Nigeria’s Federal Government has suspended controversial plans to transfer more than 10,000 hectares of territory in Cross River State to Cameroon following mounting concerns over improper boundary demarcation procedures. The decision marks a significant development in a dispute that has threatened to uproot two Nigerian communities since the 2002 International Court of Justice ruling on Nigeria-Cameroon borders.
The halt came after sustained pressure from lawmakers and affected communities who raised alarm about the absence of a critical boundary marker—Pillar 113A—that serves as a foundation for the demarcation process. According to reports from the National Boundary Commission and technical assessments, the Joint Technical Team tasked with marking the boundary has proceeded without locating this historic colonial-era marker, risking the loss of Danare and Biajua communities in Boki Local Government Area of Cross River State.
The Nigeria-Cameroon boundary dispute traces its roots to colonial agreements. The 2002 International Court of Justice judgment determined that the boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon should be defined in accordance with the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement, which had established the territorial demarcation between German and British colonial holdings in West Africa.
The ICJ ruling resulted in the transfer of the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon between 2006 and 2008. The territory comprised 76 oil wells and represented a substantial loss to Nigeria’s resource base. However, the court’s judgment also recognised the existence of additional disputed areas requiring further demarcation work. This responsibility fell to the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission, established in 2002 to implement the ICJ ruling through a Joint Technical Team.
The current crisis centres on the inability of the Joint Technical Team to locate Pillar 113A, a critical demarcation point established under the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty. According to technical documentation reviewed by Nigerian lawmakers, the Anglo-German boundary agreement specified 114 boundary pillars extending from Lake Chad in Adamawa State to Agbokim in Etung Local Government Area of Cross River State. Six of these pillars—numbered 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, and 113A—fall within or near Danare community in Boki Local Government Area.
The colonial records indicate that Pillar 113A is positioned 9.6 kilometres into the forest from Pillar 113, leading towards Pillar 114. However, surveys conducted since the 2002 ICJ judgment have failed to locate this marker, leading the Joint Technical Team to contemplate using a “straight-line method” to establish the boundary. Communities and local authorities contend this alternative approach would sacrifice approximately 7,000 to 10,000 hectares of Nigerian territory.
“The JTT has not located pillar 113A, and not tracing pillar 113A, they are planning to adopt a straight-line method which would lead to losing Danare and Biajua communities and about 7,000 to 10,000 hectares in the Boki area of Cross Rivers State to the Republic of Cameroon,” explained lawmakers in a motion presented to the House of Representatives on July 5, 2023—the initial trigger for official intervention.
The Federal Government’s decision to halt the cession followed a comprehensive review prompted by legislative action. Victor Abang, the member representing Ikom/Boki Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives, disclosed the halt during a constituency briefing on Wednesday at Keyang II in Boki Local Government Area.
Abang had authored a critical motion on July 5, 2023, which sparked House of Representatives deliberations and led to the establishment of an ad hoc committee to investigate the boundary demarcation process. The motion emphasised fundamental principles of federalism, asserting that the Federal Government has a constitutional responsibility to protect the territorial integrity of all federating units and cannot unilaterally cede territory without proper consultation and consent.
The legislative pressure proved decisive. The ad hoc committee, chaired by Honourable Beni Lar, conducted investigative hearings and site visits to the disputed boundary areas. During these proceedings, officials from the National Boundary Commission and the Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation were invited to explain why Pillar 113A remained unfound despite being a central reference point in colonial treaties.
The residents of Danare and Biajua communities have consistently opposed the proposed cession. Leaders from both communities, including former legislator Cletus Obung, expressed disappointment with the Federal Government’s handling of the matter. They argued that allowing their communities to be transferred to Cameroon without their consent would violate fundamental human rights and citizenship principles.
“We are saying nine kilometres of our rich lands have been demarcated and ceded to Cameroon,” one community youth leader told UN boundary demarcation officials during a November 2014 protest. The sentiment has persisted, with communities maintaining that they have lived peacefully alongside Cameroon counterparts since Nigeria’s independence in 1961 without territorial disputes.
The Bakassi experience served as a cautionary tale for Cross River communities. When Nigeria ceded the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon following the 2002 ICJ judgment, Bakassi indigenes faced prolonged displacement and inadequate resettlement support. Cross River State Governor Ben Ayade emphasised this point, noting that the state had been “nursing the consequences of the loss of Bakassi and its 76 oil wells” and warning that the state would “no longer tolerate ceding of its land to Cameroon in the name of implementing the 2002 judgment of the ICJ.”
At the heart of the controversy lies a technical disagreement. The National Boundary Commission’s Director General argued that the boundary demarcation proceeded in accordance with the Green Tree Agreement reached between Nigeria and Cameroon following the 2002 ICJ ruling. According to the National Boundary Commission, the fieldwork involved locating boundary points and placing new pillars according to the court’s specifications.
However, communities and their representatives questioned whether the demarcation authorities had exhausted all efforts to locate Pillar 113A. Some community spokespeople alleged that Cameroon may have deliberately removed the historical marker to facilitate territorial expansion. The House of Representatives adopted this concern, calling upon the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission to report its findings regarding the location of Pillar 113A and to trace and maintain its original position as required under the 1913 Anglo-German agreement.
Beyond the boundary dispute, Abang has also championed environmental and developmental initiatives for his constituency. He sponsored the National Park Service Amendment Bill, aimed at establishing the Okwangwo National Park Unit as an independent entity. According to his representation, this legislation is designed to enhance the “economic, ecological and developmental value of the Boki forest and its surrounding communities.”
The constituency briefing during which Abang announced the halt to the cession also featured a two-year performance report titled “The Banjuere.” The report highlighted completed and ongoing projects, including a mini stadium at Kakwagom valued at N150 million, telecommunications masts connecting 35 communities, and N300 million worth of medical equipment distributed to the constituency. The federal budget for 2025 included 21 projects totalling N1.755 billion for Ikom/Boki Federal Constituency.
The decision to suspend the cession represents a temporary reprieve for the affected communities but does not permanently resolve the boundary dispute. The International Court of Justice ruling remains binding, and any long-term resolution will require either a successful challenge to the court’s judgment, negotiated bilateral agreement between Nigeria and Cameroon, or diplomatic intervention.
However, the Federal Government’s willingness to reconsider the demarcation process signals heightened political sensitivity around border issues and the rights of affected communities. The case has also highlighted gaps in the implementation of international court judgments when colonial-era demarcation markers have been lost or displaced over time.
According to legal experts and boundary commission officials, the ideal resolution involves locating and confirming Pillar 113A’s actual position. If successful, this would resolve the dispute definitively. If the pillar cannot be recovered, a renegotiated boundary acceptable to both nations and their affected communities would be necessary.
