NIGERIAWORLD


FEATURE PUBLICATION
 
PICTURE

Wednesday, January 31, 2001 ANNOUNCE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR FRIENDS
The politics of Oil: Who owns Oil, Nigeria, States or Communities?

Prof. Omo Omoruyi
Forwarded by:
LAOLU AKANDE
EMAIL  |  FRONTPAGE


President Obasanjo is known to lose his temper whenever the leaders of the oil producing areas move from demand for more money on the basis of derivation to the issue of resource control. I saw him lose his temper at Harvard on October 30, 1999 because the person who asked him question about the right of the oil producing areas laced the question in the language of self determination for the oil producing areas.


WHY THIS PAPER!

his paper is a reaction to three queries. First, I promised a fellow Edo person, that I would answer the question agitating my brothers and sisters of Edo State on the Edo web on the question, "who owns oil"? Second, I have in mind to react to the agitation among various groups, official and unofficial in the oil producing areas on the same question, which they call for lack of another term, "resource control" within a true federal system. And the third is the most recent paper laced with copious statistics on the skewed revenue allocation among the three tiers of government: federal, state and local and I are sure the question is how come? I shall address the three questions from the point view of the Politics of Oil.

The politics of oil or the question of who owns oil in Nigeria is not a constitutional issue but rather it is a political issue that has to do with two issues. One is power in the plural or polyglot society of Nigeria. Second is the way the succession from colonial to indigenous political class was resolved at the terminal stage of decolonization.

NIGERIA HAS A UNIQUE FEDERAL SYSTEM

The question of local control over local resources is an established constitutional principle in federal systems. But the way the Nigerian federal system developed under the external colonial order (1954-60) and continued under the period of geo-ethno-military internal colonial order (1960-2000) ought to have sensitized us to know that Nigeria has a unique federal system. To change it, it would appear there are three options facing the Nigerian peoples. One is through some form of overwhelming external force. Second is as a result of some internal political convulsion. Three is through some form of negotiation through a Conference. It would appear that these options are facing the Nigerian ethnic nationalities in various parts of the country, who are still debating how to live together and how Nigeria should be governed. The question of who owns oil raised by the oil producing areas today should be seen within this search for options. It would appear that the third option seems most preferable to the first and second. The possibility of some form internal convulsion leading to the third option is a possibility. The possibility of external force in form an appeal to warring factions could also lead to the third option. There is no alternative to the third option to the resolution of the lingering political problems facing the country.

THE COLONIAL GENESIS OF THE PROBLEM

The Politics of Oil initially has to do with land and later it became an issue of who owns oil from the land. The answer should be traceable to the Colonial Ordinances immediately after the Second World War on "land"; and on "minerals", which made all minerals the Crown property, that is the Colonial Government. Section 1 of the Minerals Ordinance of 1945 provides as follows:

"The entire property and control of all minerals and mineral oil, in, under, or upon any land in Nigeria, and of all rivers, streams, and water courses throughout Nigeria, is and shall be vested in the CROWN". There was another twist in the acquisition episode where there was introduced a false dichotomy between "land" and "minerals" as applicable to the Minerals Ordinance. Section 18 of the Interpretation Act of 1964 specifically says that land does not include minerals. But this is at variance with elementary economics book and the customary law, which make no such distinction and in fact subsume minerals within the land. The learned jurist, Justice T Elias agreed with this interpretation too, as it is the practice in the United Kingdom. Elias cited Section 205 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 of UK, which defines "land to include land of any tenure, and mines and minerals" to buttress his point. Why was this false distinction made in the Nigerian law?

ZIK CALLED MINERALS ORDINANCE OBNOXIOUS IN 1945, BUT ABANDONED THAT POSITION LATER, WHY!

Those of us who studied the nationalist movements would recall the agitation of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe (Zik); the foremost nationalist leader over what he called the "obnoxious" ordinances. It would be recalled that the Mineral Ordinance was one of them. Zik's agitation was to the effect that the British government in the name of the ordinance had no right to vest in the British Crown the ownership of land and mineral oils. This was the position he took when he was a nationalist agitator. Why did he change later?

President Obasanjo should stop hanging on to the colonial ordinances and the military Constitution, which did not reflect the reality on the ground. President Obasanjo should stop telling the oil producing areas that the overwhelming force of the US backed Nigerian military would be used to enforce the constitutional position about the ownership of oil. It should be noted that Zik reneged on the agitation for the abrogation of the obnoxious ordinances when he saw himself as the inheritor of the Eastern region where the first oil in Nigeria in Oloibiri in the Ogoni area was located in 1958, two years before independence. What then derives from this Mineral Ordinance is not only obnoxious, but it is still unjust today to the people of the oil producing areas.

We should note two further issues about the Mineral Ordinance. One was that while oil was yet to be found in Nigeria, the British Colonial Government in 1938 gave the Shell D'Arcy, the forerunner of the modern Shell of Nigeria the concession covering the total territory of Nigeria to explore. It should be noted that this was before the beginning of the Second World War. This means that Shell had always been part of the British colonial order in Nigeria.

The second issue was that ownership of oil was resolved then to the effect that where oil was found, that oil automatically belonged to "Her Majesty" or "Her Heirs" or "Her Successors". The owner of the land where oil was found would be paid compensation for the economic crops not for the land or for the minerals. This is still the position today. By "Her Majesty", it means the "British Government" or the "British Colonial Government". By "Her Successors", it means that the right to ownership was in perpetuity, which would be passed on to any successor to the British Crown in Nigeria. It means that this right to ownership of oil would be passed on to who ever succeeds "Her Majesty's Government" in Nigeria.

The two questions germane to the issue are:

  • Who was the successor of the Her Majesty's Colonial Government in Nigeria at independence on October 1, 1960?

  • By extension, who was the successor to the ownership of the mineral oil in 1960?

  • By the rule of succession in international law, Nigeria and not regions became the successor of Great Britain on October 1, 1960. Consequently the Federal Government of Nigeria or the Federal Military Government of Nigeria became the successor to the ownership of what the British Government or the British Crown had in Nigeria after October 1, 1960.

CHANGE OF POLITICAL ORDER ANSWER TO PREVAILING ORDER

Therefore, to change the ownership right of oil to be otherwise, there has to be a fundamental change of the political order. The question is whether those who are talking of an irrevocable commitment to the principle would want to embark on the agitation for a fundamental restructuring of the Nigerian federal system? They cannot bring about local control over local resources by merely issuing communique on the matter. There cannot be a change to the prevailing order by the Governors merely rotating meetings among the south-south states and calling on the President to respect the principle of local control over local resources. Can we then read into the commitments of the Governors of the South-South or of the leaders of the South-South Peoples Conference or of the Union of Niger-Delta within the need that a change of the political order is their goal? I am arguing that they should note that they cannot bring this about by merely appealing to the good nature of the President.

To answer this question we would have to invite the people of the oil producing areas to respond to a set of questions about their leaders from 1960 till date.

  • What role did their leaders play in the past Federal Government formed in 1960?

  • What role did their military officers from oil producing areas play during the successor regime called the Federal Military Government?

  • Why did the leaders of the oil producing not raise the ownership question as a political issue until now?

  • Why did the military officers from the oil producing areas not raise the issue during the period of the successive military regimes?

  • Why did the various communities not raise the legitimacy question, which involved the geo-ethno-military rule, an alien order telling the people of the oil producing areas that the oil behind their fathers" houses, in the river and streams belong to the mythical entity called the Federal Government?

EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL COLONIAL ORDER, THE SAME

The people of the oil producing areas have been wrestling with whether there is a difference between the white man, Sir James Robertson under whose term oil was first discovered in 1958 and the successors, Nigerians. By the successor Nigerians, I am referring to Drs. Azikiwe and Okpara and Chief Awolowo in south on the one hand and Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto and Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa on the other, who presided over the oil money after independence. The British colonial ruler and the later indigenous colonial ruler were all foreign to the people of the oil producing areas. They were alien to the nature of the oil producing areas; they did not understand their problems; they were alien to their vision.

The oil producing areas were faced with a new set of successors from 1966. I am referring to General Yakubu Gowon and other military Heads of State between 1966 and 1999, who inherited oil wealth not just the paper ownership rights from the Mineral Ordinance. To the successive military governments since 1970, the ownership of oil has ceased to be in dispute. General David Ejoor in his memoir gave a detailed analysis of the new generals from non-oil producing areas created from oil money and who stick to power because of the oil.

TRIPOD OR POLYGLOT

Those who want to discuss the oil issue should resolve some vital question on our concept of the mythical entity, called Nigeria. Is it a land of three ethnic nationalities (tripod) or a land of many ethnic nationalities (polyglot)? It would appear that only three ethnic nationalities are recognized by President Obasanjo's administration. This was acknowledged by President Obasanjo on October 1, 2000 as consisting of the Yoruba, the Ndi Igbo and the Hausa/Fulani. According the President, when these three groups meet and resolve issues among themselves the Nigerian problems are resolved. This was why he used the occasion of the 40th Independence Anniversary to call on the leaders of the Afenifere (Yoruba), the Ohaneze (Ndi Igbo) and the Arewa (Hausa/Fulani) to meet and resolve the lingering Nigerian political issues among themselves. This is the tripod approach to Nigerian politics, which should have been done away with by now, with the introduction of the notion of "Federal Character, which takes States in the Federation as the units of representation. The tripod approach to Nigerian politics also applies to how the oil, which comes from the non-majority areas is approached in the political and economic discourse. We should also be aware of the feeling among the majority ethnic nationalities that the areas producing oil by virtue of powerlessness in the military and politics should not be allowed to lay claim to the oil from their areas as of right.

President Obasanjo, like other rulers from majority ethnic nationalities before him does not hide his contempt for the leaders of the oil producing areas. As an elected President, like another elected President, Alhaji Shehu Shagari before him he has learnt to ignore them whenever they are making claim for more money on the basis of derivation.

President Obasanjo is known to lose his temper whenever the leaders of the oil producing areas move from demand for more money on the basis of derivation to the issue of resource control. I saw him lose his temper at Harvard on October 30, 1999 because the person who asked him question about the right of the oil producing areas laced the question in the language of self determination for the oil producing areas.

OIL PRODUCING STATES OR COMMUNITIES

Another issue, which I should raise is, that when President Obasanjo was a military Head of State, he made a distinction between oil producing communities and oil producing states. As far as he is concerned, the Governors of States where oil is found have no business talking to him about oil revenue, because States do not produce oil but communities. In fairness to the President, he has always assured the people of the oil producing communities, that contrary to their past military rulers, he would meet the development needs of the oil producing communities long neglected by the State military governors. President Obasanjo is known to biter with the past military governors of these states, who collected money on their behalf in the past and squandered the money on other purposes. This is a sore point, which past military governors (Diette-Spiff, Esuene, Ejoor and Ogbemudia) would have to address. I heard this argument from him in the past when he was the military Head of State and he is still saying so today as an elected President. The question is why should the President visit the sins of the past military administrators of these areas on the elected State administrators of today? Nigerian federalists should be worried as to how and why the President plans to bypass the State governments and deal directly with the oil producing communities. This is the basis of the activities of the Traditional Rulers of the Producing Communities who are dealing with the President and want the money due to States on the basis of the 13% derivation in the Constitution should be paid to the "oil producing communities/local government areas". The Traditional Rulers" argument is that "Communities" own oil and not "States". One does not know the end of this argument; very soon someone would kick that "villages" should be the unit of payment and not the amorphous term, "communities". This is a very dangerous development and unfortunately, the Presidency is encouraging it. Why should the National Assembly allow this?

TAKE OIL PRODUCING STATES AS STAKEHOLDERS

One could argue that it is inexplicable that the country under this elected dispensation to use the legal fiction called the Constitution to ignore the areas that produce about 90% of foreign exchange to the federal and state governments. It is politically wise to deal with the elected officials of these areas and make them critical to the resolution of the crisis in the oil sector. They should be stakeholders in addition to the Federal Government and the Oil Companies. President Obasanjo does not even want to listen to those who dared to raise the question of part ownership of oil, especially when it comes from the oil producing areas. The question is why?

President Obasanjo should have found a way of making the oil producing areas as shareholders in the joint venture arrangements with the oil companies, thus making them stakeholders in the oil industry. This would not violate the constitution. This would have been good politics.

President Obasanjo should stop hanging on to the colonial ordinances and the military Constitution, which did not reflect the reality on the ground. President Obasanjo should stop telling the oil producing areas that the overwhelming force of the US backed Nigerian military would be used to enforce the constitutional position about the ownership of oil. This is an example of "might is right". This is likely to be counterproductive and laden with potentiality for violence in the oil sector.

BEYOND THE TRIPOD

As far as President Obasanjo is concerned, Nigeria is made of the three ethnic nationalities. Since oil comes from the non-majority areas, the President attitude is dictated by his world view of Nigeria. What do the political leaders from the oil producing areas say to this interpretation of Nigerian society? Only the leader of the Ijaw National Congress, Dr. Kimse Koko dared to raise question about the President's interpretation of Nigerian society. Does Nigeria consist of many ethnic nationalities, the size of each not withstanding? I would have thought that the political leaders in the same party with the President from these non-majority areas would have called his attention to the distorted view of Nigeria. President Obasanjo's view is worse than "marginalization". President Obasanjo told the minority ethnic groups in Nigeria that they do not exist even though the resources that sustain the country come form their areas. Nigerian federalists must move beyond the tripod approach to the Nigerian politics.

The recent meeting of the political leaders of the middle-belt and of the south-south on the one hand and between the Governors of the southern states on the other have not directed themselves to the issue of fundamental restructuring of Nigeria. I can see the attempt of the leaders of the "middle-belt" and the leaders of the "south-south" to reach some understanding about the future of Nigeria as a repeat of the episode of 1977/8. For those who are wondering what I am talking about, I was party to the meeting in November 1977 at the Satellite Town Lagos involving the Council of Unity and Solidarity (CUS) led by Chief Solomon Lar and the southern minorities from old Bendel, Rivers, Cross River in the Constituent Assembly led by Obi Wali, Ime Ebong, Omo Omoruyi, Mudiaga Odje, Wills Obong and Melford Okilo. This meeting eventually led to Club in 1978 and later the Nigerian Peoples Party.(NPP) What we did in 1977/8 was to let Nigeria know that outside the three ethnic nationalities, there could be a fourth force, which we christened the 4th Dimension in Nigerian Politics. The majority ethnic nationalities were dubbed the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Dimensions respectively. Why this attempt failed is the subject of my forthcoming book titled Beyond the Tripod in Nigerian Politics. If we know why these experiments failed then, we could work to avoid it today.

The leaders of the oil producing states in my view are spending too much time on the existing revenue allocation as anti federal principle. They are ignoring the politics of it, which antedates President Obasanjo's administration and will not die with President Obasanjo's administration as long as the power relations in Nigerian polyglot society still remains what it is today. Certainly the situation will remain so as long as the attitudes of the leaders of the three ethnic nationalities remain anti-minority as it is today.

NEED FOR VISIONARY LEADERSHIP

To the non-majority groups in Nigeria coming under the umbrella of the "middle-belt" and "south-south" entente, there are two issues, which should be aware of.

One is that the military, the ruling political parties and the majority ethnic nationalities and other traditional power institutions are still under the control of those who would want the status quo (of three majority groups) maintained. It should be noted that one of the bone of contention between President Obasanjo and the leaders of the Arewa Consultative Forum is that President Obasanjo should not allow the middle-belt to develop an identity from the north. I see history repeating itself. These same leaders arrogated themselves that they spoke for the north and told us in the Constituent Assembly in 1977/78 that there was nothing called middle-belt and that at the appropriate time they would call on the true leaders of these areas. They consequently ignored the Lars, the Unongos etc until they taught them lesson. There is a "middle-belt" for goodness sake.

Second is that the leaders of the minority groups including the military officers, the politicians and traditional power institutions in the past failed in two areas and unless we are careful, history would repeat itself. The two areas are one, they failed and are still failing to design a Vision for Nigeria and two, they have not thrown up and are still failing to throw up a political leadership that can go to Nigeria with a different vision and a different style of meeting the vision of one Nigeria. How and why the minorities failed in the past is discussed in my forthcoming book, Beyond the Tripod in Nigerian Politics.

May I state that what the majority ethnic nationalities lack today is visionary leadership after the death of the three political leaders, Awo, Zik and Sardauna. The past military regimes did not also provide this, except for the short period of General Murtala Muhammed.

President Obasanjo has the opportunity to be a visionary leader if he would be a politician. At the moment he is not and with passing days he seems to be squandering the good will he had when he became what I called a bridge between the past the future in 1999. I cannot see how he would be able to transform himself into one overnight in view of the "Politics of 2003". Can the 4th Dimension supply this?

WHO SHOULD BE SPENDING THE OIL MONEY?

Those who raise the question about the ownership of oil are concerned about who should be spending the oil money. Who should actually be spending the oil money? Should it be the Nigerian government based in Abuja? Should it be the Nigerian government in conjunction with the oil producing areas? Should it be the oil producing areas alone?

The Constitution from 1960 till after the Civil War up till 1978 gave the right of ownership to the Federal Government but the proceeds was shared between the Federal Government and the Regions or States on the basis of derivation like the agricultural crops.

The situation changed just before 1979 under the administration of General Obasanjo as the military Head of State. For the avoidance of doubt, the ownership question was clearly spelt out in the 1979 Constitution and in subsequent enactment including the 1999 Constitution. From the 1979 Constitution, any claim of the right of ownership of minerals was denied the units in the federation called states. This rule also denies the right of ownership to local communities. We can what we like about the origin of the Constitution, that was what the Constitution says and until is changed that remains so, that the Federal Government has an exclusive control over the oil and minerals.

The President is therefore right when he said that the Constitution before and since independence gives that power to the Federal Government of Nigerian. It makes no provision for either shared power between the Federal government and the State Governments or between Federal Government and the oil producing Communities. How to cope with the neglect of the areas that produce the oil is assumed to be the responsibility of the Federal Government acting with the oil companies. The quest for ownership by the oil producing states should and ought to be sought through the interplay of politics and not through the constitution.

POLITICIANS OF OIL STATES SHOULD STOP BETRAYING THEIR PEOPLE

I am shocked that the political leaders of the oil producing areas that supported the PDP and elected the President are impotent in the President's administration. This is not new. This was evident in the past under the military administration and under the civilian administration. They as politicians in the government under the northern led Federal government (1960-66) and as military officers in the military administration of General Gowon (1966-75) betrayed their people in the past. Why can the current political leaders not learn from their predecessors? One should examine the status of the political leaders of the oil producing areas in the ruling political parties today. Are they not still betraying their people today?

For the future, what are the people doing to make a change in the way things are done in Nigeria when it comes to oil? This is what we are talking about today. It certainly cannot come by way of mounting the platform and calling the President names. It definitely cannot be the form of an organized meeting calling on the President to make money available to the oil producing areas as a privilege. It can only come by way of pushing for a negotiated arrangement, which will make the ownership of oil as a right. The ownership question must be tackled not as a constitutional issue but as a political issue.

The Governors of the "South-South" in the same political party with President Obasanjo should be ready to challenge their party leadership and the President on this question. They should be prepared to offer an alternative vision instead of holding meetings and passing meaningless resolutions on resource control.

One does not know if they know, but it is a common knowledge that the President's point man, Chief Tony Anenih is floating an idea that would make the renunciation of "resource control" as a basis of renomination. Should this not be an opportunity for the Governors as the political leaders of their people to offer an alternative vision? What is the reaction of the Governors to this threat? Are they willing to challenge this? Are they willing to risk their renomination by continuing to stick to the agitation for resource control? These are questions that test leadership.

Maybe a realignment of political forces could be the answer to the ownership question of oil. There are obvious questions for them to answer. Are they willing to form a political party of their own on the basis of resource control? Are they willing to seek accord with other political organizations that make the resource control cardinal to their position? To Governors and the other leaders of the oil producing areas in the PDP why are they silent on these issues? Do they know that these are the issues facing the oil producing areas and states in quest of resource control?

RECAP

To answer the question who owns oil, I should direct them to the colonial origin for the answer to the question and for the perpetuation of that fact in the military domination of Nigerian politics since 1966. Oil is the property of the Federal Government of Nigeria since 1960. Since 1966, the ownership has undergone many changes and virtually wiped out the oil producing areas from the ownership since the period of General Murtala/Obasanjo regime in 1976/79, which promulgated the Land Use Decree of 1976. The fortune of the oil producing areas as potential owners or part owners of oil was further dashed with the entrenchment of the Land Use Decree as Land Use Act in the 1979 Constitution. The military regimes after this period subsequently ensured that it remains entrenched in the Constitution including the 1999 Constitution. That is the position today.

OTHER MATTERS: SOURCE OF BITTERNESS OF YOUTH IN THE NIGER-DELTA

A summary of the grievances of the youth in the Niger-Delta is the feeling that oil from their communities is in the hands of some distant military/political figures such as General Gowon, General Muhammed/Obasanjo, Alhaji Shagari, General Buhari, General Babangida, General Abacha, General Abubakar and now President Obasanjo. What should they do to change the situation? Should it be through the Constitution? They know that this would not work because the process of making that Constitution ignored them the oil producing areas. Should it be through an appeal to the President for adjustment to the derivation? They rejected this as that would not work. Should it be through a federal initiative for the development of the oil producing areas? This seems to be working with some and not with others. Should it be through violent attack on the oil companies? This was tried and it did not see, to deter the Federal Government from laying claim to oil as a Nigerian property. Should it be through a fundamental restructuring of the federal system? But the President is in a dilemma. He bought the argument of those who sponsored his election from the North and the military that "restructuring" is another word for dissolution of the union. These are the questions for the political leaders to tackle on behalf of their people and of Nigeria. The end should be the ownership question. The federal initiative on behalf of the oil producing areas, such as the introduction of the Niger Delta Development Commission is not a solution to the ownership question.

The political leaders of the oil producing areas should be concerned with one basic question. How do they feel that there is no prospect that their sons and daughters would ever be the elected President or become the Military Head of State now or in the future? If that prospect does not exist then, how can you put on the table the subject of oil for discussion?

FROM MY NOTE-BOOK

Let me be personal by drawing from my experience. Having served as a member of the Technical Committee on Revenue Allocation in 1977/78 under the current President when he was the military Head of State (1976/79). I was not surprised when the President rebuffed the advocates for resource control and when he sent soldiers to Odi to teach the Ijaw some lesson. I knew his thoughts about the people of the oil producing areas between 1966 and 1975 under General Gowon. I knew his contempt for the former military governors of these areas under General Gowon. His views have not changed a bit today. See the Report of the Technical Committee on Revenue Allocation, 1978.

I was a Member of the Constituent Assembly in 1977/78. I know the feelings of both the majority and the minority groups on the one hand and the feelings of the rest of Nigeria and the people of the oil producing areas on the other. For those who want to do more reading should consult Volume 111 of the Proceedings of the Constituent Assembly 1977/78.

My experiences from the two settings taught me one lesson. I learnt that the Politics of Oil, is based on who rules or should rule in Nigeria. Let me further direct your attention to the politics of oil bothering on the ownership question of oil to the Proceedings of the Nigerian Political Science Association, 1980. The title of my Presidential Address to the Annual Conference of the Nigerian Political Science Association at Port Harcourt in 1980, was the "Politics of Oil" and I drew on my experience from these two settings and my knowledge of the debate about oil during the nationalist days. I raised the question then, which is still current today that suppose oil were found in Ibadan (Yoruba land, Afenifere) or in Enugu (Igbo land, Ohaneze) or in Kano (Hausa land, Arewa), the issue of who owns oil would not have arisen.

Fellow Nigerians and those of you concerned with bringing justice to the wretched of Nigeria, ownership of oil, as a Nigerian federal government property is not due to the inherited ordinance that gave the total control of oil to the mythical entity called Federal Government of Nigeria or to the subsequent Federal Military Government. It is a reflection of the power relation in the polyglot called Nigeria and the attitude of the leaders of the majorities in the exercise of power during this period.

Can we imagine a situation where Zik or Awo or Sardauna of blessed memory would have accepted oil as a "Nigerian" property, if oil were found in their domain, East or West or North respectively? Is it not obvious that these three leaders of the three major ethnic nationalities exploited the relative powerlessness of the people of the oil producing areas to lay claim to oil as a Nigerian property. They are doing this because they know fully well that the oscillation of power would not never shift to the oil producing areas. Is this the situation today?

Do the leaders of the oil producing areas understand that there is a conspiracy on the part of the leaders of the majority ethnic nationalities from the south that oil should remain a federal property? Is it not obvious that their own plea was that as long as the oil producing areas were located in the old Eastern and Western Regions, the situation was fine? It is a matter of history that as long as money was paid to Enugu and Ibadan on the basis of derivation, the situation was fine with oil as a Nigerian property.

It is a matter of record that these southern political leaders never raised the question of ownership because of the false hope that one day, Chief Awolowo or Dr. Azikiwe would become the ruler of Nigeria in place of the northern leaders. Fellow Nigerians, we should note that the false distinction between oil and agricultural produce (ground nut, cocoa and palm produce) as allocation on the basis of derivation did not exist.

"OIL", "MILITARY" AND "POWER SHIFT" HAVE THE SAME WEIGHT

The "Politics of Oil" is or should be equally as volatile as the Politics of the Armed Forces" and the "Politics of Power Shift". For the people of the oil producing areas, the approach to the three issues should not be different from the way the majority ethnic nationalities, the Yoruba, the Ndi Igbo and the Arewa approach them. Those who are talking of power sharing should adopt a new approach to the power analysis of Nigerian politics. Traditional power analyst tends to unduly focus too much attention on the sharing of the power in the Presidency. Some only talk about power in terms of power shift ie the President shifting from the north to the south as the case may be. This is a very simplistic approach of power in Nigerian politics. Power analysts s and especially political leaders of the oil producing areas should focus on the armed forces and the oil sector as power domain equally as critical as the Presidency or an office in the Presidency. This is the way the northern political leaders understand power in Nigeria. The political leaders of the oil producing areas should learn from the Arewa, the northern leaders. The northern leaders do not believe that power can be shared in Nigeria. They are right. Hence they hold that the three domains of power as one and indistinguishable entity. The northern leaders also hold that they want to control the three and not one or the other. This is a fact, which Nigerians in the oil producing areas should appreciate.

It is a fact that in the past and now or in the foreseeable future the oil producing areas cannot be President; they cannot lead the armed forces and consequently they would have trouble securing the right to the ownership of oil. General David Ejoor's memoir (Reminiscences) dealt with this relationship and why the oil producing areas and other minorities, the Yoruba and the Ndi Igbo would have a hell of a time becoming the President, the leader of the armed forces and the owner of oil. General Ejoor also provided the reasons why the north would want to cling on to the political power, the military power and the control of the oil sector at all cost.

To those who are interested in further insights into the Politics of Oil, the Politics of the Armed Forces and the Politics of Power Shift should read General Ejoor's book, Reminiscences, which still remains classics in the literature on Nigerian military till date. To the people of the oil producing areas, oil would continue to be a "doom" in their areas and a "boom" in the north that controls the Federal Government and the armed forces, unless the "power equivalence" among the three variables are dealt with in a National Conference.

Now that there is rethinking on the part of the southwest the southeast and some northern leaders on the ownership question of oil, the leaders of the oil producing areas should come to terms with a new definition of resources. Resource should be include the ports, sea and air and even industrial plants as part of the issues that should be subjected to the practice of local control of local resources.

Finally, in response to the three inquiries and in view of the yearnings of the 17 southern governors in the recent meeting in Lagos and Enugu, may I urge those in search of a solution to consider the four-point agenda.

Be clear of the goal you want; it is not Presidency for its sake, it is leadership of the armed forces; it is the control of the resources located in your area.

Be clear that this goal is only realizable through the fundamental restructuring of Nigeria, which would put the three items on the table for discussion in a National Forum or Conference.

Be prepared to join any political organizations that support your minimum agenda of fundamental restructuring.

Be prepared to trade the Presidency, the control of the military for the local control over local resources.

If EK Clark or Horsfall or Asemota or Dafinone or Igbinedion were to become the President today under the prevailing Constitution and the unrepresentative and highly politicized armed forces, the issue of ownership of oil will not change.




HOMEFEATURE ARTICLESNATION IN FOCUSMESSAGEBOARDNEWS ARCHIVESEARCH
Copyright © 1999-2001, NigeriaWorld ®
Privacy Policy