Nigerians are generally an emotional bunch when it comes to matters that affect their collective psyche. It should come as no surprise to federal government the intense reaction on one hand and the euphoria on the other with which the legal action instituted by the Minister of justice, Chief Bola Ige against the seventeen Southern States calling for resource control. Definitely, Chief Ige was acting on behalf of his boss, the president. Up till now, president Obasanjo has been walking a tight political rope since some Northern states declared Sha’riah law contrary to the secularity of Nigerian nation and guaranteed by her constitution. The president can wish the call for resource control away but it will be a dream just as many Nigerians and the president wished the political Sha’riah away but it is still around. The emotion with which the invocation of resource control was received shows that it appeals to the heart and soul of most Nigerians. Resource control, which is more of a political negotiation instrument, is too overwhelming for most constituent parts of Nigeria and, if not prudently handled, can become the albatross that fragments the nation faster than the unfounded fear of the call for Sovereign National Conference or National Conference.

Politics as we can all agree by now involves the management of the enormously endowed human and material resources and the compassionate ability to use such resources for the development of the states, the good of the nation and for uplifting the spirit of all citizens. This is what any layperson should see politics to be all about. If, for instance, there is no oil in the Niger Delta States, or Steel in Ajaokuta in Kogi State, no one will even think of those states as States relevant of mentioning. Oil politics, Steel politics, just like military politics are all in the same family of power control. Since military power had been, in the past, used to abridge, truncate, and usurp power, one is not sure that the president understands what politics is all about when he dabbled into the politics of resource control by seeking a legal and politically laced solution.

The present government has inadvertently laid down condition precedent upon which the present resource control issue will be viewed in the court of public opinion. The first test case is the Sha’riah law adoption by some northern states and its default acceptance by those that swore to protect and defend Nigeria and her constitution (the executive, the legislative, and judiciary). If any government does not understand that every revolution is always initiated by a small group, then such government is a glutton for political suicide. The call for resource control may be due to the fact that a disenfranchised group is not feeling the nation-ness of Nigeria. So, where do we go from here?

Why are some Nigerians calling for resource control? Why should federal government worry about resource control by South-South States or any other State for that matter? How will resource control benefit any State? What are the pitfalls in controlling resources? What can government do to appease the states in order to stop the call for resource control? Should the resource control be resolved by legal action, by arbitration or by mediation or compromises from all sides?

The necessity for calling for resource control cannot be over emphasized in the current climate of immature Nigerian politics. Details of politics of resource control or most importantly politics of Oil can be found in http://www.Nigerdeltacongress.com  and I will not regurgitate the thesis here. Resource control is political power and it should be understood to be so. The reasons why some are clamoring for resource control are many but the most notable among them are:

· The absolute control of resources at the center almost always guarantee personal resources control by those at the helm of affairs as evident by the past military and civilian governance. Control of resources at the center gives an individual power that should be vested in the nation;

· Because the dividend from resources does not trickle down to common Nigerians, citizens do not feel the domino’s effect of the centralized resource control economy;

· Federal control of resources makes the center too juicy and an imperative for the No Future Association, NFA to seek position at the center in order to control the same resources for personal aggrandizement;

· If the head of state does not like a particular segment of the country, he/she may hold resources from it to strangulate development and thus create mistrust and corrosive cynicism among all citizens;

· The areas where most of the resources come from, especially Niger Delta area, are the most underdeveloped and environmentally degraded places in Nigeria;

· If resource control is not that important during the Northern domination of politics by the military and civilian, why was it necessary to set up refinery in Kaduna where no oil existed?; and

· More importantly why is oil actively and desperately sought in the North now more than ever?

 

So far, there are two major actors in the resource control discussion (the oil or the steel sector). The major players are the Federal government and the multinational corporation that invested heavily. First of all, the infrastructures necessary to develop the oil and the steel sectors were derived from revenues from Cocoa, groundnuts, hides and skin, Steel, Palm oil products, et cetera from other parts of Nigeria. Second, if federal government gives control of resources to the States, it would have mortgaged the trust and confidence of the people of Nigeria who contributed in the first instance to the development of the resources. Third, if the resources are controlled by the states, there is no guarantee that even within such states there will be no splinter groups fighting for control and therefore, Nigeria that is struggling to keep the fragile unity together may end up indirectly splitting her into different warring fragments. Fourth, how would Federal government guarantee its contractual obligations under the investments of the multinational companies? How would federal government assure other states that when States controls resources, the benefit would translate to prosperity in other states? Since federation that controls the resources right now is unable to judiciously distribute available revenue from resources at the center, there is no guarantee that the States would be willing to do so either. What would be the political implication on other States if the oil producing States succeed in controlling their resources? Finally, what will be come of states when resources are no longer available?

There are enormous political implications in allowing the States to control the resources. Of course, one is not oblivion to the intricacies and the political interplays that are embedded in the call for resource control. One understands that the present political structure needs restructuring as corruption surfaces in all sectors of the economy. For instance, it is a fact that OMPADEC has existed for quite sometime yet OMPADEC is unwilling to open its books for audit or for its organization to be probed. Control of resources may lead to formation of local Mafia that may not be controlled by the corrupt and unsavory national, local political system and the usual bug of divide and rule perfected by colonialist and employed by the nation’s politicians may end up biting harder than ever. Resource control may, on the long run, be detrimental to the citizens of States that are actively calling for it right now. One problem with resource control is that some resources are highly political on the global stage and highly capital intensive.  The states may not have resources to perform or buy the shares from joint venture partners. The long and short of it is that once the foreign partners pull out, the infrastructures necessary to get the resources going may go down the drain just like all other infrastructures in Nigeria. The experiences of many poor small third world countries that negotiated their crude oil exploration with multinational companies may be helpful to note in the resource control discussion. Many such countries ended up getting only 5 to 10% while the multinational companies that brought their expertise and finances ended up with 90-95% ownership.

The politics in Nigeria is getting more mature and that of the North is becoming more welcoming. Nigerians have always thought of the north as having a homogeneous politics because a few northerners cajoled other Nigerians to think that it is so. We must cut out the present groupthink mentality that categorizes the north into regions of arrowheads. Groupthink politics brings unintended vulgarity as we sometimes observe in Wada Nas and others from the south that think that negative attack will win them a debate. There are units of political north such as the Northern Democratic Forum and a few forward looking governors such as Alhaji Bukar Abba Ibrahim of Yobe state who are challenging the status quo in the North and whose politics is in line with the new progressive politics of their counterparts in other parts of the country.

The views of this youth must be taken into consideration in dispelling acts of recent Northern military politicians. One cannot be too surprised that Northern youths are coming of age and are boldly challenging the status quo of their so-called elder statesmen. Although the north held on to power for thirty-five out of forty years of independence, the dividend of governance has only been concentrated in the hands of the leaders. This is why the youths are now questioning politics that put infrastructure in a shamble, politics that destroyed education, politics that created more beggars and unemployment than create wealth but for only the leaders. In today’s northern politics, it may not be too unthinkable to find so-called popular northern leaders may not be as relevant as the sycophants are making Nigerians to believe. The forces of good and evil in Nigerian politics are at par and standing eye-ball-to-eye-ball, which will blink is the question? It was Chief Alex Ekwueme that said, "A great future cannot be built on mistrust. It cannot be built on suspicion and neither can it be built on feeling of insecurity or marginalization. A great future based on national reconciliation can only arise where there is unity of purpose, trust and togetherness". We must give the new northern youth a chance to rewrite the history of batched up political strategy to politics of service and not politics of selfishness.

There is still a window of opportunity for the federal government to resolve this issue amicably if the structures available for guaranteeing fair and equitable distribution of resources are allowed to work for all the states and their citizens. But if federal government still sits on its high horse and maintains its arrogant stance, the popular will of the citizens will shake the shaky foundation on which Nigeria is pivoted. Since the president did not challenge introduction of Sha’riah legal system in the court of law, he has set a precedence that must be followed. The president cannot have double standard, dealing with the north with one and the south with another, erasing Odi on one hand and patting the Kaduna on the back on the other. Mr. President, all positive indices are there for you to take advantage of and settle the issues of resource control amicably.

It will not be in the interest of the States to go through a constitutional, albeit, legal resolution on the issue of resource control because:

1) the deck is stacked against the states in two ways. The first is with respect to the present constitution which gives federal government the control of the resources. Let me explain why federal government controls the resources. Nigerian nation existed long before the regions and now the states came to being. Unlike the situation in the United States where the original thirteen states exited as countries with their resources in under their control. So it should not be surprising that almost each of the states control their resources. Moreover, the electorates/citizens of those states in the US know their rights and are enlightened. The second reason has to do with the often-corrupt judiciary who may make decisions based on the requirement of their pockets rather than on the facts of law;

2) if the wish of the states is granted, the states may be worse off because of oil exploration is very capital intensive. The States may also be asked to pay back the expenses that Federal government committed to the development of the infrastructure.

A binding arbitration may not be the best option because the judiciary whose hands can be bent to render favorable outcome will also be involved. Political history of Nigeria has thought us that when push comes to shove, the judiciary knows their master’s voice. The only viable option that the South-South states calling for resource control can hope for is some form of mediation/negotiation or compromise.

There are three possible viable options which mediation or negotiation can go. They are: 1) the states with the resources can decide to buy part of the resources from federal government. For instance, the oil producing states may buy some oil blocks and use their resources to develop them. From an operational point of view, the capital outlay must be sought or negotiated with the multinational but the experiences of the poor third world countries must be used as a guide; 2) States with the resources can negotiate, say, 15% derivation from federal government in the first instance until the funds used to develop the infrastructure are paid off.  Thereafter, they can get additional 5% to make it 20%. The rest 80% is transferred to the center or the federation to be shared by whatever revenue formula agreed upon by federal government with the states.  Let us say for instance that Niger Delta states kept their 20% and get back another 10% from the center, and this combination of derivation is a far cry from the 13% they are supposed to be earning now.  By this method, all Nigerian states would be uniformly developed and it would then not matter which states one comes from to enjoy the infrastructures within Nigeria; and 3) abandon the call for resource control but make sure that when election comes up, the states call their citizens to vote for politicians that have their interest at heart. Such strategy calls for their citizen’s to have civil engagement and be informed confident voters not vote sellers.

 
It is hoped that both the States and the federal government will thread gently to find a lasting solution and keep Nigeria on in a fair and equitable union.