Opponents of water bill are driven by parochial, political interests — Minister

In this interview with TrustTV’s Mannir Dan-Ali, the Minister of Water Resources, Engineer Suleiman Hussaini Adamu, explains the rationale and benefi ts of the recently reintroduced Water Bill. Excerpts There is a raging war over the Water Resources Bill. This is the second coming of the same bill. What is your understanding of why the […]

In this interview with TrustTV’s Mannir Dan-Ali, the Minister of Water Resources, Engineer Suleiman Hussaini Adamu, explains the rationale and benefi ts of the recently reintroduced Water Bill. Excerpts

There is a raging war over the Water Resources Bill. This is the second coming of the same bill. What is your understanding of why the bill is generating so much heat in the country.

 Okay, before I say that, let me just take us back to history. First of all, let me make this very clear, the water resources of this country by the provisions of the Water Resources Act 2004 are vested in the federal government, whatever anybody may say the law is there.   The water resources of this country are under the control of the federal government as I’m talking to you now, so nothing has changed.

The process started in 2004 when Nigeria joined other countries of the world to adopt integrated water resources management as a concept of managing the water resource of a country; what that means is that people, the citizens, are empowered to be part and parcel of the process of developing its water resources. I will explain that in detail later but in general terms that’s what it means and that is also trying to create a balance between the ecosystem, you know – the water resources, the land and whatever – so there’s a complete balance within the environment.

 A kind of sustainability drive?

Absolutely. That’s the whole concept. Now on the basis of that, experts in the sector, along with the government, with support from the European Union started to introduce that course  and they found that the best way to do it is to consolidate all the laws, the water laws in the country into one booklet, one statute. As I’m talking to you, we have four  laws that are governing the water resources—four different federal laws; The Water Resources Act 2004, The Nigerian Hydrological Services Act, The National Water Resources Institute Act and the River Basins Development Authorities Act. These are the four laws that govern the water resources sector.

So the idea was okay, let’s put all these things together under one statute, a national water law as it exists in most countries of the world. So, the process started with legal experts. Some professors of law in Nigeria were brought in and they had the first draft of this bill in 2008. 

That is to get the views of different stakeholders?

Absolutely, and then it was finalized but after it was finalized I think the people in the administration that time didn’t give much attention to it. Whoever was the minister then probably didn’t give it the priority that it deserved and therefore it was left in the cooler.

Fast forward 2015, when I came into office, I organised a retreat, brought in water experts from all over the country to discuss the way forward for the water sector and the issue of this water bill kept creeping in; that we need to get this bill passed so that the concept of this integrated water resource manager can be consolidated.

But why are people either misreading or misinterpreting it if what you say is right?

I will come to that in a few minutes. So what we did then was we brought out the bill. I read it personally, cover to cover and then we gave it out to the experts. We took all the comments from other professional bodies and included them. We redrafted it  and included all those comments and then I took it to the National Council on Water Resources

Which is where all the commissioners of water resources are with you as chair?

Exactly; in May 2016 and they endorsed it and then we went to the Federal Executive Council in September 2016. The Federal Executive Council endorsed it – all the 36 states are represented on that council – and then the Attorney General submitted it to the National Assembly. It was passed without any issue at the House of Representatives, when it came to the Senate, some senators  asked some questions. They wanted definitions about this and that and at that material time some people took this bill out and said there was a division between northern senators and southern senators and made it a north-south affair and that was how this controversy started.

And then you were forced to withdraw it at some point?

It was not that it was withdrawn, it was because the tenure of the 8th assembly was coming to an end, so it wasn’t carried because we’re already going into election fever. And then, you know, so when I came back into office the second time I now decided to bring it back. As far as I’m concerned, it was an unfinished business. 

But we are bringing it at another late hour; I mean we are smelling elections a few months down the line?

No, that is not the reason; it was just a coincidence because this bill ought to have been considered way back in December, it was because of the budget constraint that it wasn’t. But the point is again why we took it back was when the controversy got so much, we said look okay we are not dummies, let’s go back and look at this; what is really the problem? And then we invited independent experts again to have a look at this bill and they said primarily there was nothing wrong with this bill, people are just playing politics with it and that brings me to the issue.

I realised there are three categories of people that are attacking this bill; one parochial interests, people that always want to see things in this country from a political angle or a division between North and South, between this and that. 

But their concern is not that they suspect this is another attempt, like in the editorial of one of the newspapers, to have more land for the Fulani to take over?

There is nowhere in this bill, let them go and read the bill. I’ve challenged everybody to go and read the bill, tell me anywhere where land was mentioned. When I addressed the governor’s forum, the governor of Benue, who is the major protagonist of this bill, was the first person to ask me a question: Is this your bill supposed to take land from the banks of the river? I said your Excellency there is nothing in this bill about grabbing land, go and look at it. We are talking about the water resource of the country and in any case all these things you are saying 95 or 96 per cent of this bill are already existing laws. We are just putting them together in one booklet; the laws are there, the laws are existing and that’s what we’re operating. Go and check the Water Resources Act 2004 and look at this bill.

But if already these laws are there why must you have them in one place. I mean given the animosity towards it, given the organised opposition against it. Because you can see newspapers are taking positions, articles have been written, editorials have been written and they are making it look like; in fact one of them called it water resources bill is a recipe for wars?

Yes. Because the people that have been telling this country lies, have been misleading the population, want to keep lying and the only way they can do it, the only way they can keep lying or maintain what they call their own integrity, is to continue to feed people with these lies. I challenge anybody to go and read this bill and tell me whether it’s a recipe for war.

But the land-grabbing thing that they are talking about; because they are saying it is as if it’s going to take over lands by the banks of the waterways?

Excuse me, the Water Resources Act has been existing since the military regime, it was decree 103 or something like that. Land was not grabbed, what makes people think that a law that has been operating for over 20 years, more than 30 years that it is today that it can be used to grab land. There is nothing like that there. The point is, in every country, wherever in the world, trans-boundary waters cannot be left in the hands of states.

That is waters that cut across different states.

Yes, it’s just the same way as the Federal Highway Act. If you look at the highways that transcend states where are they? They’re in the hands of the federal government, they’re all being controlled by the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing.

There’s also the concern that it could affect fishermen because those are some of the arguments; that people in the Niger Delta, who depend on the waters, will now be constrained by this law…

If you look at the bill, and maybe I’ll give you an electronic copy, then you search, Google search for fish, and see whether there’s any mention of fish in that bill, there is nothing like that. What we want to do is to protect our water resources like every other country does, and what we’re saying is that those people, the major people that are opposing it, they stand to gain from this bill more than anybody.

I have said it, repeatedly, the major rivers in this country are rivers Niger and Benue. River Niger comes into Nigeria through Kebbi State, River Benue comes in through Benue State; if the federal government is not the custodian of these rivers, imagine this scenario that Kebbi State wakes up one day and decides to dam River Niger, Adamawa State decides to dam River Benue, what happens downstream, from Niger to Kogi, to Anambra, Delta, Bayelsa and Rivers they will all be affected. Or if, for instance, somebody decides to divert the river, what happens. So you need to have a central authority that will say no that this is not possible and that’s essentially what this is.

So the southern states or the riverine states or the Delta states that have been fed or misinformed about it, they stand to benefit from this bill more than anybody; they are the ones that are protected.

But are you communicating all this to them. Because apparently, there is a gap that is why all this misinformation?

I’ve always said that in this country, we have what we call convenient amnesia; people easily forget. We communicate with everybody. I attended several TV sessions, I’ve done several interviews, we had the national press conference – myself and the minister of information – you remember, all that is there. 

But have you sat down one-on-one with, say, all the governors at their forum to address their fears?

I told you I addressed the governors’ forum before we eventually sent all the bills to them. They set up a committee of their attorneys general, they sat down, they looked at the bill, they sent in their comments and observations about the bill. There was nothing fundamentally wrong, they were only talking about maybe things like devolving powers to deal with the issues of licensing for drilling and so on which we said we’re going to take care of.

 And have you taken care of them?

Oh yes.

So, now states can give the permission for boreholes and all of that?

Obviously the federal government cannot be the one. It will be chaotic if the federal government will be the one issuing licenses for any borehole that is going to be built in the country. The same way you go to the state government for planning approval to build your houses, its the same process we have adopted but we need to have a national framework, we need to have national standards so that we monitor our groundwater as well. So those are the key issues. 

 

But then, maybe it’s coming at the wrong time when there is all this concern about devolution of powers. Because there is this agitation that the federal powers are too much so why add some more. I think this is where some of the opponents of the bill are coming from.

Where is the addition? There is nothing in this bill that adds any power to the federal government beyond what the government is already enjoying in terms of authority.  Section 64 of the constitution is very clear. Go and see it, all trans-boundary rivers have been mentioned. They are under the management, you know I don’t want to use the word control, but you can say control of the federal government. The law already provides that, the constitution provides that, nothing has changed.

And the other thing that people are not even talking about, they are only looking, you’re only saying land grab, land grab. Go and read the bill. I said it’s about sustainability of water resources. This integrated water resources management concept that I’m telling you, it actually whittles the powers of the minister. The current act, Water Resource Act 2004, gives the minister enormous powers to deal with water resources of this country but this bill is now saying let’s have an independent regulator, let’s have a commission, with representatives from all the six geopolitical zones nominated by the president, approved by the Senate and there will be what we call catchment management committees. 

And you are happy to lose this enormous power you have?

Well, that is the way it is supposed to go. If people don’t want it I’m happy to retain the powers that I have now but I don’t want to because I’m a water resources expert and I feel that this bill is good for the country as it is operated elsewhere.

So what this means, and this is why like Zaki Dam has still not been constructed, what this bill is saying is before we can do any major water resources project, all the stakeholders along the catchment area must concur; right now as minister I can just say this is where we’re going to cite our dam and that’s it.

But with this bill you have to get the license; there has to be public hearings and so on and so forth. There has to be environmental impact audit and assessment to ensure that nobody is negatively impacted, that everybody benefits from the project. If any community along the way, or any catchment, feels that this will threaten them you know we have to go and negotiate. 

What other interesting details are there in the bill that maybe people who are opposed to it have not even bothered to know about?

Absolutely, for instance, there is a provision now to empower irrigation farmers through the creation of water user association so that they can be given the mandate to handle the issue of maintenance of secondary and tertiary irrigation infrastructure rather than maybe pay water bills, you know, water charges to government. The law will provide for them to set up their own management and also have bank accounts so that they can pull money and then they will begin to maintain irrigation facilities.

Right now, we are working on TRIMI Project – Transforming Irrigation Management Nigeria Projects – supported by the World Bank. Kadawa irrigation scheme in Kano alone when I came into office 5,000 hectares were not being irrigated because there has been no money. We were relying on budgetary allocation to rehabilitate the irrigation system, channels, the canals they were blocked and nobody was responsible. It was the responsibility of the government and government was not doing it and the farmers were suffering. So now we are having a win-win situation and we need to back it by law so that’s one provision that is also there.

Secondly there’s a provision for what we call the WASH fund, Water Sanitation and Hygiene Fund. This is the fund that we want to create for the state governments. You know the issue of water sanitation hygiene, the statistics are dismal in this country and states are not investing. So states are going to benefit from this bill.

If we have this WASH fund, there is going to be a provision, funds will be available that states can leverage on to go and invest more in water sanitation and hygiene projects, that’s another thing. 

And where will the money come from?

Well the law will provide for it, there will be contributions from the federal government, from states, from development partners and so on and the framework has been developed. There is going to be various channels through which monies can be generated and pooled so that there’s a way of trying to improve on the delivery of water supply and sanitation in the country. 

One key function of your ministry is providing water and it doesn’t appear that there is any city in Nigeria that can boast of portable water supply, why is it so?

Thank you very much, that is what everybody assumes; that it is our responsibility. We are just talking now that the federal government should devolve powers, the federal government was never ever responsible for provision of municipal water supply, that is the responsibility of states, even the rural water supply is the responsibility of states and local governments but because of the concurrent list, the federal government intervenes and supports states to be able to do these things.

But what we realised in the last several years is that many states have abdicated their responsibility to the federal government. The federal government cannot be the one providing water to the city. The system is not designed that way and that is why there is nowhere you will see that the federal government has a water agency, a water board, we don’t have that, only in the FCT. 

Even in the FCT there is no universal coverage in terms of water supply.

Yes again, that is not really the purview of the Ministry of Water Resources, that is for the FCT administration but bear in mind that what has happened to the FCT is that in the last 20-30 years there has been a huge influx of people beyond what was projected. 

But isn’t that expected because everybody wants the good life so if it is the FCT that is where they want to come.

Well, I can assure you, at least this administration, we’re doing a lot on that. If you go to the streets you will see a lot of pipes being laid through a $400 million investment that this administration is making to improve the water supply in FCT. We met the situation, we are improving it. So everything we’re doing in FCT, we’re doing it because it’s a federal territory. So I believe in a few years, because these projects don’t just happen overnight, you know it’s going to be a process of reconstruction and so on, in the next few years I’m sure the situation will improve. There is enough capacity for treatment of the raw water and the treatment in the FCT, the problem is the distribution. 

Which is just like power. They used to tell us generation and then now distribution and transmission so even the water again?

Yes, exactly. They have to go together but I don’t know what has happened, the previous administration said they would take generation or they will take treatment as one aspect, they will finish it and not continue to do the rest; these things have to go together, you cannot have a treatment plant without transmission and the distribution and you say you have water. 

And even the Gurara water transfer, that’s the transfer of water through pipes from Gurara Dam to Lower Usuma that is too small now for the FCT.  It hasn’t improved much…

No, the point I’m making is that’s why I said there is enough water, between Gurara Dam and Lower Usuma Dam. When there is low flow, we release water from Gurara, there is enough raw water. The capacity of the existing treatment plant in Bwari is more than enough to cater for the existing water supply situation even for many years.

But to the ordinary resident wouldn’t mind the technicalities, all he wants is clean water in his tap and that is not happening.

Yes, that is what I’m saying; that the issue was left behind many years ago. If previous administrations had been implementing the water supply master plan for Abuja religiously and commensurate with the population increase, there would not have been a problem. But it’s always been that the population has always been ahead of it. 

But you are the longest serving minister of this particular ministry – over seven years. I think the closest is Muktari Shagari, about six years. So how come you haven’t broken the jinx?

But these are legal issues. Do you know that when I came into office there were 43 water supply projects being implemented by the federal government in various states? 

Instead of it being more of a state matter?

Exactly. More than 43, we restructured them, we finished many. We finished Mongol, we finished another one in Taraba and the largest one was started in 1992, the Zobe Water Supply Project that supplies Katsina. We broke that jinx. We finished it.  The president commissioned it last year.

But the water is not yet flowing in all these communities.

Excuse me. Again when we finished, we handed over to the states. We don’t manage the schemes, we have done the capital contribution it is for the states to buy the alum, to pay for the power, to employ the people to run the scheme. I can’t run the scheme for them.

But at the end of the day, I mean the federal government, including the states,  take the blame because ordinary citizens will say, yes so much more billions we’ve had on radio have been spent but still when you open the tap it’s just hissing sound you get.

Yes, that is because people are ignorant of what the situation is, it is not my responsibility, it is not the responsibility of the federal government to provide water in your taps. I have said that, I’ve made that very clear, it was even in the news recently and people were drawing daggers on me but that is the truth. I’m unapologetic about it, if you don’t have water in your tap, you should go and ask your state government. 

So the federal government is unconcerned about it?

It is not that we’re unconcerned, we have invested money, let me tell you I’ll give an example… 

But they said the taste of the pudding is in the eating.

Excuse me, I cannot manage it, we are not trained, we are not by law required to manage it and again that is one of the problems associated with this bill that you have. It appears state governments cannot manage their state water agencies. 

So what is to be done?

That’s why, again, in the bill we’re strengthening the regulator, when you have a regulator, the private sector will feel comfortable to come and invest their money to manage the schemes. These are some of the key reasons why we really want this law to be passed because if we have an independent regulator, people will come; the chances of public private partnership will be enhanced.

But honourable minister, this sounds like good news to people in water business, pure water, bottled water and even those who are drilling boreholes that the government doesn’t appear to be about to solve the water supply problem to its citizens.

Well it’s unfortunate because I can tell you that there is a lot to say about the quality of pure water but the key thing is that states should invest more and we’ll be making hue and cry about it that they should make water supply, sanitation, hygiene a priority so that citizens can have adequate water supply. I think that is the key to it but of course a vacuum has been created and that’s why the pure water sellers and the water bottling companies are making business but this shouldn’t be the case.

We should improve on our water supply delivery. I can tell you that currently there’s no adequate investment in water supply even the existing schemes that are there in the states are working below capacity and that’s if they are working. The quality of the water itself is not good; so that is why we need an improvement not only in investment but also in managing these services by the states because ultimately it is their responsibility to provide water to the people. It is not the responsibility of the federal government but the federal government has supported states in so many ways but even the schemes that we have done and handed over to the states, in some states  they are not even being managed properly.