Bakassi Peninsula continues to be the centre of diplomatic tension and controversy between Nigeria and Cameroon, with oil revenue disputes compounding long-standing boundary issues and local grievances.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

In 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Cameroon had sovereignty over Bakassi — a piece of oil-rich land that Nigeria had long administered. Two years later, in 2006, the Greentree Agreement was signed by Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria and Paul Biya of Cameroon. It set terms for Nigeria to withdraw troops and transfer authority, while Nigeria would retain police and civil administration in some parts for a transitional period.

Despite these legal steps, the fallout of the decision has been severe for many communities, especially in Nigeria’s Cross River State. In part, the dispute has shifted from physical territory to offshore oil wells — notably 76 wells that were reassigned to Akwa Ibom State after Cross River lost its status as a coastal (littoral) state under Nigerian law following the ICJ judgment. Cross River has challenged this reallocation in court, but its claims have been rejected on the grounds that the state no longer has a direct border with the Atlantic.

Local leaders in Cross River argue that the economic losses are vast. Not only have they lost land, but also critical oil revenue, and livelihoods. Governor Benedict Ayade in 2024 said that over 11 years, about ₦38 billion was paid as special compensation by the federal government — an amount many in Cross River describe as “paltry” given the scale of the loss. There are calls for much higher compensation, even suggestions to sue for damages in the trillions of naira.

Further tensions have risen with claims from local Cross River authorities and activists that Cameroon has extended control beyond what was agreed upon — capturing extra villages and maritime areas. These claims also include that the demarcation process by the Nigeria-Cameroon Mixed Boundary Commission has not been fully completed.

Some legal experts and civic leaders have asked for the judgment to be revisited, arguing Nigeria did not present its strongest case in 2002 and that newer evidence might change the balance. For now, however, diplomatic, legal, and political solutions have so far yielded little change.

Why this matters now

• Lives and economy: Residents of Bakassi, especially those whose homes are now under Cameroonian control, have suffered from displacement, lack of state services, loss of property, and disruptions to traditional fishing and farming.

• Revenue loss: Oil wells once generating income for Cross River State now produce for other states (especially Akwa Ibom) or under different jurisdictions.

• Questions of fairness: Critics argue that the Greentree Agreement and subsequent court decisions ignored the voices of local residents. Also, they say that federal institutions acted hastily or without adequate transparency when deciding the fate of oil wells.

• Cross River State continues to push for higher compensation and wants legal proceedings to reopen or reexamine the ICJ ruling.

• Some Nigerian commentators urge the federal government to seek diplomatic renegotiation or additional legal options under international law.

• Others say practical steps — like ensuring those displaced are supported, mapping and demarcation are transparent, and oil revenue sharing is reviewed — might ease the pain even if sovereignty remains settled.

Bottom line:

The Bakassi issue is more than geography: it’s about people’s lives, state resources, and trust in institutions. The legal rulings settled some points, but the ripple effects — in oil revenues, displaced people, and political claims — are still working through. Without open negotiation, fair compensation, and clarity on rights, Bakassi will remain a flashpoint for controversy.