Who Owns The Oil? Okogie Asks

Archbishop Emeritus of Lagos Anthony Olubunmi Okogie. Image: Facebook

BY SAM EYOBOKA

LAGOS (VANGUARD) -- The fearless outspoken Catholic Archbishop Emeritus of Lagos, Anthony Cardinal Olubunmi Okogie has advanced the controversy involving the former President Olusegun Obasanjo and Ijaw Leader who is also PANDEF Leader, Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark together with some lawyers including Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekonme over the ownership of the Niger Delta Oil Wells.

According to the fiery preacher in a lengthy response on Friday: “The inquiry Sonny Okosun made four decades ago in his song “Papa’s Land”, remains a task. “We want to know who owns the land,” he sang. Today, we still need to ask ourselves that question: who owns the land?

“It has once again come to fore in former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s riposte to Chief Edwin Clark. The latter had criticized President Obasanjo of hatred towards the people of Niger Delta. The former denied in self-defence. But if he had stopped at self-defence, it would have been sufficient. He went beyond an apologia pro vita sua to declare that the oil in the Niger Delta belongs to Nigeria. His declaration has helped to formulate a new version of Okosun’s inquiry. The question now is not just: who owns the land? It is: who owns the oil?

The owners of the land own whatever is on the land or under the land. To deprive them of that right is to be patently unjust. Only a regime of imperialist intent would do such a thing. Unfortunately, this has been the Nigerian narrative from the advent of British imperialist colonialists until the current dispensation. The British came, conquered the land around the Niger and its peoples, declared amalgamation, and handed over to a state operated on imperialist logic. That logic is that the land and the peoples belong to the state.

Military rule exacerbated this vicious logic. By the time the coup plotters of July 29, 1966 saw the prospects for oil, the struggle for which was a major factor in the Nigeria-Biafra War of 1967-70, that class of coup plotters created their own Nigerian empire. Soldiers who ought to protect the land dispossessed rightful owners of their land. The principal target was the oil. And, to perpetuate that Nigerian empire of their making, they bequeathed before their first departure in 1979 an imperial constitution dressed in the robes of a federal constitution. That constitution, and its 1999 replica, reposed sovereignty in the state and not in the people, placed Niger-Delta oil under the control of the government at the centre by placing mineral resources on the exclusive legislative list. To ensure protection of the loot, the same constitution placed security of a land as vast and diverse as Nigeria on the exclusive legislative list.

When President Obasanjo made his recent declaration that the oil in the Niger Delta belongs to Nigeria, one cannot but recall that he, as military ruler and head of the remnant of the mutinous soldiers of July 29, 1966, presided over the final redaction of the constitution that places control of Nigeria’s oil under the control of the government at the centre—one hesitates to call it a federal government because what is obtained in this country today cannot be honestly described as federalism.

The inclusion of mineral resources on the exclusive legislative list in the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions effectively legitimizes the unjust deprivation to which the people of Nigeria have been subjected for decades. The declaration that Niger Delta oil belongs to Nigeria justifies the imperialist intent of the final redactors of the 1979 Constitution.

As we all know, the Niger Delta that produces the oil has turned out to be one of the poorest, if not the poorest region of Nigeria. Proceeds from the sale of Niger Delta oil have been used and is still being used to service the expensive but ineffective government that the twin constitutions have imposed on Nigerians. Proceeds from the sale of this same oil have been used to build bridges and highways in Lagos, and in Abuja where there are not rivers, while the Niger Delta, full of rivers and creeks has only a few bridges.

President Obasanjo’s declaration, as disturbing as it is, reminds us of an act of injustice that urgently needs to be redressed, and that is: Nigeria is not set up to benefit the regional, ethnic or religious community to which government functionaries belong; Nigeria is set up to benefit the elite from these communities. Whichever section of the elite gains access to corridors of power in Abuja or state capitals or local government areas gains access to Nigeria’s oil wealth. That is why our elections are muddy and bloody.

Contrary to President Obasanjo’s declaration, the oil in the Niger Delta does not belong to Nigeria. Neither does it belong to the state or local governments in that region. It belongs to the people of the region. Land belongs to the people, not to the government. The resources on the land, any land, not just the Niger Delta, belongs to the people and not to the government. Nigeria’s problems became greater when government decided to get into oil business. That is the major contributing factor to corruption, poverty and insecurity.

Given our historical and geographical inter-connectedness, our various ethnic communities will do business with each other with the resources we have on our land. The Niger Deltan needs onions and tomatoes to cook his Banga soup. The farmer in northern Nigeria who produces onions and tomatoes needs petroleum products to drive his tractors. Their respective needs compel them to start an economic union that must precede a political union. Unfortunately in Nigeria, we have been insisting on a political union without an economic union. So we end up making this country a land of monkey dey work baboon dey chop.

It is in our interest to form a political union where any Nigerian can settle and acquire property anywhere in Nigeria, do business and contribute to the common good. But the current imperialist constitution, predicated on President Obasanjo’s recent declaration, needs to undergo far-reaching amendments. Not to do so is to continue to provoke cries of marginalization. It is to allow the wounds of corruption, insecurity, and poverty to fester.

THE OLD MEN’S FIGHT OVER RESOURCE CONTROL

Bolaji Adebiyi argues that the conversations around resource control should shift from ownership to impact

Combo of former President Olusegun Obasanjo and Edwin Clark. Image via Trust TV

BY BOLAJI ADEBIYI

DECEMBER 30, 2021 (THIS DAY) -- The altercation between the nation’s former president, Olusegun Obasanjo, and former information minister, Edwin Clark, over the ownership of oil resources beneath the ground of Niger Delta earlier this week roused a dormant debate which unless resolved quickly would continue to be a sore point in the nation’s conversations on the control of its mineral resources.

Although both old men raised no fresh issues safe to advance the existing divide on the matter, their passion even at their age reinstated the seriousness and the continuous danger the irresolution of the contention posed to the prospect of the nation remaining one and indivisible country.


Clark fired the first salvo when he accused Obasanjo of being a Niger Delta hater for the reason of the former president’s insistence that the oil-rich region could not exclusively appropriate the ownership of the black gold simply because it is located under its soil. The Ijaw leader only echoed the widespread belief in the region that it ought to control the exploitation of the oil resource and pay tax to the federal government. This proposition has the sympathy of many politicians, policy analysts and academics from the southern part of the country. Its other name is resource control, a component of the much-touted but controversial restructuring.

Obasanjo’s response denied hating anybody or group, stating for the record that his position has the backing of the 1999 Constitution as altered and the laws regulating the control and exploitation of mineral resources generally, including oil. To ground his contention, he cited Section 140 of the 1963 Constitution which implied ownership and control of mineral resources was in the hands of the federal government but established the derivation principle. Subsequent grundnorms have adopted this provision. His citation seeks to correct the popular notion that it was the military that hijacked the control of mineral resources from the states for the federation.

Without a doubt, Obasanjo’s position is robustly grounded in the constitution and the law. And none of his trenchant critics, including Mike Ozekhome, learned silk and social activist, has been able to successfully argue with the former president’s tenacious hugging of the strictly legal and constitutional point, which incidentally is largely supported by northern politicians, policy analysts and academics.

Put simply, Obasanjo argues the law while Clark’s case is essentially a proposition for the review of it. Ordinarily, these two are not mutually exclusive and it was in the realisation of this that they had been the source of hot debates at every post-independence constituent assembly and constitutional conference in the country. Yet despite the heat at the meets, there had always been a middle ground. The challenge was the implementation of the consensus.

There are three main issues: ownership, control and distribution of benefits from mineral resources. The constitution and mining rights laws placed all three in the hands of the federal government but established the derivation principle by dedicating a percentage of the financial resources derived from mineral exploration and exploitation to the state where the resource is located. The derivation principle speaks to the sense of social justice which seeks to ensure that a mineral-bearing entity derives equitable benefits from the resource located in its soil and environment.

The case for federal control is that Nigeria being a federation, its resources must be preserved and used for the benefits of the entire unit in order that no part of the whole is left behind in terms of economic and social development. The regionalists do not necessarily disagree with the federalists on this but make the point that regional ownership and control would not deprive the rest of the federation of the benefits of the resource since taxes from proceeds would be paid to the centre.

These positions were canvassed at the three post-independent constitutional conferences in 1994, 2005 and 2014 and the matters were resolved in favour of federal control with compromises on derivation. Although the regionalists, having lost the argument for control, asked for a return to the 50 per cent derivation principle enshrined in the 1963 Constitution, not less than 13 per cent was approved in 1994, up to 17 per cent in 2005 while the 2014 conference advised that a technical committee be set up to advise on the percentage to be allocated to derivation.

Somehow, safe for the 1994 recommendation that was eventually incorporated into the 1999 Constitution as altered, the follow-up conferences’ recommendations were never implemented. It is the frustrations arising from the none implementation of the latter conferences coupled with the lack of positive impact of the subsisting 13 per cent derivation principle on the oil-bearing communities as well as the inequitable application of the principle across the board that has continued to generate tension in the oil-bearing region and communities.

The frustrations are two-fold. Despite the application of the 13 per cent derivation, most communities in the oil-bearing states are still steep in poverty and underdevelopment with the oil-bearing communities worst off. Youth restiveness and agitations for a better deal manifested in the militancy in the region forcing the federal government to deploy enormous security assets to calm the region. When this failed, pacification policies, including the establishment of development intervention agencies such as the Niger Delta Development Commission and Amnesty Programme were deployed. That too would appear to have failed to mitigate the abject poverty and under-development of the oil-bearing communities.

The other level of frustration is the inequitable application of the derivation principle. Whereas the federal government has enforced its control of the oil resource in the Niger Delta and other littoral states, including Imo, Anambra and Lagos, it has been unable to exert the same control over the mining of rich mineral resources including gold in most part of the North, particularly Kebbi and Zamfara States, with the effect that individuals and the state governments have been exploring and exploiting those benefits for their exclusive benefits. Salt was added to injury sometime last year when the Central Bank of Nigeria bought some gold bars from the Zamfara State government. It is this type of double standard that has continued to fuel the resource control debate and agitation.

The way forward to hemming the agitations, therefore, is to shift the conversation more towards not only the equitable application of the derivation principle but also a just distribution of the benefits of proceeds of mining resources in such a way that it maximally impacts the resource-bearing communities in particular and the generality of Nigerians in general. From what we have seen so far, the impact on both the host communities and the generality of Nigerians has been abysmally low with the outcome that the nearer you are to the rich resource the more poverty-stricken you are. This, therefore, is the substantive issue, and the inequity and social injustice cannot persist without dire consequences for the polity.

Adebiyi, the managing editor of THISDAY Newspapers, writes from bolaji.adebiyi@thisdayonline.com

Naija in Brief, Early Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008

After being slammed for laundering funds totaling four billion Naira plus, former Edo State Governor, Lucky Igbinedion was granted bail in Enugu where he had been remanded in custody since January. Igbinedion's bail has some strings attached to it. He is required to pay ten million Naira to the court and must provide two sureties who are permanent secretaries, and are credible with good track records of paying their taxes.

Well, I'm not sure if this is just a gimmick, a tactic to fool the public that justice and the rule of law is taking its full course. Who is fooling who here? What makes the High Court sitting in Enugu to assume the accused will go through hell in order to come up with the conditions of his bail? It's no big deal. These guys got money stashed somewhere. I'm not saying they shoudn't be granted bail. After all, what Igbinedion is accused of is a bailable offense, but my problem with the whole thing is this: will this guy be prosecuted to the limit of the law when he appears in court for trial considering how he looted public funds? I hope the courts pays attention to what he did to his people, leaving his poor folks empty and dry, wallowing in poverty.

Enter James Ibori who was also granted bail on Monday in the sum of fifty million Naira. Justice Mohammed Lawal Shuaibu in Kaduna High Court also required Ibori to provide sureties with properties in like sum as conditions of his bail.

But I do have a problem with Ibori's unnecessary compassion thanking all and sundry for their support since his incanceration two months ago. Listen to this:

My thanks also go to all Nigerians from all walks of life, who personally visited me in Kaduna, sent representatives or offered prayers — for their solidarity, support and unsurpassed love throughout these two months of detention. I particularly thank all the good people of Delta State. I extend such thanks too to politicians of various backgrounds and from all over Nigeria, most especially the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) leadership and political family, for their unwavering support, uncommon confidence and huge out-pouring of love. I also wish to use this opportunity to assure Nigerians of my preparedness to pursue this case to its final conclusion for the growth and development of our nascent democracy. My confidence in the Nigerian Judiciary remains unshaken and I trust that at the end of this ordeal, justice will prevail.

Who cares about his pussyfooting. It's late and he must pay for his sins that caused the people of Delta State pain and sufferings. Of course, Ibori wishes to enhance the nations democratic fabric by justice prevailing for a man who looted his own state's treasury with impunity as chief executive. The thing is I hope EFCC and the judicial system lives up to its creed by dealing with all the corrupt politicians to the limit of the law.

Here they come again. According to a report by Emeka Anuforo of the Guardian Newspapers, Umaru Yar'Adua's administration has taken a bold step to revive the rural areas of the country with an initial amount for the project to cost about two hundred and eighty four point sixty four billion Naira. The idea is projected to take out thirty million Nigerians from the poverty line by 2011.

The question here is, how are they going to effect such a gigantic project when the local government chairmen are on standby waiting for any revenue that crosses their way? The possibility of such a task is far fetched considering what these local government chairmen have done in the past. They are not worried about going to jail like their predecessors. All they care is "money in my pocket first" and jail later. That's how it works in a corrupt and failed state. There are no two ways to go about it. So forget it Mr. President.

The News reported that officials of EFCC and journalists were attacked in a training seminar organized by the Wole Soyinka Award for Investigative Journalism. This is craziness when one considers how we writers and journalists help keep the government in check and yet hoodlums and democratic gangsters would not let press freedom to prevail. Just read The News and other Naija papers including the tabloids and see the kind of nonsense that has taken shape in that banana republic.