Re: Agriculture, Petroleum, Land And Resource Control - A response to Alhaji Wada Nas' reported comments on the issue of resource control.

by

Francis Elekwachi

Wada Nas, in the recent comments credited to him in the Vanguard (Nigeria) of 5 April 2001, misses the point totally on the question of resource control.

While it is arguable that the Nigerian agricultural industry may well contribute more to the GDP than petroleum and gas, and may also employ about 70% of the work force, that is an irrelevant consideration for the purposes of resource control, except to the extent that the "North" is and has continued to reap huge profits from its "control of its own agricultural resources" and therefore should have no complaints about the "East" and the "South-South" having "control over their own resources", including petroleum and gas.

The "North" is the "food-basket" of Nigeria, we agree. However, Northern farmers get to keep the proceeds from their farms and their land, after paying the requisite tax to Northern State Governments. Except where any produce from "Northern Agriculture" is for export, the Federal Government hardly gets to reap any direct benefit for the Federation Account for subsequent sharing with other States. Northern land is hardly polluted by agriculture, nor do Northerners have to relocate from their ancestral homes for the purposes of agriculture.

In the late 1980s and early 1990's this writer lived in Kano. Along with some Northern friends, this writer engaged in wheat and maize farming by leasing plots of farm land along the irrigation belt of the Hadejia-Jemaare River Basin Development Authority. Most discerning Northern civil servants and employees in the private sector and other Nigerians such as this writer would lease plots of irrigated farm land each year and engage hired labour to cultivate, weed, maintain and finally harvest the planted crops. Every year for about four years, this writer sold about 25-hundred-kilogram bags of wheat and about 15 bags of maize, reaping huge profits, after deducting cost of land, labour, materials and transportation. Local Northerners, particularly civil servants and employees made more from such farming activity than they realised in paid wages. Other than the cost of land, which presumably would include taxes paid by land owners to the State Government, no other taxes were involved. The implication is that the money made from such farming is almost not taxed or is very undertaxed. And this is money paid out in lump sum to the the "Northern farmer"! Above all, there is no trace of any tax on farm produce ever making its way to the Federation Account, except where produce buyers decide to export the produce. This writer is certain and remains convinced that nothing has changed currently.

Northern farmers make more money from farming than Nigeria makes from petroleum and gas. However, they get to keep all that money to and for themselves, without being required to share the proceeds with the rest of the Nigerian Federation. The same is true in the case of cocoa farmers in the "West", except that cocoa is largely an export produce, therefore the exporters pay tax to the Federation Account. But that does not detract from the fact that cocoa farmers and other farmers in the "West" get to keep the proceeds from the produce of their land and retain the use of their land. These farmers and their States are not required to share with the rest of the Nigerian Federation, the "natural resource" of their land, which in this instance, is the farm produce or "the utility of their land" which makes it possible for them to profitably farm on them. These farmers in the "North" and the "West" engage in economic activity on their land without hindrance and are hardly ever required to pay any tax at all to the Federation Account.

The fact is that given the scenario above, both the "North" and the "West" have always had "resource control" over their natural resources, which is agriculture. The same is not true for the East and the South-South whose natural resources have continued to be "stolen" by both the "North" and the "West", who have between themselves controlled political power in Nigeria by the muscle of the gun. The current Federal Government and future ones, at least for a few decades to come is and, will continue to be controlled by the "North" and the "West" because of the obvious advantages flowing to them from their control of the Nigerian Military and their long term control of past Nigerian Military Governments.

Of course, it is noted that most, if not all agricultural produce from the "North" are sold locally in Nigeria to feed the local population of about 130 million people, while almost all the petroleum and gas are exported to earn foreign exchange. But should it make any difference that the "natural agricultural resource" in the "North" and "West" are for local consumption and sold in the local currency, while the "natural petroleum and gas resources" of the "East" and "South-South" are for foreign consumption and therefore earn foreign exchange for the country? This writer believes that it should make no difference, given that both types of resources are based on ownership of land. As the farmer must invest labour and resources on the land to produce agricultural products, so must the owners of petroleum and gas bearing land invest resources in order to produce the petroleum and gas. If you do not own or lease a piece of farm land, you cannot farm. Also, one who owns land, owns everything underneath that land to the centre of the earth and above such land to the high heavens! Above all, a farmer who loses land to petroleum and gas activity, has lost the opportunity to farm and make a yearly living from that land, which farming would have otherwise afforded them. The same applies to fishermen and fisherwomen who can no longer fish in polluted waters. While Northerners and Westerners can perpetually farm their land, the farmers of the East and South-South are denied that opportunity by the Federal Government through a deliberate policy of not allowing resource control to those geopolitical regions.

Primarily in nature, man acquired and kept land for the purposes of agriculture (growing food and hunting game to survive). Most of Nigeria and particularly the entire South survive on subsistence farming. Therefore, every Nigerian, whether they live in the North, East, West or South-South is and must be entitled to their fundamental right to farm on their native land (both privately and community owned land). When the owners of land in the "East" and "South-South" are denied the use of their land for agricultural purposes because of petroleum and gas industrial activity, they are essentially denied their only means of livelihood and their right to survival and to life! In essence, the denial of "resource control" to the "East" and the "South-South" (while the "North" and the "West" enjoy same) can only be fairly equated to wanting the peoples of these geopolitical regions dead and exterminated!

Some may argue that compensation for land, on just terms, is paid to Easterners and peoples of the "South-South" whenever their land is acquired for petroleum and gas industrial activity. However, in the Nigerian practice, it is very clear that acquisition of land by the Federal Government for petroleum and gas activities is never on just terms. For one, those whose lands are acquired are not paid adequate compensation. One off payments are attempted but these are reported to hardly reach those affected. Secondly, people are often relocated but the houses built for them and the environments created for them at the new locations are not equivalent to the losses suffered by such people. Thirdly, loss of ancestral land and habitat is impossible to materially compensate. But the most important fact is that "a one-off compensation payment", as is practiced in Nigeria, no matter how large the sums involved, do not and cannot constitute "acquisition on just terms".

In Nigerian circumstances (in the East and South-South) only compensation by "Ongoing Royalty Payment" to land owners can be considered as "acquisition on just terms". In the Western World where all the big multi-national petroleum and gas firms operate, people on whose land any natural resources are located are paid "Ongoing Royalty Payments" as agreed. That should be the same in Nigeria, particularly in the "East" and the "South-South". This opinion stems from the circumstances explained earlier above. Land is primarily and principally for farming purposes. Once industrial activity takes over the land, no farming can occur on that land. In the "North" and the "West", owners of land or farmers and their survivors will continue to reap resources from their land for ever and ever, ad infinitum. So also, should the owners of land and farmers and their survivors in the "East" and "South-South". Because the latter can no longer farm on their land once petroleum and gas activities take over, a one off compensation is unjust for the simple reason that a just value of such compensation is unquantifiable. The owner of land in the East and the South-South should enjoy a yearly and unlimited benefit from their land as their counterparts in the "North" and the "West".

Another important factor is the fact that petroleum and gas activity is finite. Once the wells become unprofitable or once exploitation is complete, the owners of the land should be able to return to their ancestral lands and should take back possession of their lands. Therefore, the appropriate land transaction should be based on leasehold for a limited period of years, during which royalty from petroleum, as well as yearly lease should continue to be paid to the land owner/farmer.

Further, the refusal of resource control to the "East" and the "South-South" and one-off compensation payments for the acquisition of land, mean that the future of the future generations of peoples from these geopolitical regions have been mortgaged. In the culture of these peoples, land has always been transferred from one generation to the next. Where such land has been taken over by the Federal Government, as is always the case, the future generation are rendered landless! Why should peoples in the "North" and the "West" retain their lands for their generations, including all proceeds from their lands, while that belonging to the peoples of the "East" and "South-South" must be mortgaged and the proceeds from such land is allocated mostly to the peoples of the "North" and the "West" .

Some might argue that one-off compensation can be invested by today's generation of Easterners and South-South peoples for their future generations and that if they "blow" all of the monetary compensation, then they have themselves to blame, but not the Federal Government. But this argument begs the issue. The real issue is that one-off compensation, as shown earlier in this article, is actually thievery by the Federal Government because such compensation fall very far short of the real value of these lands, which is indeterminate. Above all, a failure to make "Ongoing Royalty Payments" for property found under ones land, which belong to the land owner, is in effect theft and unjust dispossession per excellence.

Thus, the question of ownership of land and land tenure in Nigeria must be revisited, particularly the Land Use Decree or Act, which should and must be abrogated, if Nigerians, particularly Easterners and peoples of the South-South are to be free from internal colonialism by the "North" and the "West". At least, that is the combined effect of the refusal by the Nigerian Federation to grant "resource control" to the East and the South-South over its resources, while allowing the North and the West "resource control" over their own resources (largely agricultural activity and use of land), and the role the Land Use Decree/Act has played in facilitating such circumstances.

Some might argue that it was merely coincidental or that it was an act of God or nature that petroleum and gas abound in the East and South-South, thus making it inevitable that the Land Use Decree/Act be applied more in these geopolitical regions than in the North or the West, which have largely natural agricultural resources. This writer will beg to differ. Instead, it is argued here that the Land Use Decree/Act was deliberately targeted at the East and the South-South, to facilitate the acquisition of land on less than just terms for petroleum and gas activity by the Federal Government and to remove any chances of "resource control" arguments by dispossessed Nigerians from these geo-political regions. Of course, it is noted that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 has provisions protecting property and acquisition on just terms. It is hoped that before long the constitutional validity of the Land Use Decree/Act would be challenged by those who have been dispossessed under those statutory provisions.

The net effect of the Land Use Decree/Act and its application in the East and the South-South to forestall resource control is that peoples in the East and the South-South have reverted back to internal colonialism by the "North" and the "West". Nigeria became an independent Nation in 1960 and a Republic in 1963, and by that fact all Nigerians including those in the East and the South-South regained complete freedom and ownership of their lands and the property in them, which were vested in the British Crown under the colonial era. Nigeria at independence automatically discarded the British or English land tenure system. However, for the peoples of the East and the South-South, freedom from colonialism was shot-lived as an unrepresentative Federal Military Government re-imposed a "colonial land tenure system", which allows the peoples in the "North" and the "West" to use most of their lands and to control most of their largely agricultural resources, while dispossessing those in the East and South-South of their lands and the resources in them.

Even if the Federal Government where to argue that the petroleum and gas underneath one's land were "public property" (an untenable and unsustainable argument which would amount to "theft"), then it cannot escape the inequity of denying Eastern and South-South peoples of their farm lands, without providing such land owners or their survivors with a yearly payment, for ever and ever, as to adequately compensate for the yearly farm produce or yield, which they would have otherwise reaped from such land. Only such compensation to Easterners and Peoples of the South-South can come close enough to attempting to equalising their rights with those currently enjoyed by land owners/farmers in the "North" and the "West".

Resource control is directed at correcting these injustices. The peoples of the East and the South-South are entitled to enjoy and control their resources as is currently allowed to the "North" and the "West". It does not make any difference whether land is used for agriculture or to tap petroleum. The singular most important issue is that the owner of land owns every resource in their land, be that resource agricultural or petroleum. If the people of the "North" and the "West" are entitled to live off their land from generation to generations ad infinitum, then there is no reason why the peoples of the East and the South-South should be denied same. The effects of the Land Use Decree/Act and refusal to grant resource control to the East and the South-South are discriminatory, raising further grounds for a constitutional challenge over the validity of that piece of Statute.

Wada Nas was reported to have threatened that the "North" would impose heavy taxes on its agricultural products should the South win the right to control their resources. We quote his comments extensively below.

"In the event of resource control coming into force, what would be the reaction of others whose own resources are not oil?"

"To answer this question, let us enumerate the various resources available to us."

"These are agricultural resources which include livestock, fishery and water, solid minerals, land and what somebody calls "power resources."

"I can imagine Northern states for example taking effective advantage of their agricultural resources. Evidently, with revenue no longer coming from oil, they may form a cartel to impose heavy taxes on agricultural produce leaving their areas for the South. This may give rise to higher food prices in the South and the situation could be better appreciated if we take into account that South depends, about 70 per cent of its food requirements, on the North.

"A goat selling for say N9,000.00 may eventually go for about N30,000.00 in the process of heavy taxation to meet demand for development. This would impact very negatively on the Southern poor and may therefore create very serious problems.

"We know the massive movement from the South to the North in search of land. When the going gets tough, Northern states may impose stiff land rates on non-Northerners in order to generate revenue,".

As our analysis above have shown, the "North" and the "West" already effectively enjoy "resource control". At least, it is common knowledge that the "North" and the "West" keep all the proceeds of their agricultural activities to themselves. They also use their lands freely because they engage largely in agricultural and manufacturing activity. In the East and the South-South, the story is different, given federal acquisition of land and the petroleum and gas and all the property in those lands. "Resource Control" therefore, is a means of equalising the rights of all Nigerians. We therefore conclude that Wada Nas' talk of the "North" imposing crippling taxes on food and agricultural produce from the "North", in the event that the South gains control over its resources, is sheer nonsense. The "North" and the "West" are in control of most of their resources anyway, paying little or no tax into the Federation Account (from agriculture), therefore the "East" and the "South-South" must also take control of their own resources. Appropriate taxes on all resources, be they agricultural, mineral, petroleum, gas, solid minerals, power, energy etc, can then be worked out and agreed by all the geopolitical regions of the Nigerian Federation. The agreed taxes on all resources will then be paid by all such geopolitical regions into the Federation Account, for the running of the Federation.

Francis Nnamdi Elekwachi-Mpuomigbo