Special Report
In yesterday’s edition of Vanguard, we published the first part of the South South’s reaction to the “Key Issues before the Northern delegates to the 2014 National Conference,” issued by the North. In the presentation, by Ayakeme Whisky, the South South held that since the amalgamation, the North has been dependent on the fortunes of the South to service their recurring annual deficits.
In this second instalment, he argues that the North has never contributed a dime to the exploration, discovery and exploitation of oil in the Niger Delta.
BIOMETRICS must be voluntarily given without inhibitions. Second, the national identity card project must be allowed to succeed at all cost.
BIOMETRICS must be voluntarily given without inhibitions. Second, the national identity card project must be allowed to succeed at all cost.
It must be freed from the perennial deliberate bureaucratic frustration it has suffered over the years. We want to be magnanimous in saying that the product of the proposed exercises shall not form the basis for resource allocation or revenue sharing. And that we are no longer willing to permit the continuous reliance on disputed census figures for that purpose since the bane of accurate census in this country is the politics of resource allocation and distribution.
The second contextual issue that needs quick re-education to bury permanently is the vodoo claim that “the North funded the exploration for oil in the Niger Delta, using Northern resources, etc.” As demented as this claim is, nothing can be further from the truth.
This negative orientation informed on spurious reasoning is an assault on nature, the sensibilities of business enterprise and a curse on collective progress and accommodation. Yes, the oil economy every facet of the country has been feeding from could have precipitated fear-induced reaction in the face of current agitations for resource control to make such unfounded claims. But is insulting the collective psyche of the oil bearing people of Nigeria the solution to allay fears? The simple question is why were these arguments of providential geographical location not factored during the era of true federalism in 1963 when agriculture was the mainstay of the economy?
At the risk of repetition since the unblemished historical facts are continuously being denied, we wish to state that the North did not and has never contributed a dime to the exploration, discovery and exploitation of oil in the Niger Delta. Rather for nearly forty years now resources from the oil rich Niger Delta is being used to prospect for oil in the Lake Chad Basin, the Benue trough and elsewhere in the North. The claim of funding oil exploration in the Niger Delta is the height of ingratitude to God first and man, given the scale of environmental hazards the Niger Delta area has to bear to provide the financial resources with which Nigeria’s development has been funded to its grosteque exclusion.
To develop and feed the North and other regions, the Niger Delta people are exposed to the crude effects of 1.4 billion standard cubic feet (scf) per day of gas flared, which generates 45.8 billion kilowatts of heat. This is outside a totally degraded ecology and terrain that has completely destroyed the traditional trade and occupation of the people. Being denied the luxury of pipe-borne water for over 50 years the peoples of the Niger Delta only source of drinking water remains polluted. Giving all these sacrifices for according Nigeria the reputation of a regional power, it is rude, insensitive and callous for our Northern brothers to make unfounded utterances. That is repaying a good heart with wickedness.
The truth about funding oil exploration activities is that it was entirely a private sector driven initiative without contributions from even the colonial government. It is on record that the initial unsuccessful exploration attempt by Nigeria Bitumen Co. & British Colonial Petroleum in 1908 around Okitipupa was succeeded by Shell D’Arcy in 1938, after it was granted exploration licence. In 1955, Mobil Oil Corporation also joined and started exploration operations in Nigeria. Shell-BP (formerly Shell D’Arcy), at the time the sole concessionaire could only find oil in commercial quantity in 1956 at Oloibiri in the Niger Delta after half a century of exploration. So at what point did the people or government of Northern Nigeria invest in the business of oil exploration?
Was it as direct oil prospecting companies or shareholders in these strictly private investment companies? What we do know as a matter of incontrovertible historical fact, no matter how much truth is being attempted to be bent for petty myopic interest, the Nigerian state has been tremendously benefitting from royalties, rents and taxes received from oil revenue without spending any dime. It was not until 1973 that the First Participation Agreement (FPA) which witnessed the Federal Government’s acquisition of 35 per cent shares in the oil companies was entered into. By 1974, the Second Participation Agreement saw the Federal Government increase her equity to 55 per cent. The so called intellectual barons from the North should tell us how the North funded oil prospecting operations with their groundnut proceeds/revenues.
Thirdly, the claim of the North being solely responsible for the prosecution of the Nigeria civil war in both financial and human content is brazenly repugnant, insolent and demeaning. Can the so called assertion of messianic role, assuming it is true, confer on the North a right to perpetual dependence on the resources of the South even if for the heck of argument we concede that no Southerner fought the war? Is it a form of reparation in perpetuity?
According to the apostles of the Northern agenda, the funding of the civil war was entirely done by the North at great sacrifice to its wellbeing, at the expense of investment in human and economic development of the entire region.
Form ofreparation
The North sold forward all its groundnut and cotton for a number of years, risking forward delivery contract of three years for all its agricultural produce to prosecute the civil war. The North supplied more than 80 to 90 per cent of the arms and men that executed the civil war.
Emerging as a young nation, it was in the strategic interest for everybody to fight to unite the country as one indissoluble entity. As replete as the various accounts of bravery and prowess about the war are, we are inclined to recommending the detail of the war by Col. Alabi to know where bravery and courage lie during the war. Nevertheless, it would be apposite to mention the courageous contributions of Southern officers like Col. Benjamin Adekunle, Col. Alabi, Col. Olusegun Obasanjo, Col. Alani Akirinade, Col. David Ejoor, Admiral Soroh, Admiral Wey, Navy Commanders Okujagu and O.P. Fingesi. Cdr. Diete-Spiff who as Military Governor still undertook critical and strategic military expeditions at the frontal lines.
There were still officers like Brig. Gen. Kurubo, Nigeria’s civil war time Ambassador to Russia, who negotiated and shipped in the long range weapons that altered the course of the war in favour of Nigeria as well as the irrepressible Major Isaac Jasper Adaka Boro and many others who played major role on the Nigerian side. It is therefore inconceivable for a section of people to arrogate to themselves the singular role of the master hands that ended the war.
Expeditions atthe frontal lines
Before delving into the funding of the war, we wish to state without equivocation that the purpose of the war was not about oil but centred on the repressive tendencies of Hausa-Fulani oligarchy. It was the failure by the Northern leadership to regard and respect the fundamental principles of human relationships arising from disrespect for covenants and agreement that precipitated the war.
As earlier mentioned, the Hausa-Fulani hegemony had always seen the Southerners as conquered people and it was this affront that Col. Ojukwu resisted as one of the intellectuals in the Nigerian Army then. Unfortunately that is the arrogance being exhibited by the authors of the Northern agenda today. Before the war, the Nigerian federation had started receiving royalties from oil mining rents particularly that the first oil field at Oloibiri came on stream producing 5,100 bpd in 1958,.
There was a quantum leap as more companies began operation and discovered oil in commercial quantity in fields in the Niger Delta. Gen. Gowon who had become the Head of State following the assassination of Gen. Aguiyi Ironsi, for purposes of prosecuting the war, jettisoned the provision of Section 140 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1963 which states inter alia:
(1) There shall be paid by the Federation to each Region a sum equal to fifty percent of •the proceeds of any royalty received by the Federation in respect of any minerals extracted in that Region; and, •any mining rents derived by the Federation from within that Region.
(2) The Federation shall credit to the Distributable Pool Account a sum equal to thirty percent of- •the proceeds of any royalty received by the Federation in respect of any minerals extracted in any Region; and, •any mining rents derived by the Federation from within any Region.
Tripleobjectives
Since the Constitution was suspended following the military rule, Gen. Gowon appropriated the entire oil induced royalties to the exclusion of producing states. Hence from 1966 to 1981 when the Nigerian state was ruled by Military men from the North, derivation received zero per cent allocation. First it was alleged to be for the prosecution of the war and later for the triple objectives of reconstruction, rehabilitation and resettlement.
We are not in hurry to forget the ‘misguided’ public statement that the “problem with Nigeria was how to spend our money”, portraying the country as a wealthy nation in 1973 when total production level had risen to two million bpd in the face of global oil crisis. At what point were the “groundnut proceeds” used to finance the war? We challenge the authors of the Northern agenda to give a detailed and comprehensive value of the ‘three years forward delivery contract’ for all its agricultural produce to prosecute the war.
Areas of critical interventions: Having dealt with the preliminaries, we would now proceed to tackle assertions we consider grave and contentious to hoodwink and bias unsuspecting conferees. In thinking that the ‘path to achieving equity and justice and a commitment to a balanced development of every part of Nigeria as expected in a federal system’ is realisable only in exhuming the onshore/offshore dichotomy, the authors stated that: The North also recommends the rejection of claims to oil resources by oil producing areas that led to the cancellation of the onshore/offshore oil dichotomy which action gave away a national resource to littoral state, seriously eroding revenue available for distribution to all parts of the country.
The North demands a reversal to status quo ante. All mineral resources should remain under the exclusive rights of the Federal Government as provided for by the international law (1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNCLOS, Article 76) on territorial waters/boundaries which stipulated that 200 nautical miles off the continental shelves belongs to the central government exclusively.
The above reechoes the very familiar agitation that derivation under section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution should be paid only for onshore mineral resources, as offshore resources belong to the Federal Government. We wish to state that this pre-occupation with on-shore/off-shore dichotomy is not based on law, but on politics and greed. The authors should deservingly know that Nigeria ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) on August 14, 1986. The UNCLOS demarcates certain maritime zones and vests certain rights on its State parties. One of these zones is the Continental Shelf.
Continentalshelf
Article 76(1) of UNCLOS defines the Continental Shelf as follows: The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.
This simply means that the Continental Shelf comprises the submerged prolongation (extension) of the land territory of the coastal state. The UNCLOS vests on coastal states the sovereign and exclusive rights to explore and exploit the mineral resources on and in the Continental Shelf (Article 77). The central question is, which of the federating units in Nigeria is entitled to exploit the resources on and in the Continental Shelf? Is it the State Government or the Federal Government?
On April 5, 2002, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in a suit instituted by the Federal Government against the 36 States. The Federal Government alleged that the seaward boundary of a coastal state is the low water mark of the land surface of the State, but the Federal Government did not adduce evidence either orally or by affidavit to indicate the actual location of the alleged low water mark. It was claimed that it was not necessary to adduce such evidence because the case is one of the interpretation of the constitution.
The Court held that the seaward boundaries of the littoral states, for purposes of calculating the revenue derived from the natural resources of these states, are the low water-mark of the land surface. The Court, in effect, excluded the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf of Nigeria as forming part of the boundaries of coastal states. However, the Supreme Court was not called upon to interpret the provisions of Section 162(2) of Constitution but to precisely ascertain and fix the seaward boundary of a coastal state. That raised an issue of fact which required evidence. The Federal Government did not adduce that evidence, so the Supreme Court should have dismissed the case.
Realizing the security implications of that unjust and biased decision on extractive activities off the shores of the Niger Delta, the Obasanjo Administration submitted an executive bill to the National Assembly for the abrogation of the on-shore/off-shore dichotomy. This led to the passage of the Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy in the Application of the Principle of Derivation) Act, 2004 [See Cap. C23 LFN 2004].
Section 1(1) of the Act provides: “As from the commencement of this Act, the two hundred meter water depth Isobaths contiguous to a State of the Federation shall be deemed to be a part of that State for the purposes of computing the revenue accruing to the Federation Account from the State pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 or any other enactment”.
Section 1(2) provides: “Accordingly, for the purposes of the application of the Principle of Derivation, it shall be immaterial whether the revenue accruing to the Federation Account from a State is derived from natural resources located onshore or offshore”. The 2004 Act effectively upturned the 2002 Supreme Court Decision earlier considered. There is no unconstitutionality in the 2004 Act to warrant the call for its repeal. In law, legislation can upturn judicial decisions. The Act does not violate any international law.
That the Federal Government negotiates, signs and ratifies international agreements on behalf of Nigeria or protects the territorial integrity of the country on land, air, or sea does not confer on it the right to acquire what belongs to the federating units. Such contentions amount to legal absurdity. A state has constitutional and legal internal sovereignty, particularly to own property; it cannot be otherwise simply because the Federal Government acts in its behalf in international conventions and agreements.
All over the world, countries enter into treaties some of which confer direct rights on citizens or segments of their populations. Some treaties of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) confer benefits on individual farmers or other economic groupings though negotiated and ratified by their central governments.
Coordinaterelationship
States under municipal law, particularly in a federal system of government are sovereign, independent and autonomous and maintains coordinate relationship with the central government. They are not in any way subordinate. The relationship between the central and state governments is based on mutual respect. These attributes are exercised in spheres of authority allocated to the State by the Constitution of the country.
None of these two levels of government surrenders its sovereignty to the other and same extends to the state government’s inviolable right to property under its territory. It has internal sovereignty over, without hindrance and interference from the central or federal government. That is the essence of federalism. Perhaps the hegemonic proponents are still persuaded by the mentality of militarism being primary beneficiaries. The right of a state to own property is further established in Section 1 of the Land Use Act 1978 which vests on the Governor all lands in the state.
It provides: “Subject to the provisions of this Act, all land comprised in the territory of each State in the Federation are hereby vested in the Governor of that State and such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of this Act”.
Furthermore, the Law of the Sea at page 79 states that: Coastal states would have sovereign right in a 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and would exercise jurisdiction over marine science research, and environmental protection, all other states would have freedom from navigation and over flight in the zone.
Exclusiveeconomic zone
The concept of the exclusive economic zone and its import for the Niger Delta states brings to the fore the Quadripartite Sea Front theorem which states that: No Community, no country, No riparian inhabitants, No EEZ for a Coastal State (Harold Dappa-Biriye). An application of this theorem holds that no government, region nor group of people indeed have the moral and legal justification to continue to contemplate the appropriation for itself the mining rents and royalties from offshore production of crude oil to the exclusion of the riparian owners of the continental shelf.
It means invariably the Exclusive Economic Zone is owned by the riparian owners, the coastal states. It is fundamental to note that Section 8, Chapter 26 of Agenda 21 (World Earth Summit on Sustainable Development, 1993) recognized the right of indigenous people to coastal resources.
It provides that: National governments should incorporate, in collaboration with indigenous people affected, the rights and responsibilities of indigenous people, and their communities in national legal frameworks, including recognition of the need to protect their lands from unsustainable and inequitable development and secure their access to and control over both their lands and their natural resources.
In Section 2, Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 which dwelt on safeguarding the Ocean’s Resources, provision was made for the participation of indigenous people in the planning process of EEZ. Nigeria, as a signatory of the above UN laws and resolutions is under obligation to respect and implement them.
It is, therefore, a complete absurdity, an assault on the peace loving and magnanimous people of the South for the protagonists of the Northern agenda to call for the reintroduction of the onshore/offshore dichotomy. As earlier pointed out whereas International law vests certain rights on Nigeria, but Nigeria is not synonymous with the Federal Government. The Federal Government is a central unit in the Federal Republic of Nigeria which has 36 other federating units.
The Federal Government has no land of its own. All parcels of land in Nigeria belong to the constituent states which make up Nigeria. Similarly, it is the seaward boundaries of the littoral (coastal) states that make up the seaward boundary of Nigeria. Take out the coastal states and Nigeria automatically becomes a land-locked country! It should therefore be known that we shall resist to the last ounce of our energy any attempt to reintroduce the offshore/onshore dichotomy.
The way forward
Our simple solution to all these development challenges is a recourse to true federalism with each state controlling its own natural resources and paying tax to the federal government. God has blessed each state with abundant natural resources either in form of hydrocarbon, solid minerals and a rich agricultural land mass and a yet to be explored value chain to cater for its development.
Wisdom profits those who desire it and in this context the timeless words in a popular aphorism may be instructive, to wit: “Conscience is an open wound and only truth can heal it.” It is paradoxical for the North to claim to be the backbone of Nigeria when every available statistics show that they have indeed been grossly dependent on the South since the two protectorates came together in 1914.
Like the spine of the human anatomy, could the spinal cord (backbone) have stood on its own without the support of the coccyx that provide a landing? In other words, could it have been possible for the North to survive and make all these giant strides as people and a geographical enclave without the economic base provided by the South which some of their past leaders pillaged? Time will tell!
No comments:
Post a Comment