On-shore/off-shore dichotomy: Whatever happened to the abrogation of the abrogation?

Nigeria is facing another round of dire times.  As a result of the fall in price of crude oil by over 70% in less than 18 months revenue accruing to the Federation Account has nose-dived. Both the States and Federal Governments are in obvious financial distress.  Despite the bail-out granted the States recently, only a […]

Nigeria is facing another round of dire times.  As a result of the fall in price of crude oil by over 70% in less than 18 months revenue accruing to the Federation Account has nose-dived. Both the States and Federal Governments are in obvious financial distress.  Despite the bail-out granted the States recently, only a few days ago, the Chairman of the Governors’ Forum, Abdulaziz Yari of Zamfara, was shown on television profusely pleading with the Federal Government to once again come to the aid of the States by among other things, reviewing the revenue allocation formula to provide more revenue to the States. Minister of Finance, Femi Adeosun, on the other hand is reported to have ruled-out any further bail-out of the States by the Federal Government.  Instead, she advised them to look inwards, improve their financial management and be innovative. Before Governor Yari spoke, Governor Aminu Bello Masari was the one that first raised the alarm on the finances of states warning that without Federal assistance, some States might collapse.
It is becoming routine for States to run to the Federal Government for rescue whenever they are in financial crisis.  Ironically it is the same States that always clamour for less Federal Government control in the spirit of “true federalism”.  But when it comes to taking-up more responsibilities, the States are quick to shy away. In this regard, one might recall the stiff opposition of many States when the idea of State Police was muted in public discourse only a few years ago.  Most of them would rather the Federal Government continues to shoulder the burden of internal security by being solely responsible for financing the Nigerian Police.  It does appear like the States want to eat their cake and have it at the same time.
Not long ago and before the advent of the of bail-out era, the States, in their desire to access more allocation from the Federal Government would always pick on a certain aspect of revenue allocation formula and complain about it.   For the Oil Producing States, the clamour had persistently revolved around full resource control in the spirit of “fiscal federalism”.  Although mainstream politicians from Oil-Producing States are hardly at the forefront of the agitation for full resource control (they actually don’t need to because), the array of all manner of ethnic nationalists and militants make such agitations a full-time career (and evidently a lucrative one at that) on their behalf.
As for the Non-Oil Producing and in particular Northern States, their hopes and agitations tend to focus on a change in the revenue allocation formula and especially, on the re-instatement of the on-shore-off-shore dichotomy, which the On-shore/Off-shore 2004 Act abrogated. In their view, the abrogation had put them in a severely disadvantaged position vis-à-vis the Oil-Producing States.  Perhaps the most vociferous of such complaints was expressed by former Kano State Governor (and now Senator) Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso in an interview with Daily Trust Newspaper of August 8, 2012.  In the interview, Kwankwaso mistakenly blamed the Northern Members of the National Assembly of 1999 -2003 session for the passage of the law, whereas the law itself was actually enacted in February 2004.  In a subsequent rejoinder Speaker Ghali Umar Na’Abba who was Speaker from 1999-2003 corrected Kwankwaso’s misrepresentation and absolved the 1999-2003 set members of responsibility for the enactment of the Act.  Technically speaking, his “blame” was directed on 2003-2007 members of whom one happened to belong. When the Act was passed in February 2004, one was indeed a Principal Officer in the House of Representatives and by that virtue was fully conversant with developments leading to the passage of the Act.
Looking at the substantive matter of abrogation of the on-shore off-shore dichotomy objectively one would not hesitate to accept that it is indeed a product of a “compromise”, between contending arguments for and against the abrogation of the dichotomy in an abstract and academic sense.   There was nothing “political” about the compromise. For a compromise to be political, pre-supposes an agreement between contending political groups.  It is instructive to note that former Governor of Akwa Ibom State Victor Attah in an article published in Vanguard Newspaper of December 18, 2012, while agreeing that the 2004 Act was a product of “compromise” adopted by President Obasanjo, also failed to identify who the parties involved in arriving at the so-called compromise were. Never before has a “compromise” failed to satisfy so many.  If it had indeed been a product of “political compromise” in the true sense of the word, arrived at through negotiations, such a compromise would not have continued to elicit such discontentment from so many segments of the polity. On the one hand, for the Oil Producing States the agitation and ultimate goal has remained for a full (i.e. 100%) resource control whereas on the other hand for the Non-Oil Producing States the goal is for the restoration of the dichotomy.  Despite the abrogation, the beneficial States, either through their “leaders of thoughts” or “activists” and “militants” have not reneged on their demands for the full control of “their” resources in the name of “true federalism”.  Despite the concessions and all manner of inducements, such as creating Niger Delta Ministry, mouth-watering budgetary allocations to Niger Delta Development Commissions, Amnesty Programme and stupendous contracts awarded to (ex-) militant warlords to “patrol and protect” our coastal waters, neither have the agitations abated nor have we experienced peace in the Niger Delta.  Indeed since the exit of their “son”, from power due to his overwhelming rejection by majority of Nigerians in   four out of six geo-political zones, militant activities in the Niger Delta have regained a new impetus with the escalation of sabotage of oil and gas pipelines and new groups of militants emerging by the day, the newest of which is called the “Niger Delta Avengers”.
It is our considered view that the Abrogation Act passed twelve years ago has not achieved much by way of dousing agitations and bringing peace in the Niger Delta. On the one hand there is a pervading feeling amongst the Non-Oil Producing States of being short-changed by the provisions of the Acts, more so because they are more populous and therefore have greater need for revenue. On the other hand the perpetual agitations by the Oil-Producing States for full resource control seem to have no end in sight.  Clearly therefore it is time to re-visit the Abrogation Act of 2004. Our view is that (a) the Act be amended such that the on-shore/off-shore dichotomy be restored in accordance with the Supreme Court Judgement  and International Law and (b) that  “resource control”  to the tune of 100% in the Oil-Producing States be instituted but only in-so-for- as the oil wells on land are concerned.  In acceding to 100% “resource control”, the Niger Deltans should be allowed to decide among themselves how this control should be exercised between States/Local Governments and/or Communities.
The pragmatism of this suggestion is not far-fetched. The perennial agitation by the Niger Deltans is largely based on the claim that the land from which the oil is drilled belongs to them ancestrally and that as the “Land Owners” the resources in the land belong to them as well. Secondly, that the on-shore drilling activities of oil companies contaminate their rivers and thereby deny them their means of livelihood since they are largely fishermen. It is also claimed that for those of them engaged in farming their land is being rendered infertile through pollution of oil pipeline leakages and acid rains. So long as crude oil supply pipelines to the refineries and gas supply pipelines to the power plants located in the Niger Delta would cease to be sabotaged piracy and kidnapping would end and overall peace and tranquillity would be restored in the region, it shall be well worth the sacrifice.
Salik was a member of the National Assembly and served as the Minority Leader, House of Representatives between 2003-2005.