LECTURES FROM THE IVORY TOWER
By
The light breeze has ruffled the chicken’s plumage enough to reveal to all that the feathery creature is endowed with a rear end like everyone else. That the chicken’s perineum is otherwise kept out of view at all times should not have been enough to make anyone to doubt that, as far as this bird species is concerned, what goes into its front end must always have an exit, just like in all other living entities. There are consequences to all events of real life, political ones included. Most often, we first encounter the consequences of an event without fully appreciating the relationship that exists between the two. The uproar about recent Supreme Court judgment on the right of littoral states to offshore resources is understandable. Obviously, those who are reacting angrily to this development are disappointed because their expectations may not have been met. For these people, the Nigerian Supreme Court’s decision has robbed the littoral states of their projected sources of revenue which would have accrued to them if the judgment had gone as they had wished. To bridge the wide gulf that exists between expectations of littoral states and the judgment handed down by the wise and learned men of the Supreme Court, our equally knowledgeable compatriots from the ivory tower have stepped up to further clarify the situation.
With the recent input, More on Resource Control some of us are beginning to get a clearer picture of the issues at stake and the forces at play in this bread-and-butter issue. The senior Professor Aluko has crunched up some numbers to clarify the fact that, since oil revenue constitutes merely 12% of Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), its place of import in the national economy is grossly exaggerated, possibly for political reasons. His numbers show that revenues from agricultural production, taxes and custom duties are far more significant as far as the nation’s GDP is concerned. Professor Umozurike’s perspective is that a political solution ought to be explored in addressing the unpalatable consequences of the Supreme Court decision since the present constitution was silent on the specifics about resource control. He advocates out-of-court negotiations between the Federal Government and the littoral states on the one hand or the intervention of the Federal Houses of Legislature by making specific laws to clarify this contentious issue on the other. Professor Bolaji Aluko, on his own part, sees little benefit of utilizing the political option because of the fact that federal representation from the littoral states constitutes only about one in five of members of the National Assembly. For political solution to be possible at all, he cautioned the aggrieved entities to tone down their “usual anti-Yoruba demagoguery” and proceed on their onerous task with optimal level headedness. He concluded his counsel by reminding the aggrieved states that they “should also prepare for a Sovereign National Conference”.
The three professors obviously don’t see anything egregious in the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court on the issue at stake. Based on their submissions, the court verdict was somehow predictable. One could actually say that the outcome of this legal confrontation should have been foreseen. This writer was not overly surprised about the verdict, not necessarily because of the merit of the plaintiff’s case (Federal Government), but because of the real nature of Nigeria’s political economy since the Civil War. Taking into account the operational principle that has guided the nation’s political economy sine post-war era, the Federal Government was destined to prevail in this type of showdown with any constituent interest group in the country. This fact obviously emboldened the Federal Attorney-General to bring this matter to a legal finality with unprecedented alacrity. The demand by littoral states for additional revenue base by requesting allocations for offshore crude oil production in territorial waters that lie beyond their coastline was seen as a double dip by those who control the nation’s purse strings. As if to further explain the rationale for the Supreme Court judgment, Professor Sam Aluko went into some detail to illustrate the miniscule local input by “oil-endowed” states into the final revenue realized by the Federal Government from crude oil production in those areas. The million-dollar question left to answer now is whether the insightful lectures from our compatriots from the ivory tower has assuaged the anger and disappointment that this sensitive issue has brought to inhabitants of states that occupy the Niger Delta and Southeastern coastline.
My take on Professor Sam Aluko’s comment is that control of the Nigerian oil industry is still mostly in foreign hands with little technological and operational input by indigenous manpower. It will be wrong to misinterpret his comments to imply that crude petroleum is tangentially relevant in the national economy because that will be contrary to the truth. The oil industry may contribute only 12% of Nigeria’s GDP but it is responsible for realizing more than 80% of the hard currency that sustains the national economy. Without the steady infusion of petrodollars into the domestic economy, the Nigeria we have today would be totally different. That is the magnitude of influence crude oil and its production has on Nigeria as we speak. Some have astutely remarked the crude oil production is the lifeline of Nigerian economy. It is thus of strategic importance for Nigeria to ensure that oil continues to flow unhindered from oilfields of Southeastern coastal areas and Niger Delta for the foreseeable future. Special government policies, like creation of the Niger Delta Development Corporation (NDDC), are geared toward addressing issues that will help to minimize the chances of societal instability in oil-producing parts of the country. This fact buttresses the stated position that “political solution” rather than litigation or “threatening the universe” can provide faster and long-lasting resolution of conflicting interests that are currently at play in the oil states.
The Supreme Court ruling is like the proverbial breeze that has exposed the chicken’s rear end for all to see. It is now clear that there are differences of opinion on how parts of the country and various interest groups perceive the country’s problems and thus their solutions. In pursuit of perceived interests, groups tend go as far as contradict themselves if such maneuvers would enable them to acquire or sustain undue leverage over the rest. Sometimes, those who would like to be seen as adversaries find it expedient to close ranks on issues of mutual strategic interest. On the subject of resource control, for example, the positions taken by the North and West appear to converge even if there are overt disagreements elsewhere. The inhabitants of Nigeria’s oil-producing states have often been asked to identify strongly with the so-called Southern agenda which requires solidarity amongst the 3 zones of the South. These same people have now learnt that the Southern agenda includes most things except the methodology for achieving equitable allocation of revenue from crude oil production. Wherein lies the basis for the much-touted Southern solidarity if there cannot be a convergence of views on the economic imperatives of entities that comprise the South?
Nigerian political landscape would be much easier to navigate if one takes out time to first understand the many dichotomous relationships that underscore interactions between major interest groups in the polity. The North/South divide was entrenched even before the birth of the Nigerian nation. After the Amalgamation of 1914, the British colonial rule was designed and handled differently for both entities, albeit, under the same administrative umbrella. The Moslem/Christian divide parallels the North/South divide to some extent with Muslim dominance in the North while Christians are more preponderant in the South. There is an East/West divide which is acutely evident in the South. This divide feeds upon a dichotomous relationship where the East remains the principal source of revenue-generating export for Nigeria while the West has become the import corridor and financial center for the entire country, including the East. Of less significance, but nonetheless present, are the rich/poor and urban/rural divide. The urban elite, who constitute the ruling class, are few in numbers but they dominate the economy and control the political terrain throughout the country, even in rural areas where they are not domiciled. The educated/non-literate divide corresponds roughly to the rich/poor and urban/rural divide.
Those who are particularly anguished by official Federal Government stance on resource control and other related matters in our national discourse need to reflect deeply on the prevailing circumstances that influence the socioeconomic and political environment under which they operate. Could it have been that the Akwa Ibom State Governor, for example, was misled by the presumptions he made about the real strategic interests of his political allies from other parts of the country as he prepared his state’s case for the Supreme Court? Whether some are ready to admit it or not, the issue of resource control or revenue allocation is more political than legal in nature. I have reason to believe that inhabitants of oil-producing states could better protect their interests through building of political alliances at zonal, regional and national levels than through isolated engagements with federal bureaucracy as is the case now. Some who may have thought that belligerent confrontation and underhand alliances outside the framework of present political structures could work in favor of the deprived residents of oil-producing areas must now rethink their entire approach after the Supreme Court debacle. In a democracy, interests are better projected and protected through building of alliances with groups that share a commonality of needs. Building of a regional solidarity within the Southeast and Southsouth zones provides the best platform for effectively dealing with resource control and optimal utilization of accrued revenue from local resources derived from the area.
Professor Bolaji Aluko obviously remains firm on his conviction that the so-called Sovereign National Conference (SNC) provides a panacea to the perennial problems of the minorities that inhabit the oil-producing states in the Niger Delta and Southeast coastal areas. He sees nothing wrong with utilizing political channels to seek solutions. One can thus adduce that he does then have implicit confidence in both the government of the day and structures that sustain the present dispensation. When he admonishes all to prepare for the SNC, what does the Professor actually mean? Many people, including this writer, are of the opinion that the era when the idea of an SNC made sense is behind us. This subject has been flogged to death and debated exhaustively over the past years but there appears to be no ready takers beyond the committed few who share a sort of fixation on that methodology. The Professor’s strong inclination toward SNC may be contradictory to his counsel for the aggrieved to pursue political solutions to their problems through the legislative structures we have today. Could he be offering the SNC as a plausible alternative if politicking fails to deliver expected results? If so, what are his timelines for switching from one option to the other? Nigerian politics is certainly enhanced by periodic input from our knowledgeable compatriots from the ivory tower and the contributions from this trio have helped to better educate us on this contentious issue of resource control.
May 2002