ABUJA—DELTA State government has initiated a legal move to stop the Supreme Court from entertaining the request of the 19 northern states and two from the South-West for the reinstatement of onshore-offshore oil dichotomy as principle of derivation and allocation of revenue in the country.
Specifically, the government of Delta State is urging the apex court to dismiss the suit in limine, citing want of jurisdiction as reason. The two-page preliminary objection filed by Delta State did not expatiate.
The objection was prepared, signed and filed by the state Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Prof Amos Utuama. No affidavit stating details or special grounds upon which the entire objection was premised was attached.
The objection which was filed at the registry of the Supreme Court last week has already been served on the Chambers of Mr Yusuf Ali (SAN) who is prosecuting the case for the 19 northern governors and the two states from the South West.
Ali who spoke with Vanguard on phone yesterday confirmed that though some of the littoral states sued in the matter had entered appearances via their memoranda, he was not aware of any of such states that had filed its statement of defence. Said he: “Apart from memoranda of appearance filed and served on me by some of the states in the matter, none of the defendants, as far as I know, has filed its defence. I can also confirm to you as requested that Delta State has filed an objection to the suit. I was served the paper last Thursday. I have not been served any other paper except those I have confirmed to you,.”
Delta State government’s response, however, came about ttree months after the 19 northern states and two others from the South-West geo-political zones of the country initiated the court process at the registry of the Supreme Court, seeking reinstatement of onshore-offshore oil dichotomy in the computation of derivation and revenue of the country.
The 19 northern states are Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Bornu, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Plateau, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara while the two others are Osun and Ekiti.
Named as respondents in the suit are the Federal Government, Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMFAC) and the eight littoral states which include Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Edo, Cross River, Delta, Ondo, Rivers.
The lawsuit which was filed at the time the Justices of the Supreme Court were on vacation has generated furore in the polity with the littoral states accusing the Northern states of attempting to cause disunity in the country.
More than two months now that the suit was filed, none of the respondents has filed any defence as political solution to the subject-matter of the case is being explored. Besides, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the case. It is not even clear if the Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Muhammad Lawal Uwais, has empanelled Justices of the court that would hear the case.
About eight months ago, 21 states of the federation approached the Supreme Court (on August 6, this year), begging it to void an Act by the National Assembly abolishing application of onshore-offshore dichotomy as basis for calculating derivation and allocation of revenue in the country. The suit was filed about six months after the National Assembly made the legislation.
They contended that the Act by the National Assembly offended the provisions of the 1999 constitution and sundry ancillary laws of the land. The aggrieved states also wanted the apex court to issue an order stopping forthwith the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) from implementing and relying on the Act for the purposes of allocating revenue to states and local governments from the Federation Account.
The entire controversy was provoked sometime in 2001 when the Federal Government approached the Supreme Court for its pronouncement on a live issue touching on what constituted the seaward boundaries of littoral states within the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the purposes of calculating the amount of revenue accruing to the Federation Account directly from any natural resources derived from those states pursuant to section 162 (2) of the 1999 constitution.
The suit with number SC 28/2001 was filed by the then Federation Attorney-General, Chief Bola Ige (SAN)in response to the claims of the littoral states (Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Ogun, Ondo and Rivers) that the natural resources located offshore ought to be treated or regarded as located within their respective states.
The aggrieved states which contained their discontent till August this year mobilised themselves and stormed the Supreme Court on August 6, this year to lodge an originating summons, seeking to nullify the Act by the National Assembly giving legislative backing to the cancellation of the controversial onshore-offshore dichotomy. They specifically wanted a reversal to the old order.
Establishing their locus standi to bring the action before the apex court, they said: “If the Act is implemented, it will impact negatively on the amount that will accrue to the Federation Account and this will in turn reduce the shareable revenue due to them,” hence the need to arrest its implementation. Besides, they contended that the Act of the National Assembly amounted to a “legislative judgment” since the Act has by implication ceded part of the shore coastline and territorial waters of Nigeria to the littoral states.
This alleged cession is said to be contrary to the provisions of the 1999 constitution, Territoral Waters Act Cap 428 LFN 1990 and the Exclusive Economic Zone Act Cap 110 LFN, 1990 which, they claimed, is to their disadvantage.
Should all the issues be resolved in their favour, the plaintiffs want the court to grant them six major reliefs including:
la declaration that the Allocation of Revenue Act 2004 is unconstitutional, ultra vires the defendants and, therefore, null and void;
la declaration that all the defendants are without constitutional powers to rely on the Allocation of Revenue Act 2004 for the purposes of allocation of revenue to the states and local government from the federation account;
lan order directing the defendants to forthwith stop the implementation and reliance on the said Allocation of Revenue Act 2004;
lan injunction restraining the eight littoral states by themselves, their agents or any other person or persons deriving authority through them from taking benefit from, insisting on or in any other manner, seek to take advantage from or under or in the said Allocation of Revenue Act 2004;
•an injunction restraining all the defendants, by themselves, their agents, servants, privies or any other person or body deriving authority from or through them from implementing, giving effect to or in any other manner enforce the provisions of the Allocation of Revenue Act 2004; and
•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.
