The decision of the 19 northern state governors in alliance with their Ekiti, Oyo and Osun counterparts to
challenge the constitutionality of the Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy in the Application of the Principle of Derivation) Act 2004 abolishing the Onshore/Offshore dichotomy in the application of the principle of derivation in sharing the oil revenues is worthy of commendation. We salute the governors for championing the interests of their people as well as this new spirit of cooperation. We also hope that this is the beginning of a new era in which northern governors would be coming together to fight northern interests devoid of any political party consideration. We are also particularly pleased, as not long ago we advocated for this action in an essay entitled “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul”.
This contentious law abolishing the hitherto onshore/offshore dichotomy was singed by President Olusegun Obasanjo on Tuesday, February 16, 2004. From all indications this law is an illegitimate child, born out of wedlock of an unholy relationship. It was a law specifically crafted to please the eight oil-producing states of Nigeria to the detriment of the majority non-oil producing states. It was a law that over night has made few states perpetually swimming in billions of oil Naira while pauperizing many other states. It was also an illegal law coming after the famous ruling by the Supreme Court categorically stating the unconstitutionality of the ultra claims by those states sharing borders with the ocean to more 20 nautical miles. It was also an ill-advised law enacted primarily to appease the apparently sponsors of violence in the Niger Delta. Appeasement as we learn from the history of the Second World War does not work in appeasing the offensive party. If appeasement were a veritable tool in settling disputes, the world war would not have taken place.
In fact, it was the suit instituted by the Federal Government at the Supreme Court against the 36 states of the federation on February 26, 2001 seeking to determine the seaward boundary of a littoral state within the country for the purpose of calculating the amount of revenue accruing to the federal account directly from any natural resources derived from the state that ignited all this palaver. Hearing kicked off on April 10, 2001 with no fewer than 185 lawyers! The subsequent ruling by the apex court on April 5, 2002 averred that only the Federal Government had control over the resources derived offshore. By this judgment, the Supreme Court fundamentally restructured the Federation Account and should have resolved this matter once and for all. But alas! Politics came in and the matter became a campaign issue with the 2003 presidential elections at stake. Promises were made and deals entered into. The rest is now history.
The subsequent bill presented on January 9, 2004 to the National Assembly by the Executive in essence sought to abolish any dichotomy between resources derived onshore and offshore on the application of the principle of derivation for the purposes of revenue allocation. According to the new law, “the 200 metre water depth to a state of the federation shall be deemed to be 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 or any other enactment.”
It is still incredible how all the non-oil producing state governors folded their arms and watched the principal source of their revenue altered without some serious resistance. With the revelations from Okija shrines, some one should kindly request the Inspector General of Police to investigate the possibility of finding the names of the governors from the non-oil producing states in the Ogwugwu-Akpu shrine. If not the act of juju or some mysterious circumstances, how could the governors have kept quite over a so-called political solution to a problem that affected them but without their representation? How could their heads be shaved in their absence, as Chief MKO Abiola would have wondered? The recourse to political solution rather than abide by the legal ruling is as curious as it is incomprehensible. The search for the so-called political solution led to the setting up of a presidential committee headed by Chief Tony Anenih and the nine south-south governors. The heading of this committee by Tony Anenih to work out a political solution is now with benefit of hindsight wrong just on the premise that he is from Edo State, an oil producing state. It was also wrong to have only the governors from south-south as members. Other governors should have been included as a matter of right as concerned stakeholders. Nevertheless, the committee expectedly recommended to the presidency to sponsor a bill abolishing the onshore/offshore dichotomy because “some compensation ought to be considered for the adverse impact of offshore production on the environment as well as on the economic activities of littoral states”. If the issue was simply for ‘compensation’, one wonders what the setting up of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) is all about and the special grant from the ecological funds is intended to achieve. To me, the establishment of the NDDC was enough to take care of the environmental problems associated with oil explorations.
What is equally worrisome is the unusual speed in passing the bill by the National Assembly. The bill was presented by President Obasanjo on January 9 and was passed by the Senate twelve days later, January 21. The bill of such monumental importance was surprisingly passed without it being subjected to critical analysis for its likely consequences. One also would have expected the non-oil producing states to seriously lobby the National Assembly not to pass the bill. But unfortunately, nothing of that happened. They all went to sleep. Though the bill was earlier presented to the former National Assembly on March 10, 2003, it was passed by the two chambers seeking to limit the application of the offshore revenue to 24 nautical miles spanned by the ‘contiguous zones adjoining the coastal states’, which implied a distance of 45 kilometers. This position by the president seems more in tune with the judgement of the Supreme Court. But unfortunately, the former National Assembly was railroaded by the littoral states and political miscalculation and extended its application to 200 nautical miles, which it termed the ‘continental shelf and exclusive economic zone contiguous to a littoral state’. Though he initially withheld his assent on the bill, Obasanjo was to change the phrase ‘contiguous zone’ when he sent in the bill to the National Assembly to the phrase ‘congenital shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone’ passed by the National Assembly to a new phrase of ‘200 meter water depth isobaths’. This change certainly looks suspicious bearing in mind the ruling of the Supreme Court.
Now that the 22 governors have challenged the legality of the infamous Act abolishing the onshore/offshore dichotomy, they must be firm in their resolve and not to succumb to cheap blackmail and political rascality. Already the Niger Delta youths are being mobilized as well as some sections of the media. We are beginning to read funny newspaper reports and editorials blaming the 22 governors for “insensitivity” and “overheating the system”. On another note, one of their strategies seems to be of portraying the governors as unpatriotic. Governor Victor Attah of Akwa Ibom State (the major beneficiary of the abrogation Act) alluded to this notion when he was quoted as advising the governors “ to always de-emphasise on issues that divide Nigerians”. From Warri, we read in the Vanguard of August 18 of hundreds of youth staging peaceful protests against the court action by the 22 governors. The President of the National Union of Ijaw Students, Dennis Otuaro has the temerity to tell reporters that the court action by the 22 governors “is reckless and truly a threat to the corporate existence of the country”. In fact, we expect the next few weeks to be hot in the Niger Delta as their governors might sponsor them to embark on some fomr of protests. If history is anything to go by, we only need to remind ourselves of the strategies they used to win the battle. They know that the Act is illegal and the political solution too lopsided. They would therefore do anything to stop the court action or discredit it. The Supreme Court must be allowed to make its pronouncement on the matter before any discussion on an alternative settlement. The issue at stake is fundamentally economic rather than political. The survival and welfare of millions of Nigerians is involved more than those of the oil-producing states. The 22 governors must not listen to any body requesting them to withdraw the suit.
We also wish to advise the 22 governors to also take their case to the public opinion arena. Let every state show how much they have been losing since the commencement of the contentious Act. Let them articulate and present their positions beyond reasonable doubt. As we are sure they will win the legal battle, they should not lose the public relations battle. They should carry along their members of the National Assembly to ensure that history does not repeat itself. In deed, their Honourable Members and Senators should be the foot soldiers in this battle of survival. They should also prepare and respond appropriately using whatever tactics were employed by the oil-producing states. At this stage of the struggle, their best option is to adopt in its totality the age old and well-tested Hammurabi’s law: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth!
