‘SOUTH-SOUTH’ AGENDA OF LIBERATION IN NIGERIA:

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

By

Professor Omo Omoruyi

PLEASE READ THE THREE PAPERS [THE POLITICS OF OIL] TOGETHER

1. WHO OWNS OIL? NIGERIA, STATES or COMMUNITIES

2. ADVICE TO POLITICAL LEADERS

3. SOUTH-SOUTH AGENDA OF LIBERATION

This is the third paper on the ‘Politics of Oil’. It is built on the first two. The totality of the three papers is to aim at the ‘liberation’ of the ‘South-South’ or the ‘Niger-Delta’ or the ‘Oil Producing States’ or the ‘Atomized States in the South’ or the ‘Minority States in the South’ from the stranglehold of the majority ethnic nationalities in Nigeria. The majority ethnic nationalities in varying degrees controlled the Federal Government and have been conspiring to deny the area their ‘right to local control over local resources’ since independence.

The Agenda of Liberation is meant to emphasize that ‘our salvation’ or ‘our liberation’ is in our hands and not in the hands of President Obasanjo.

The Agenda of Liberation should be anchored on that faith in a democracy, which must not elude our leaders and our people that there is a prospect of another election. You are dealing with a military in democracy clothing’. Now that there is a prospect of another election you should not make the mistake of 1999. If our political leaders including me failed us in the past, you have the opportunity to make history. SEIZE IT!

It is my hope that the three papers would be read together. The second assumes some knowledge of the first and the third assumes some knowledge of the first and second. I am happy the first and the second are still available on the web.

The first part tried to lay the colonial, ethnic and military bases of the federal robbery of the God-given wealth of the people of the oil producing states of the ‘South-South’. Because of relative powerlessness of the atomized states in the Niger-Delta in the polyglot society called Nigeria, the three majority players either took advantage of the zone or adopted a benign neglect to the aspirations of the peoples of the zone.

The second paper tried to define it as a political problem and not a constitutional problem. Hence the paper proffered a political solution to the problem of resource control. In a democracy you use what you have to amass political power. You have the oil, others have the armed forces and still others because of their level of organization and size as a majority bloc want to play the presidential game. I argued that the three domains of power should be balanced in such a way that the oil producing states are sufficiently organized enough to support a party or a candidate that would have on their platform ‘resource control’. The political leaders of the zone failed in this regard in the past. This is why President Obasanjo can take advantage of the zone today even though the President and the party PDP government at all levels in the zone got to power at Abuja and in the various states and local government with your support and your peoples’ overwhelming vote. I argued in this paper that our political leaders would no longer have an excuse if they allow the same people to fool our people twice in two centuries (20^th and 21^st ) on the vague promise made by candidate Obasanjo in 1998-99. You now know what he meant by the expression, ‘I feel the pain of the Niger-Delta’ and ‘I will make the development of the Niger-Delta the first item of my policy’ when he was seeking the support and votes of our people. Candidate Obasanjo can hide on the premise that he did not promise you a resource control as the basis of his policy in 1999. The zone had since known the policy. Our political leaders should be ready to play the political game in preparation for the 2003.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

Finally, in response to the demands of the oil producing states demanding from me, Professor, what is to be done in the face of the foregoing analysis? The answer by Lenin to the question, ‘what is to be done’ in the first decade of the 20^th century is simple, Organization! This has not changed today. In furtherance of this end, the political leaders of the oil producing areas should do three things.

They should organize themselves into a political bloc;

They should educate their people as to what they have in common; and

They should educate their people to use their votes to achieve their VISION.

 

The political leaders or the Governors of the oil producing states do not need to beg President Obasanjo to remember what he promised the people of the oil producing areas when he was just a Presidential candidate in search of votes in 1999. They do not need to remind him of the false promise he made to them that he would meet the wishes of the people of the areas.

A new political agenda is needed now that President Obasanjo wants to hide his abandonment of the promise on the military inspired Constitution on the ownership of oil to deny the oil producing states their just share of the proceeds from their God-given natural resources, oil.

FOUR-POINT AGENDA FOR A VISION FOR ‘SOUTH-SOUTH’

I strongly urge the PDP Governors with President Obasanjo and other political leaders in the oil producing areas to consider a VISION with a Four-Point Agenda.

A.

BE CLEAR OF A VISION

The political leaders and the Governors of the six ‘South-South’ states should be clear of the goal they want for themselves, for their people and for Nigeria. They should not join those who are debating whether it is the turn of this or that zone to produce a President without a VISION. This is why it would not be politically expedient to encourage its citizens to seek the office of the Presidency for its own sake. It is not also politically expedient to seek the leadership of the armed forces.

NOTE: One is not trying to deny them what should be theirs constitutionally. One is only trying to advise the political leaders of the ‘South-South’ from the position of realism that as for now, they do not have the requisite unwritten qualifications to become the President or the leader of the Armed Forces of Nigeria.

But the ‘South-South political leaders have the political power to lay claim to the control of the resources located in your area as a VISION and as a POLITICAL AGENDA on which the two domains of power (Armed Forces and the President) depend. They are mostly likely to succeed if they take certain steps.

1. The leaders should work together.

2. They should have the political will.

3. They should communicate their resolve to the country.

 

Maybe we could pose three questions for the leaders of the ‘South-South’ for them to answer.

1. Can the leaders in the ‘South-South’ work together?

2. Do the political leaders including the Governors of the six ‘South-South’ states with official positions and the mass following have the political will?

3. Are they willing and be able to use the mineral resources as the political tool in their dealing with the rest of Nigeria?

B.

PURSUE VISION AS A POLITICAL MATTER

The political leaders and the Governors of the south-south states should be clear that the goal of local control over local resources is only realizable through politics and not through the Constitution in force and certainly not through resolutions and communiqué and pious appeal. The question is again simple. Maybe one should suggest some questions for the political leaders and the Governors of the oil producing areas to ponder over.

1. Would they be willing to contemplate the thought that this could only be through the fundamental political restructuring of Nigeria?

2. Would they be willing to do everything to achieve that end?.

3. Would they be prepared to put the three domains of power, (who controls oil, who control the armed forces and who becomes the President) on the table for discussion and for resolution in a National Forum or Conference?

4. Would they be willing to challenge the President by facing him with some simple questions along this line?

5. Would they be willing to confront the President as the symbol of their party, PDP to change his views about an idea of having a National Conference?

6. Would they be able to demand from the party and from the President that the issues in the three domains of power should be subjected to a National Dialogue?

7. Would they be able to tell their President to stop hiding his abandonment of the oil producing areas on the pretext that he is endowed with ‘sovereignty’ by the fiat of an election of 1999?

8. Would they be able to confront the President not to equate his rejection of a National Conference with some semblance of sovereignty by the Nigerian people?

9. Would the Governors openly agree to the idea of a National Dialogue to resolve the issue of resource control among all other lingering fundamental political issues in the country?

 

From the actions of the Governors so far, one is left with the impression that they do not believe that resource control is a political issue and that they do not want to use it as a political tool. If they do maybe one could ask them some pertinent questions.

1. Why are they not coming forward with a suggestion or suggestions for the resolution of the issue?

2. Do they believe that an appeal to the good nature of the President would resolve it for them?

3. Do they think that mere appeal to the National Assembly is an answer to the issue?

4. Do they thing mere resolutions and communiqué would be an answer to the issue?

5. Do they think the issue of ownership of oil can be resolved through the Court?

6. Do they know why the Attorney General of the Federation refused to take the issue of Sharia to the Supreme Court?

7. Why are the political leaders, especially the Governors running away from politics when then they are politicians?

8. Why do they not want the National Conference as the mode of resolving the political issues in the country?

 

From ones reading of the actions and utterances of the Governors and other political leaders in the ‘South-South’, it would appear that the political leaders of the oil producing areas, especially the Governors are in agreement with the President. One could also ask some further pertinent questions.

1. Are they buying the President’s erroneous belief that a National Conference is not the way to coming to terms with the three domains of power?

2. Are the Governors of the ‘South-South’ states under the control of PDP thinking that the Constitutional position about the ownership could be changed through the National Assembly?

They are wrong.

NOTE: The earlier the Governors of the six states in the ‘South-South’ stopped deceiving themselves on the way to realize the goal of resource control, the better for them and for the people of the oil producing areas.

C.

MOMENT OF DECISION:

FORM OR JOIN POLITICAL PARTY THAT SUPPORTS VISION

The political leaders of the oil producing areas should be prepared to form a political party different from the one with the current President in 2003 on the basis of the agenda of resource control. The option before them arising from this is also simple.

1. Would the political leaders especially the Governors be willing to contemplate the thought of joining forces against the present PDP President Obasanjo for refusing to meet the minimum goal of resolve control?

2. Would they be willing to throw their support behind any Presidential candidate from another political organization, if such a Presidential candidate would be willing to meet their minimum goal?

My advice is that it is politically expedient for them to let the party and the party’s President know NOW that on this issue they would be willing to abandon the party if the party would not meet their minimum demand and join any political organizations that support their minimum agenda in 2003.

This is the moment of decision for the Governors of the oil producing states. Let me be specific.

1. Would the Governors of the six states of Edo, Delta, Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Cross River be prepared to first raise this matter with the PDP leadership and make it a part of the party program?

2. Would they be willing to challenge their the party that this is an IRREDUCIBLE MINIMUM beyond which they would reconsider their membership of the party?

3. Would the State Governors be prepared to commence negotiation with anybody or organizations in the country in furtherance of a future political alignment and realignment on the basis of those who would support them in the minimum demand of local control over local resources?

 

NOTE In furtherance of the foregoing, the political leaders, especially the Governors would have to stop talking of resource control with the President within the Constitution as it affects mineral resources because they would not win. The Sharia people did not go to him with the Constitution on their hand; they went to him with a political manifesto and with a political force to back up their demand. If Sharia is God-given law to their adherents, is Oil not God-given wealth to the oil producing areas? They would have to confront the matter as a political issue, which would have to be solved politically. If they approach it this way, they would win eventually.

It would appear that some of the political leaders of the ‘South-South’ do not appreciate the difference between vital or permanent interest and permanent friends. This is an opportunity to categorically reject the historical distortions in many of Chief E. K. Clark’s utterances. He is very wrong with the way he characterized the Ibos and the northern leaders in the past as a basis of determining what is to be done today to further the cause of the ‘South-South’. Chief E. K. Clark and those pathological Ibo haters and pathological Hausa lovers in the leadership of the South-South Peoples Conference are not working in the best interest of the people of the oil producing areas. One hopes they would embrace this vision for the ‘South-South’ and stop making many political and historical blunders.

NOTE: The political leaders of the ‘South-South ought to and should know that there is no permanent friend in politics but permanent interest.

There is no reason for the leaders of the oil producing areas not to accept an Ibo candidate or a Yoruba candidate or a Hausa candidate, if and only if, the candidate would meet their permanent interest. The qualification for the support of the leaders and people of the oil producing areas would depend on whether the candidate would not only support the local control over local resources but that he must demonstrate the sincerity in his plan to carrying this through. The Commissioner of Finance of the Delta State Mr. Edevbie once produced a catalog of instances of how President Obasanjo betrayed the people of the Niger-Delta. Unfortunately, Mr. Edevbie who wrote on behalf the Delta State government missed out the issue of ownership. There are few questions, which one could ask of the leaders especially the Governors of the ‘South-South’.

1. Did the political leaders of the oil producing areas ever know the past views of candidate Obasanjo with respect to the ownership of oil?

2. Did they ever know the contempt with which he held the former military rulers of these states?

3. Could the political leaders, especially the Governors of the oil producing states tell their people in concrete terms what he promised the people of the oil producing areas, just as the Arewa Consultative Forum did recently?

4. Can they hold President Obasanjo to his promises, if he ever made any to them, just as the leaders of the Arewa Consultative Forum are doing and succeeding in doing recently?

5. Do they know why and how the President is capitulating to the threat of the Arewa Consultative Forum?

6. Do they know why the President shouts at them whenever they meet with him on the vexed question of the token approved for the oil producing states in the Constitution?

 

It would appear that from the way the President is treating the zone that the leaders of the zone did not know what he had in mind when he was seeking their support. It is also clear that they did not extract from candidate Obasanjo concrete promise based on the vexed question of resource control.

NOTE: This is an opportunity to call attention to various Bills of Rights. What is clear from the recent agitation of the new political leaders of the oil producing areas is that they did not know and did not originally embrace the past thinkers of the oil producing areas. I am referring to such people as the late Adaka Boro, the late Saro Wiwa and the late Obi Wali.

The idea of Resource Control, as a Vision was articulated long ago by these thinkers from present Rivers and Bayelsa states and the Niger Delta Congress in their Niger Delta Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, those who sought offices in 1999 did not understand the Politics of Oil. Hence they did not embrace the idea of resource control implicit in these Bills of Rights when they were seeking political offices. They unfortunately failed to articulate a VISION on the matter in their own way during the election. The debate was about ‘derivation’, whatever that meant then because they wanted more money to spend for their programs once they became Governors. There was nothing wrong with this if they devised means of getting money for their program.

It would appear that what they demanded from Candidate Obasanjo was what he would do for the people of the oil producing areas and not about resource control, if he was elected the President. It would appear that what President Obasanjo promised them was that he would use the Federal Government might from oil anyway to address many years of neglect of the Niger-Delta.

He was vague on the issue of derivation. He in fact did not commit himself to it and no one got him to make explicit statement on the matter. He was vague on the issue of derivation as a principle of revenue allocation. One he did not believe in it. Two he did not trust the state administration with the executive capacity to spend the money from oil in their state. Three, he had reason from the past military administration in the areas that they could not be trusted with a huge sum of money. This was unfortunate.

Candidate Obasanjo did not know of the time bomb the military regime was leaving in the Constitution he was to be given, which made provision for a minimum of 13% to the oil producing states on the basis of derivation. From the way the President has been handling the matter, is should have been obvious to the political leaders of the oil producing states that that provision was a surprise to him. It should also be obvious to them by now with all the delay and adjustments to the provision that left with him, President Obasanjo would not have allowed it in the Constitution. This is not strange to someone like me, from the President’s past; his view about the issue of derivation as it applies to oil revenue is a matter of record. He hated it in the past and he still hates it today; therefore, there is nothing new in his present posture.

NOTE: President Obasanjo present position with regards to derivation is only new to the new politicians who never studied the past records of the man before throwing their support behind him in 1998. He has always been consistent on this matter.

What Candidate Obasanjo offered the political leaders of the oil producing areas was consistent with his views in the past as General Olusegun Obasanjo when he was the Military Head of State. It was from him we in the Technical Committee on Revenue Allocation bought the artificial distinction between the oil producing states and the oil producing communities.

It was in furtherance of this that he made two categorical commitments to the international community in view of the extra-judicial execution of the Ogoni 9, which was still fresh when he came to power. The first commitment was that he would solve the environmental crisis in the oil producing areas and the second commitment was that he would address the many years of neglect of the people of the oil producing areas. What should be noted was that these problems were not new and they were there when he was the military Head of State (1976-79) and he did nothing.

Candidate Obasanjo did not promise in his acceptance speech at the PDP National Convention as the party’s Presidential candidate and during the swearing in ceremony as the President that he would give money to the elected Governors of the oil producing states.

What candidate Obasanjo emphasized was that he would develop the oil producing ‘communities’ and not ‘states’. There is nothing wrong with this, if he threw money at the problems of these areas, which could be a form of reparation, but it can not be a substitute for the political issue of ownership of oil. This was the genesis of the Niger-Delta Development Commission, which he announced as soon as he was sworn in, in May 1999.

NOTE: I am on record as applauding the President’s concern about the plight of the Niger-Delta as soon as he was sworn in, but I however warned then that the President was jumping the gun with the solution he proffered without allowing the country to discuss the issue of ownership. I am right; here we are today!

In accordance with his contempt for the Governors of the oil producing states, he still wanted to use a huge junk of the 13% due to the oil producing states on the basis of derivation to fund the NDDC project in his original plan. The way the matter of 13% has been handled so far by President Obasanjo grows out of his contempt for the Governors of the states when he was the military Head of State between 1976 and 1979.

NOTE: President Obasanjo should be reminded that he is not only an elected President on the votes of the oil producing areas, he should be told that he should not visit the sins of the past military Governors of the oil producing states if they committed any sins at all on the democratically elected Governors of today. More critically, after all they are in the same party with him.

D.

TRADE THE OTHER DOMAINS OF POWER WITH OIL

Finally, the leaders of the oil producing states should be prepared to trade the Presidency, the control of the military for the local control over local resources with any other political groups in Nigeria. Once you let this be known that this is the determined agenda of the ‘South-South’, President Obasanjo, if he is a politician and wants to be reelected come 2003, I can assure you that President Obasanjo would stop hiding under the Constitution. Don’t be surprised that President Obasanjo, if he is a politician and if he is not looking forward to the same process of selection as we had in 1999, would rethink his decision to ignore the feelings of the oil producing areas. The leaders of the oil producing areas would have the opportunity to weigh any other aspiring Presidential candidate who would be prepared to do business with those who are calling for local control over local resources.

NOTE: This is completely absent in the agitation of the leaders of the oil producing areas and why not. The President or any aspiring President would then know that the ownership of oil by the Federal Government of Nigeria dating back to the colonial ordinances and other post independence laws could be varied without violating the Constitution. The leaders of the oil producing areas have not been able to serve the President with political threat of political reprisals as the Arewa Consultative Forum did.

ALL HANDS ON DECK; REJECT DIVIDE AND RULE

One hopes the leaders of the various groups from the Union of Niger-Delta, the ‘South-South’ Peoples Conference, the Governors of the Six ‘South-South’ States, the three political parties and the Ministers and National Assemblymen should meet on this VISION. They should not allow any one including the President to divide them on the issue of a VISION.

No one was able to divide the northern Governors on the issue of Sharia. On this issue, the past and serving political leaders of the north were united. Just as the northern Governors are working together for the future of their people, why can’t the leaders of the ‘South-South’ do this for the sake of their people?

It would appear that the President is trying to use the Ministers against the Governors, which is unfortunate. He tried this in the north and he was rebuffed. Why is he succeeding with you? The President is also trying to use the machinery of the party to mount pressure on the Six Governors, all from the same political party to drop their agitation for resource control. This is also unfortunate. He could not think of doing this with respect to the northern Governors. He could not have contemplated the use of the PDP leadership to mount pressure on the northern Governors of Zamfara, Sokoto, and Kebbi who are not even from his party and who are heavily supported by the former Heads of State from the north.

NOTE: One’s hope is that the Governors of the ‘South-South’ would survive the pressure from ‘Mr. Fix It’ to the President, Minister Chief Tony Anenih. One’s hope is that Chief Anenih’s political agenda is not to make the Governors sell their birthright. This is very disturbing. This is the question, which they would have to ponder over as they weigh the pressure from the President and the party and the option before them.

It is one’s hope that the Governors would remember that posterity would not forget and forgive them, if they capitulate to the President’s pressure through Chief Tony Anenih and the PDP national leadership.

NOTE: The Governors of the ‘South-South should appreciate that Chief Anenih is a reasonable man and an adept practitioner of politics, who would yield to political reason.

The PDP Governors should reason with Chief Anenih that he should join or lead them in their new VISION as the northern political heavyweights join and lead their governors to defend the political Sharia. They should convince him that they want to use their political resource, the oil as a political bargaining tool and assure him that the President would still be their candidate, if and only if he yields to their minimum demand.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

a. All political office holders, National Assemblymen, Governors, Ministers, Commissioners and other elected and appointed officials should be committed to the VISION.

b. All aspiring office holders should sign a PLEDGE, an UNDERTAKING to be committed to the VISION.

c. There is an urgent need for an immediate Conference in the ‘South-South’ among the political leaders in the area to discuss the VISION and its use as a political tool.

d. There should be political education of the people in the area on the use of this VISION as an instrument of liberation through workshops, conferences, lectures and mass media.

e. They should communicate this new VISION to their sons and daughters abroad who are itching for an AGENDA.

f. They should enlist the support of the former and older political leaders in the ‘South-South’ in the campaign for resource control.

g. They should educate the political leaders outside the ‘South-South’, especially in the south and in the middle-belt, on the merit of their case.

h. They should sell this VISION to the south and the middle-belt and others in the north who have the best interest of the country at heart that this VISION is for negotiation and not for take it leave it and not for the break up of the country.

i. They should support a National Dialogue on this VISION and on other lingering political issues facing the country.

Professor Omo Omoruyi. The author of 'The tale of June 12' a first hand account of the political manipulations and pull that brought down Babangida's regime.