|
Resource Control by whom? by The Constitution must restore the revenue allocation formula as at independence in 1960, that is, 50 per cent based on derivation. With regard to oil: (a) one-shore distribution could be 50 per cent to state government, 25 per cent to the Federal Government and 25 per cent to the regional government (b) off-shore - 70 per cent to the Federal Government and 15 per cent each to regional and state governments. Each region should decide what would accrue to its local government. In advocating a return to the 1963 Constitution, this was my submission to the 24-man Constitution Review Committee set up by the General Abdulsalami Abubakar regime in 1998. That committee simply rubberstamped the 13 per cent by derivation and other inequities recommended in the 1995 Draft Constitution. Not surprisingly, since, then, the agitation for a true federal system has not only assumed a deafening crescendo but has gone on to a new dimension, the culmination of which appears to be "Resource Control". The clamour, spearheaded mainly by the oil producing states has however gathered momentum in other southern states, and what seems to determine who is for or against appears to be the Rivers Niger and Benue depending on which side of the divide one is. As no definitive meaning or the parameters of the phrase 'resource control' have been declared, I find it difficult to locate myself on either side of the divide. Governor Lucky Igbinedion of Edo State was reported to have said that resource control means "If I, a Bini man goes to Kebbi State and finds gold, the resources should belong to me and not to the state or federal government. All I owe the federal government is to pay taxes and royalties". That statement appears flawed for at least two reasons. Firstly, by having to pay taxes and royalties to the federal government is this not an admission of the fact that the payee, the federal government is in control of the resources? Secondly, I doubt if many Nigerians including the people of Edo State, will agree with his plutocratic definition which is essentially resources control by the super-rich. What happens to those on whose land the resources is located? How can merely finding the resource be the basis for control? The governor's statement underscores the emergent ambiguities, contradictions and amorphousness surrounding the idea of "resource control". What is the meaning of resource control? Does it mean that every state of the federation must be in control of its resources? If the answer is yes, then which resources should be affected. Is it all or some? If we say some of the resources what will be the criteria for determining which resources are to be subject to control? What will be the degree or proportion of control? Should it be 100 per cent. If for, an instance, the Niger Delta wants to control 100 per cent of its resources should Lagos State not control its own water resources - the ports in Lagos? If Lagos State controls its ports should other states of the federation over which airplanes fly out of the country not be able to control, their air spaces? For those of us who have agitated against the lopsided federal system we have had since the 17th of March 1967 when the military under General Yakubu Gowon using Decree No. 8 - Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree 1967 not only hijacked federal legislative and executive powers but dismantled the federal system and most ominously suspended the constitution of the Northern, Eastern, Western and Mid-Western regions, the issue is about justice, equity and fairness. If we are concerned about fairness, then we should be honest enough to ask ourselves "Resource control by whom? There seems to be an underlying assumption that it refers to control by the state. But why the states? Why not by the local governments? Why not by the communities in which resources are located and why not control by the individuals on whose land the resources are located? If oil is found in Eket, is it fair that the people of Eket must share their resources with other communities in their state that don't have oil? These questions may sound pedantic, but it does not require a prophet to know that sooner or later, communities and individuals within these states will be agitating for resources control by themselves. If we agree that individuals should be able to control their resources, should it be 100 per cent control? If each individual can control the resources in his or her backyard, why then should those who do not have natural resources have to pay tax on money earned from their work (human resources) at the end of the month? If we agree that the resources belong to individuals but that the federal and state governments can impose taxes as obtains in the United States, is this control? How much should the tax be and who will determine it? Is it the federal government, the state government or the individual? Whether it is about off-shore or on-shore resources, these are serious questions which we must ask ourselves because the answers will not only go to the root of the existence of the central government in Nigeria, but to the very foundation of whether there should be government even at the lowest level, that is, the local government; for every individual is free to control his own resources, government at every level is as good as dead. These questions are not legal. They are political and that is why one is surprised that the Attorney General of the Federation Chief Bola Ige (SAN) went to court to seek an answer. It is, however, more surprising that the states agitating for resources control fell into Ige's trap by entering appearance in court and even proposing to engage foreign lawyers as if that was their answer. As a lawyer, one has learnt over the years that when a client comes with a problem, one of the first things one must quickly determine is the nature of the solution. Sometimes that solution lies outside the hallowed confines of the law courts and the lawyer must advise his client accordingly. Since resource control is a political issue which was forced into the legal arena, the states agitating for resource control should simply have moved it back to the political arena by not entering appearance in court and perhaps allowing a paper judgement to be given against them collectively. Such a judgement is usually difficult to enforce. Think of the "pass laws" in South Africa by which the racist regime legislated that every black man must carry a pass - a form of identity card. The blacks simply ignored the law. They did not attempt to get the courts to strike down the law knowing that it would have been a futile exercise. What for an instance, would have happened if a court had ruled that Sharia was unconstitutional? The states practicing Sharia would simply have ignored the ruling, because essentially, Sharia is a political issue. While one is not advocating the courts should never decide that political issues, it is dangerous for our judicial system for the courts to be called upon to determine these sensitive largely political issues. When this happens, the courts stand the likelihood of being ridiculed and brought into contempt. As things stand now, it is not difficult to guess which way the court will go on the resource control/off-shore on-shore dichotomy because the laws on it are very clear. The issue is not what the law says - that is legal. The issue is what the law should say - this is political. It is not for the best of British, American or even Nigerian lawyers to determine for the man in Eket or Ogoniland whose land has been degraded how much is due to him or his community. It is for the people of Nigeria (led by the presidency) based on justice, equity, fairness and the spirit of give and take. Those states agitating for resources control should realize that if they take without giving, sooner or later, the communities and individuals that make them up would also learn how to take without giving. The following were the principal covenants embodied in the 1963 constitution agreed to by our founding fathers:
|