22 states seek S�Court order to restore oil dichotomy
Yusuf Alli and Tobi Soniyi, Abuja
Twenty two of the 36 states of the federation have asked the Supreme Court to declare as �illegal� the Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy in the Application of the Principles of Derivation Act) 2004.
The states that filed a suit at the apex court on Friday are the 19 northern states and three in the South-West � Ekiti, Osun, and Oyo.
President Olusegun Obasanjo assented to the bill less than six months ago after much disagreement with the National Assembly.
Listed as defendants in the suit filed by Mallam Yusuf Ali, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, are the Attorney-General of the Federation and the eight littoral states � Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, and Rivers.
Six states stayed out of the latest action for what our correspondent learnt were political reasons.
In the suit, the 22 states, through their counsel, argued that the Act, otherwise known as Onshore/Offshore Act, was unconstitutional, ultra vires and therefore null and void.
They also prayed that the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Revenue Mobilisation Allocattion and Fiscal Commission had no constitutional powers to rely on the Act for the allocation of revenue to the states and local government areas from the Federation Account.
They, therefore, sought for an order directing the defendants to �forthwith stop the implementation and reliance on the said Act.�
Besides, the aggrieved states asked for an injunction to restrain the littoral states and their agents from taking benefit from, insisting on or in any other manner seeking to take advantage from or under the said Allocation of Revenue Act, 2004.
They equally prayed for an injunction restraining the Attorney-General of the Federation and RMAFC, their agents, servants, privies or any other person or body from implementing, from giving effect to or in any other manner enforcing the provisions of the Act.
They further urged the Supreme Court to issue an �order setting aside, annulling and make void the said Revenue Allocation (Abolition of Dichotomy in the Application of the Principle of Derivation) Act 2004.�
The 22 states said the court could grant any other relief or reliefs, which it might find that they were entitled to in law and equity.
In the originating summons, they listed the following for determination:
�whether having regard to the provisions of Section 44(3) of the 1999 Constitution ), the provisions of the Territorial Water Act cap 428 Laws of 1990, the provisions of the Exclusive Economic Zone Act Cap 110 Laws of 1990 and binding international conventions to which Nigeria is a signatory, the defendants could validly cede or give away or concede any part of the sea ward boundaries of Nigeria to the littoral states in any manner whatsoever;
�whether in view of the provisions of Sections 16 and 44(3) of the 1999 Constitution, provisions of the Territorial Waters Act Cap 428 Law of 1990 the Exclusive Economic Zone Act Cap 110 Law of 1990, it was not ultra vires, the powers of the Attorney-General to make and implement the Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy in the Application of Derivation) Act 2004;
�whether having regard to the provisions of Section 4, 16, 44(3), 162 and 315 of the 1999 Constitution, the Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy in the Application of Derivation) Act 2004 was not unconstitutional, ultra vires and null and void;
� whether in view of the provisions of Sections 6(6), 232 and 235 of the 1999 Constitution, the Act was not unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever; and
� whether in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Suit SC/28/ 2001, Attorney General of the Federation Vs Attorney- General of Abia State and 35 others delivered on April 5, 2002, the Allocation of Revenue (abolition of Dichotomy in the Application of the Principle of Derivation) Act 2004 was not a legislative judgment thereby making it unconstitutional, null, void and without any effect.
In a 12-page affidavit in support of the originating summons deposed to by R.Y. Ashiru, the 22 states claimed that the Act, once implemented, would impact negatively on the amount that would accrue to the Federation Account and this would in turn reduce the shareable revenue due to them.
Ashiru said,� I know as a fact that hitherto, the amount accruing to the Federation Account included monies realised from the onshore and off shore exploration of crude oil by oil companies operating in Nigeria.�
