FACT-CHECK: How true is Oshiomhole’s claim at APC rally about Cross River’s oil-producing status

Adams Oshiomhole, the senator representing Edo North Senatorial District

Adams Oshiomhole, the senator representing Edo North Senatorial District in the 10th 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 revenue.

However, official government records, including federal revenue allocation reports and a gazetted list of littoral host communities, contradict the claim.

At an All Progressives Congress (APC) rally in Calabar on 2 November to mobilise support for Mr Tinubu’s 2027 re-election bid, Mr Oshiomhole, the deputy director-general for Mobilisation of the APC Presidential Campaign Council, told the crowd 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 said.

But a PREMIUM TIMES review of official revenue allocation records, a federal government gazette, relevant court judgments and statements from the agency responsible for monitoring revenue allocation found no evidence that Cross River has been formally recognised as an oil-producing state or become eligible for the 13 per cent derivation fund.

The Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) also expressly rejected the senator’s claim, saying Cross River had not been recognised as a littoral state and was not eligible for derivation revenue.

PREMIUM TIMES reviewed the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) reports published by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation between May 2023 and August 2026.

The reports show that Cross River has not featured among the states receiving the 13 per cent derivation allocation from oil and gas production during the period reviewed.

The latest available report, published in August 2026, covers revenue distributed for July 2026. Its state-by-state allocation table lists the beneficiaries of the derivation fund but 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 received its regular statutory allocation and other revenue entitlements, it was not listed among the beneficiaries of the 13 per cent derivation allocation.

Receiving revenue from the Federation Account does not automatically confer oil-producing status on a state or qualify it for derivation revenue.

Section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, provides that the principle of derivation shall be reflected in any approved revenue allocation formula. It further stipulates that not less than 13 per cent of revenue accruing to the Federation Account directly from natural resources shall be allocated to the states from which such revenue is derived.

The provision forms the constitutional basis for the 13 per cent derivation fund, which benefits states whose natural resources generate revenue for the Federation Account.

Consequently, a political announcement alone cannot establish a state’s entitlement.

Recognition and allocation of derivation revenue must follow the relevant technical and administrative processes.

Further evidence contradicting Mr Oshiomhole’s claim is contained in a federal government gazette published in March 2024.

The Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette, produced by the National Boundary Commission, identifies oil and gas host communities located within littoral states and situated within a 500-metre coastline buffer for the purpose of benefiting from Host Communities Development Trusts under the Petroleum Industry Act.

The gazette lists qualifying communities in five states: Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Delta and Akwa Ibom. Cross River is not included.

The document was issued pursuant to Regulation 6(2)(a) of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Host Communities Development Regulations, 2022. The regulation provides for the identification and gazetting of littoral communities situated in or adjoining shallow-water and deep-water areas of operation along the Gulf of Guinea.

It states that a littoral community adjoining a deep-water area of operation along the Gulf of Guinea, and located within approximately 500 metres inland from the Nigerian shoreline, shall be gazetted by the National Boundary Commission.

The gazette therefore provides an official record of communities recognised within the coastal framework for implementing the Petroleum Industry Act.

Cross River’s exclusion, while communities in Akwa Ibom and four other states were listed, raises further questions about the basis for the senator’s assertion that the state had regained littoral recognition.

Although the gazette specifically concerns the identification of eligible host communities under the Petroleum Industry Act, rather than the legal instrument determining a state’s entitlement to derivation revenue, it provides additional evidence against the claim that Cross River had secured formal recognition under the relevant coastal framework.

The controversy over Cross River’s oil-producing status predates the Tinubu administration.

The state previously enjoyed littoral status and received derivation revenue 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 transfer of the peninsula and the Cross River estuary to Cameroon in 2008 affected the state’s maritime boundary and its entitlement to revenue from offshore oil wells.

Cross River subsequently became embroiled in a dispute with neighbouring Akwa Ibom over 76 offshore oil wells and the derivation revenue accruing from them.

The state approached the Supreme Court, seeking recognition of its entitlement to the oil wells and the associated derivation revenue.

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 court held that following the implementation of the ICJ judgment and the transfer of Bakassi, Cross River no longer had a maritime boundary that qualified it as a littoral state for the purpose of claiming the disputed offshore oil wells.

Justice Olufunlola Adekeye, who delivered the lead judgment, held that the 76 oil wells could not be attributed to Cross River because they were located within the maritime territory of another state.

The court further held that derivation revenue from the wells should be attributed to the state within whose maritime territory the relevant government agencies established that they were located.

The judgment reinforced an earlier Supreme Court decision in 2005, which also addressed the consequences of the ICJ judgment for Cross River’s maritime boundary.

These decisions form a major part of the legal background to the state’s continuing campaign to reclaim oil-producing status.

Despite the existing legal position, Cross River has continued to pursue its claims over disputed and newly drilled oil and gas wells.

The controversy recently received renewed attention after RMAFC decided to revisit the verification of disputed oil and gas wells across the country.

On 17 September 2026, the commission announced the inauguration of a reconstituted Inter-Agency Technical Committee (IATC) to verify disputed and newly drilled oil and gas wells from 2017 to date.

According to the commission, the exercise is intended to strengthen fiscal transparency, ensure equitable revenue allocation and promote institutional integrity in the management of oil and gas revenues.

RMAFC Chairman, Mohammed Shehu, said the commission had discarded the previous draft report on the verification exercise following claims, counterclaims and complaints from different states.

He said the complaints centred mainly on the need to re-verify the coordinates of disputed and newly drilled wells and accurately plot them on approved maps.

Mr Shehu directed the reconstituted committee to consider relevant court decisions, rely strictly on approved maps and conduct physical verification of affected wells where necessary.

The commission said the committee would ensure that verified coordinates, maps and boundaries reflect the actual situation on the ground.

The previous 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 does not amount to a declaration that Cross River has become an oil-producing state. The committee was only inaugurated in September, and its assignment remains ongoing.

Rather, the exercise shows that the disputed claims are still undergoing technical examination. RMAFC’s September announcement made no declaration recognising Cross River as a littoral or oil-producing state.

To establish whether any subsequent development had changed Cross River’s status, PREMIUM TIMES contacted Maryam Yusuf, head of RMAFC’s Information and Public Relations Unit.

Asked whether Cross River had been recognised as a littoral or oil-producing state and had consequently become 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 told PREMIUM TIMES.

Her response directly contradicts Mr Oshiomhole’s assertion that the state had attained oil-producing status under the Tinubu administration.

PREMIUM TIMES also reviewed the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission’s (NUPRC) 2026 crude oil production records, covering production between January and September.

The records did not identify any oil-producing stream attributed to Cross River. Instead, they listed oil fields operated in other states.

PREMIUM TIMES contacted NUPRC’s Head of Media and Corporate Communications, Eniola Akinkuotu, for clarification on whether any new oil-producing fields had been officially attributed to Cross River.

He did not respond to calls and WhatsApp messages seeking his comments.

PREMIUM TIMES also sought clarification directly from Mr Oshiomhole. Calls to the senator did not connect. The newspaper subsequently sent him a text message asking him to explain the basis of his claim and provide official documents or other evidence to substantiate it, particularly in view of FAAC records and RMAFC’s position, which contradict his assertion.

PREMIUM TIMES subsequently contacted Victor Oshioke, the senator’s media aide, who shared a Facebook post as the source of Mr Oshiomhole’s claim.

The post, published by a user identified as Olom Abang, quoted a statement attributed to the Desk of Paul Ishabor, a Nigerian lawyer and political actor in Cross River State.

Published on 14 August under the aegis of Cross River Rediscovered, a socio-political group led by Mr Ishabor as director-general, the statement congratulated Governor Bassey Otu, his deputy, Peter Odey, and a group described as the Cross River Economic Intelligence Team.

It described what it called a “landmark achievement” for the state, claiming that Cross River had “now attained full accreditation as an Oil Producing State”.

However, the post did not identify the government agency responsible for the alleged accreditation, provide an official document confirming the development or cite any technical report establishing the state’s new status.

PREMIUM TIMES also found no credible independent news reports confirming that Cross River had received such recognition.

The newspaper further asked Mr Oshiomhole’s media aide whether the senator had independently verified the credibility of the Facebook post before relying on it to make the claim at the rally.

PREMIUM TIMES drew his attention to RMAFC’s express rejection of the assertion and the absence of supporting evidence in official revenue allocation records. The newspaper also asked whether the senator would reconsider his position and take steps to correct the claim.

He did not respond to the further questions.

PREMIUM TIMES found no official evidence that Cross River State has regained its littoral status or been recognised as an oil-producing state under the Tinubu administration.

FAAC records do not show the state receiving the 13 per cent derivation allocation. RMAFC, the agency responsible for monitoring revenue allocation, also expressly denied that Cross River had been recognised as a littoral or oil-producing state or had become eligible for the fund.

The National Boundary Commission’s March 2024 gazette also excluded Cross River from the list of recognised littoral host communities identified under the Petroleum Industry Act.

Although RMAFC has reopened the verification of disputed and newly drilled oil and gas wells, the exercise is ongoing and has not resulted in a decision recognising Cross River as an oil-producing state.

Mr Oshiomhole’s claim therefore presents an ongoing verification exercise and an unsubstantiated social media announcement as an accomplished government achievement.