The controversy is rooted in the history of maritime boundary arrangements, court judgments and competing claims to oil revenue. Developments involving RMAFC and technical verification have further increased attention on the matter in 2026.

While Amaechi’s allegations have brought renewed political attention to the dispute, they remain claims attributed to him and are not, by themselves, proof of wrongdoing by Akpabio.

The central issue remains how the disputed oil wells should be treated under the applicable legal and administrative framework, and which state is entitled to the associated revenue.

Akahi News will continue to monitor developments in the dispute and report significant responses or official decisions as they emerge.

Source: Linda Ikeji’s Blog, with background from reports by Premium Times and other Nigerian media.

Akahi News — Bringing You the News That Matters.

Cross River Oil Revenue Dispute: What Amaechi Said About Akpabio

Amaechi Accuses Akpabio of Taking Cross River Oil Wells, Demands Answers

Cross River Oil Wells Dispute: Amaechi Challenges Akpabio Over Alleged Transfer

Amaechi Reignites Cross River–Akwa Ibom Oil Wells Controversy

Amaechi Accuses Akpabio Over Oil Wells, Questions Federal Infrastructure Spending