By Amanam Hillary Umo-Udofia
Linus Obogoโs article, โCross Riverโs 76 Oil Wells and the โAbikuโ Paradox,โ is undeniably eloquent and steeped in mythic imagery. But when stripped of metaphor and reduced to facts, it is also a troubling mix of historical perversion, legal misrepresentation, and rhetorical manipulation. It dresses sentiment as truth, mythologizes a settled legal matter, and, most dangerously, threatens to exacerbate needless discord between two sister states that should be building bridges, not burning them.
Letโs begin with the central falsehood: that Cross River State was โrobbedโ of 76 oil wells by Akwa Ibom. This claim is not only factually incorrect but deliberately deceptive. In his well-crafted sophistry, Obogo attempts to rewrite history by painting a lawful and evidence-based process as some grand theft engineered by Akwa Ibom.
The truth is far simpler: Akwa Ibom never took what wasnโt rightfully hers. The oil wells in question lie within Akwa Ibomโs maritime boundaries as determined by scientific demarcation, verifiable geographic data, reinforced by constitutional processes and the judgment of the Supreme Court.In 2012, Nigeriaโs apex court issued a definitive ruling: Cross River State ceased to be a littoral state following the ceding of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon under the Green Tree Agreement and International Court of Justice (ICJ) directive. As such, it lost any basis to claim offshore oil wells. This legal reality did not arise from conspiracy, but from international diplomacy and the recalibration of Nigeriaโs maritime boundaries. Yet Obogo ignores this context and instead directs his ire at Akwa Ibom, irresponsibly stoking regional grievance with a narrative that collapses under factual scrutiny.
Obogoโs use of Abiku – a Yoruba mythology tragic spirit-child who returns again and again to torment its mother may be poetic, but it is ultimately misplaced and misleading in this context. Comparing Cross Riverโs loss of maritime rights to an Abiku myth distorts a legitimate geopolitical and judicial process into an irrational curse. It casts Cross River as a helpless victim of fate, rather than a state navigating the outcome of an international treaty. More critically, it romanticizes a legal issue and weaponizes cultural imagery to stir resentment against Akwa Ibom, which has simply defended its rightful entitlements within the law.
Oil wells are not spirit-children wandering between worlds – they are fixed, measurable national assets governed by cartography, constitutional law, and federal oversight. Akwa Ibom did not inherit them through mystical reincarnation or bureaucratic magic; it claimed them because the facts, maps, and laws placed them squarely within its jurisdiction. In this case, Abiku has been conclusively laid to rest and no amount of rhetorical mischief can resurrect it.
Obogo goes further to accuse respected federal institutions like the National Boundary Commission (NBC) and the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) of complicity in what he terms a โheist wrapped in bureaucracy.โ This is not only baseless but profoundly irresponsible. These institutions followed established legal processes and technical evaluations rooted in Nigeriaโs constitutional and judicial frameworks. They did not โgiftโ anything to Akwa Ibom but acted on clear legal direction, applying cartographic science and judicial authority to determine rightful ownership. To suggest otherwise is to undermine national institutions and insult the integrity of governance itself.
It is even more morally reprehensible that Obogo would brand Akwa Ibom as a โbeneficiary at a rigged auctionโ – a deeply insulting and unfounded assertion. Labeling the stateโs firm, evidence-based defense of its position as โgloatingโ or โarroganceโ is a deliberate mischaracterization aimed at demonizing a state that has simply upheld the rule of law.
Elder Aniekan Umanah, Akwa Ibomโs Commissioner for Information, was not boasting
Leave feedback about this