Adams Oshiomhole, the senator representing Edo North Senatorial District within the tenth National Assembly, has claimed that President Bola Tinubu‘s administration secured recognition for Cross River State as an oil-producing state, a development he said would permanently increase the state’s income.
However, official authorities data, together with federal income allocation stories and a gazetted listing of littoral host communities, contradict the claim.
At an All Progressives Congress (APC) rally in Calabar on 2 November to mobilise assist for Mr Tinubu’s 2027 re-election bid, Mr Oshiomhole, the deputy director-general for Mobilisation of the APC Presidential Campaign Council, told the group that Cross River had regained its littoral status and was now recognised as an oil-producing state.
“When good things happen, leaders must claim the glory. Once upon a time, Cross River State became out as a littoral state. Today, under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Cross River State is considered and is an oil-producing state. This is important because this is a structural change that will forever increase the revenue accruing to the great people of this great state,” he mentioned.
But a PREMIUM TIMES evaluate of official income allocation data, a federal authorities gazette, related courtroom judgments and statements from the company chargeable for monitoring income allocation discovered no proof that Cross River has been formally recognised as an oil-producing state or turn into eligible for the 13 per cent derivation fund.
The Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) additionally expressly rejected the senator’s claim, saying Cross River had not been recognised as a littoral state and was not eligible for derivation income.
What do official income data present?
PREMIUM TIMES reviewed the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) reports revealed by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation between May 2023 and August 2026.
The stories present that Cross River has not featured among the many states receiving the 13 per cent derivation allocation from oil and gasoline manufacturing throughout the interval reviewed.
The newest out there report, published in August 2026, covers income distributed for July 2026. Its state-by-state allocation desk lists the beneficiaries of the derivation fund however excludes Cross River.
The 11 states listed as beneficiaries are Abia, Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo, Enugu, Imo, Kogi, Ondo and Rivers.
Although Cross River acquired its common statutory allocation and different income entitlements, it was not listed among the many beneficiaries of the 13 per cent derivation allocation.
Receiving income from the Federation Account doesn’t robotically confer oil-producing status on a state or qualify it for derivation income.
Section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, gives that the precept of derivation shall be mirrored in any permitted income allocation method. It additional stipulates that not lower than 13 per cent of income accruing to the Federation Account instantly from pure sources shall be allotted to the states from which such income is derived.
The provision kinds the constitutional foundation for the 13 per cent derivation fund, which advantages states whose pure sources generate income for the Federation Account.
Consequently, a political announcement alone can’t set up a state’s entitlement.
Recognition and allocation of derivation income should observe the related technical and administrative processes.
Federal gazette additionally excludes Cross River
Further proof contradicting Mr Oshiomhole’s claim is contained in a federal authorities gazette published in March 2024.
The Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette, produced by the National Boundary Commission, identifies oil and gasoline host communities positioned inside littoral states and located inside a 500-metre shoreline buffer for the aim of benefiting from Host Communities Development Trusts beneath the Petroleum Industry Act.
The gazette lists qualifying communities in 5 states: Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Delta and Akwa Ibom. Cross River is not included.
The doc was issued pursuant to Regulation 6(2)(a) of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Host Communities Development Regulations, 2022. The regulation gives for the identification and gazetting of littoral communities located in or adjoining shallow-water and deep-water areas of operation alongside the Gulf of Guinea.
It states {that a} littoral group adjoining a deep-water space of operation alongside the Gulf of Guinea, and positioned inside roughly 500 metres inland from the Nigerian shoreline, shall be gazetted by the National Boundary Commission.
The gazette due to this fact gives an official report of communities recognised throughout the coastal framework for implementing the Petroleum Industry Act.
Cross River’s exclusion, whereas communities in Akwa Ibom and 4 different states have been listed, raises additional questions about the premise for the senator’s assertion that the state had regained littoral recognition.
Although the gazette particularly issues the identification of eligible host communities beneath the Petroleum Industry Act, relatively than the authorized instrument figuring out a state’s entitlement to derivation income, it gives extra proof in opposition to the claim that Cross River had secured formal recognition beneath the related coastal framework.
What occurred to Cross River’s littoral status?
The controversy over Cross River’s oil-producing status predates the Tinubu administration.
The state beforehand loved littoral status and acquired derivation income from offshore oil wells. However, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its 2002 judgment on the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary dispute, awarded the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.
The eventual switch of the peninsula and the Cross River estuary to Cameroon in 2008 affected the state’s maritime boundary and its entitlement to income from offshore oil wells.
Cross River subsequently grew to become embroiled in a dispute with neighbouring Akwa Ibom over 76 offshore oil wells and the derivation income accruing from them.
The state approached the Supreme Court, looking for recognition of its entitlement to the oil wells and the related derivation income.
However, in its 10 July 2012 judgment in Attorney-General of Cross River State v. Attorney-General of the Federation and Attorney-General of Akwa Ibom State (Suit No. SC.250/2009), the Supreme Court dismissed the state’s claims.
The courtroom held that following the implementation of the ICJ judgment and the switch of Bakassi, Cross River now not had a maritime boundary that certified it as a littoral state for the aim of claiming the disputed offshore oil wells.
Justice Olufunlola Adekeye, who delivered the lead judgment, held that the 76 oil wells couldn’t be attributed to Cross River as a result of they have been positioned throughout the maritime territory of one other state.
The courtroom additional held that derivation income from the wells ought to be attributed to the state inside whose maritime territory the related authorities companies established that they have been positioned.
The judgment bolstered an earlier Supreme Court choice in 2005, which additionally addressed the implications of the ICJ judgment for Cross River’s maritime boundary.
These choices type a serious a part of the authorized background to the state’s persevering with marketing campaign to reclaim oil-producing status.
RMAFC reopens verification of disputed oil wells
Despite the prevailing authorized place, Cross River has continued to pursue its claims over disputed and newly drilled oil and gasoline wells.
The controversy lately acquired renewed consideration after RMAFC determined to revisit the verification of disputed oil and gasoline wells throughout the nation.
On 17 September 2026, the fee announced the inauguration of a reconstituted Inter-Agency Technical Committee (IATC) to confirm disputed and newly drilled oil and gasoline wells from 2017 up to now.
According to the fee, the train is meant to strengthen fiscal transparency, guarantee equitable income allocation and promote institutional integrity within the administration of oil and gasoline revenues.
RMAFC Chairman, Mohammed Shehu, mentioned the fee had discarded the earlier draft report on the verification train following claims, counterclaims and complaints from completely different states.
He mentioned the complaints centred primarily on the necessity to re-verify the coordinates of disputed and newly drilled wells and precisely plot them on permitted maps.
Mr Shehu directed the reconstituted committee to think about related courtroom choices, rely strictly on permitted maps and conduct bodily verification of affected wells the place obligatory.
The fee mentioned the committee would be sure that verified coordinates, maps and limits mirror the precise scenario on the bottom.
The earlier committee’s work renewed Cross River’s hope of reclaiming its oil-producing status, as reported by PREMIUM TIMES.
However, the inauguration of a verification committee doesn’t quantity to a declaration that Cross River has turn into an oil-producing state. The committee was solely inaugurated in September, and its project stays ongoing.
Rather, the train exhibits that the disputed claims are nonetheless present process technical examination. RMAFC’s September announcement made no declaration recognising Cross River as a littoral or oil-producing state.
RMAFC dismisses Oshiomhole’s claim
To set up whether or not any subsequent growth had modified Cross River’s status, PREMIUM TIMES contacted Maryam Yusuf, head of RMAFC’s Information and Public Relations Unit.
Asked whether or not Cross River had been recognised as a littoral or oil-producing state and had consequently turn into eligible for the 13 per cent derivation fund, Ms Yusuf rejected the claim.
“It is not true that Cross River State has been recognised as a littoral state and has become eligible for the 13 per cent derivation fund,” she informed PREMIUM TIMES.
Her response instantly contradicts Mr Oshiomhole’s assertion that the state had attained oil-producing status beneath the Tinubu administration.
PREMIUM TIMES additionally reviewed the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission’s (NUPRC) 2026 crude oil manufacturing records, protecting manufacturing between January and September.
The data didn’t establish any oil-producing stream attributed to Cross River. Instead, they listed oil fields operated in different states.
PREMIUM TIMES contacted NUPRC’s Head of Media and Corporate Communications, Eniola Akinkuotu, for clarification on whether or not any new oil-producing fields had been formally attributed to Cross River.
He didn’t reply to calls and WhatsApp messages looking for his feedback.
The supply of Oshiomhole’s claim
PREMIUM TIMES additionally sought clarification instantly from Mr Oshiomhole. Calls to the senator didn’t join. The newspaper subsequently despatched him a textual content message asking him to elucidate the premise of his claim and supply official paperwork or different proof to substantiate it, significantly in view of FAAC data and RMAFC’s place, which contradict his assertion.
He didn’t instantly reply.
PREMIUM TIMES subsequently contacted Victor Oshioke, the senator’s media aide, who shared a Facebook put up because the supply of Mr Oshiomhole’s claim.
The put up, revealed by a consumer recognized as Olom Abang, quoted a press release attributed to the Desk of Paul Ishabor, a Nigerian lawyer and political actor in Cross River State.
Published on 14 August beneath the aegis of Cross River Rediscovered, a socio-political group led by Mr Ishabor as director-general, the assertion congratulated Governor Bassey Otu, his deputy, Peter Odey, and a gaggle described because the Cross River Economic Intelligence Team.
It described what it referred to as a “landmark achievement” for the state, claiming that Cross River had “now attained full accreditation as an Oil Producing State”.
However, the put up didn’t establish the federal government company chargeable for the alleged accreditation, present an official doc confirming the event or cite any technical report establishing the state’s new status.
PREMIUM TIMES additionally discovered no credible unbiased information stories confirming that Cross River had acquired such recognition.
The newspaper additional requested Mr Oshiomhole’s media aide whether or not the senator had independently verified the credibility of the Facebook put up earlier than counting on it to make the claim at the rally.
PREMIUM TIMES drew his consideration to RMAFC’s categorical rejection of the assertion and the absence of supporting proof in official income allocation data. The newspaper additionally requested whether or not the senator would rethink his place and take steps to appropriate the claim.
He didn’t reply to the additional questions.
READ ALSO: Oshiomhole defends Tinubu’s borrowing plan, says loans will fund infrastructure
Verdict
PREMIUM TIMES discovered no official proof that Cross River State has regained its littoral status or been recognised as an oil-producing state beneath the Tinubu administration.
FAAC data don’t present the state receiving the 13 per cent derivation allocation. RMAFC, the company chargeable for monitoring income allocation, additionally expressly denied that Cross River had been recognised as a littoral or oil-producing state or had turn into eligible for the fund.
The National Boundary Commission’s March 2024 gazette additionally excluded Cross River from the listing of recognised littoral host communities recognized beneath the Petroleum Industry Act.
Although RMAFC has reopened the verification of disputed and newly drilled oil and gasoline wells, the train is ongoing and has not resulted in a call recognising Cross River as an oil-producing state.
Mr Oshiomhole’s claim due to this fact presents an ongoing verification train and an unsubstantiated social media announcement as an completed authorities achievement.
The claim is False.
Discover extra from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the newest posts despatched to your electronic mail.
