PIB, RUGA rekindle ethnic tension—as S/S boils

By Adebayo Obajemu

A slew of legislative and executive actions considered by many as not in tandem with the popular desires of citizens in Nigeria may be further stoking ethnic and sectional tensions across board, Business Hallmark checks have revealed.

Among others, the recent decisions of the National Assembly to go ahead to pass the long-drawn Petroleum Industry Bill, PIB despite protestations from the South South that there was yet a need to work on contentious segments of the bill has not gone down well with many.
Equally problematic is the seeming insistence of the Federal Government to carry on, even in a modified form, with its much criticised RUGA Settlements policy for nomadic cattle herders.

Analysts say that underlying the situation could be what the sociologist, Robert Miches has described as the iron law of oligarchy,
As he put it: ” Democracy when left for authoritarian to interpret can only mean tyranny, especially if such power of interpretation and execution is left in his hands.

The sociologist who contributed to elite theory by describing the political behavior of intellectual elites, describes the “iron law of oligarchy” as one where political parties, including those considered moderate such as All Progressives Congress in our clime, cannot be democratic because they quickly transform themselves into bureaucratic oligarchies, especially when they have authoritarian characters in their midst.

Indeed, there could be a sense in which Michels’ fears have come into fruition as many analysts have said in relation to the behaviour of the All Progressives Congress, the ruling party in the country, especially as it has to do with President Muhammadu Buhari’s and the National Assembly’s predilection to go against the will of the people in many of their policies.
A case in point is the controversy being generated by the PIB bill, especially over 3 percent for host communities,and the 30 percent for exploration of oil in frontier basins.

Indeed, reactions have continued to trail the passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), which was jointly passed by the Senate and House of Representative on July 1, the contentious issue being the 30 per cent new funding mechanism for the development of oil exploration in frontier basins.
Some commentators have condemned the setting aside of 30 per cent of the crude oil proceeds for the specific purpose of discovering crude oil in an unsure basin, amidst global decline in carbon emission and use of fossil fuels , saying it is a waste of resources. However, the greatest condemnation has come from the South-South region.

Professor Wumi Iledare, Professor of Petroleum Economics and Policy Research, has picked hole in the decision of the National Assembly to dedicate 30 per cent of lifted Production Sharing Contract (PSC) profit to frontier exploration with a very low likelihood of finding anything over the years, lack constitutional backings.

He disclosed that the Supreme Court, several years ago, said that much with just a lower percentage set aside for special projects.
He said, “I do not see how contributing to the Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) was debated ferociously then, and spending on frontiers exploration is not conjectural. Rather 30% proposed for that purpose should be dedicated to renewable energy research or perhaps SWF than “chasing the winds” under the energy transition dynamics.

“The constitutionality of 30% earmarked for expansion into frontier basins for basin expansion is doubtful. I am still not convinced with all the misinformation in circulation about the basin expansion as provided for by the PIB. Such interpretation, in my opinion, is just outrageous and unnecessarily unbecoming of a nation of Nigerian intellectual status.”

While describing the percentage voted for basin development as a sentimentally driven political decisions which abound because of the transient nature of political power, the Professor noted that the political power is transient, adding that decisions based on sentiments by those he described as ‘a contemporary ruling class’, are often not sustainable.

He said, “I honestly think inserting a petroleum exploration funding target in a reform bill is nothing but sentimental politics with no economic merits nor energy security merit, at a time like this.

“I am not anti-oil investor, but dedicating 30 percent of PSC for frontier exploration with a very low likelihood of finding anything over the years is a concern. I just do not see how that mandate would stand, including the argument against surrendered royalty in form of NDDC levy.
The Professor noted that the kind of legislative provision in a bill such as the PIB does not make it legal, adding that any law that contradicts constitutional provision cannot be legal.

Engr. Alex Neyin, Ex-Chevron Executive who is also the former Chairman of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), disclosed that the original content of the Petroleum Industry Bill drafted by him and other Engineers, in 1999 has been completely reviewed leaving out the original conditions stated in the initial bill.

According to him, the PIB was conceived and drafted by the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) and the National Association of Petroleum Explorationists (NAPE). Neyin who was then the SPE Chairman in 1999, claimed he and others conceived the bill with the idea of marginal field, PIB, Nigerian Oil and Gas conference in a document and submitted such to the former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Rilwanu Lukman, when Engr. Funsho Kupolokun, was Group Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).

He said, “After the bill has been left unattended to, I and some engineers met Lukman ourselves and discussed the bill with him, before it was later transmitted to the National Assembly. It was supposed to be a law guiding the industry that is favourable to everybody, including the community, to avoid clashes in the future.

“It is a global standard for the oil producing communities to own the privilege and right of the minerals under their soil. The right thing should have been to allow them manage the resources and pay taxes to the state and Federal Government.

“The reverse, however, has been the order of the day. We suggested a PIB that would give some concerns and consideration to the oil communities where the oil is being produced, and all the details were there. Over the previous years, the new PIB they come up with is completely in variance with the original content. This new content is meant to protect the interest of the North against the South where the oils are being produced.

“As a geologist, it is clear that any attempt to continue to waste resources in the Chad and Benue basins will be a wasted venture. We have investigated those areas over and over, the best that can be discovered is gas and whatever petrochemicals whose commercial values remain unsure. On the contrary, so much resources have been spent over the years on these basins, with only discovery of resources without commercial values.

“The NNPC recently claimed to have discovered some oil in these basins. We requested for the detail and test result but they have refused to disclosed such. The right thing should have been the Government allowing interested oil companies the opportunities to do this as acreage and allow them to go and explore. That is the standard procedure. It is not right to put existing money belonging to the oil-producing community, by all means, in places you know you can’t discover oil.

Engr. Neyin further disclosed that the new PIB is an indirect way of misappropriating 30 per cent of the oil fund for search of oil in a wrong environment. He said, “I am disappointed in the attitude of the Southern legislature at the National Assembly who have allowed this kind of bill to be passed without consideration for their constituencies. They have failed in the responsibility of protecting the interest of the Southern people.

“The standard thing is for the Chad and Benue basins to be divided into acreages and allow interested companies to bid and develop those acreages. Those companies who bided will take absolute responsibility of security of their workers. Interested companies would have conducted their feasibility studies and ascertain the right solution to addressing security issues before taking these up.

It is impossible for the Federal Government to address security issues in the basins. Even if they want to, they will still require contractors who are often private companies. It is still the same process.

“The Federal Government would be joking if it allows this kind of legislative sabotage become a law. The idea that this bill can be amended in future will not suffice, because the letter and spirit of the bill has been sacrificed and adulterated. The loop holes are just too much, which would make future amendment a mere joke.

“This bill has been with the National Assembly and the Executive to do the right things for over many years. If they are going to do something now, it is either they do it right for the future or they don’t at all.

Engineer Neyin, who is also a member of the Advisory Committee of Petroleum Technology Development Fund, (PTDF), noted that it will be an impossible task for any investor to freely operate in the Niger Delta communities with this kind of adulterated bill, adding that Niger Delta people will continue to revolt add agitate for their right.

South south stakeholders have urged President Muhammadu Buhari to stay action on signing the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) just passed by the two chambers of the National Assembly.

The stakeholders are not satisfied with the three per cent operational budget for oil communities as recommended by the legislature and want the allocation increased immediately. They also condemned the 30 percent allotted to the development of oil exploration in the so-called frontier basins.
Recall that Southern governors had in their last meeting in Lagos condemned the 3 percent in contention.

Governor Udom Emmanuel of Akwa Ibom State, said last week that the five per cent derivation demanded by Southern governors is more like it, “considering the devastating effects on members of our communities.”
He said the governors would soon make a declaration on the issue.
He stated that members of the National Assembly had performed their duties and that the Southern Governors could not take away their functions, but pointed out that more resources were required to assist oil producing communities.

Chairman of the Itsekiri Leaders of Thought, Chief Edward Ekpoko, had earlier emphasized that their stance remained “10 per cent or nothing”.
Niger Delta activist and leader of the defunct MEND, Chief Government Ekpemupolo, said he would take a position on the bill when he gets the nitty-gritty of the versions passed by NASS.

Ekpoko, a lawyer, appealed to President Muhammadu Buhari to “withhold his assent to the bill until the right, fair and equitable thing is done”.
“The people are not comfortable with the PIB as was passed by the NASS, and we have made our position on that very clear and unambiguous at every opportunity we get.

He said the ethnic nationalities in the region met in Bayelsa penultimate week to reaffirm their position on the matter.

He said: “The option now is to appeal to Mr President to withdraw his accent because this bill is unjust and against the wishes and hopes of our people who have endured the pains and injustice of oil exploration and exploitation over the decades.

Nevertheless, Ekpoko insisted that should the President go ahead to sign the ‘flawed’ bill into law, the people would use every available legal means, including court action, to fight it.

Ekpemupolo (AKA Tompolo), speaking through his media consultant, Comrade Paul Bebenimibo, said he would not comment until he gets details of the bill.

Bebenimibo said: “We are trying to get the version of the bill that was passed. Once we lay our hands on it and digest it, then one can react from an informed position.”

The Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) and Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP) are no less disappointed by the three per cent recommended by the National Assembly.

They two Niger Delta groups vowed to take necessary steps to have it reviewed upwards.

”We are disappointed, completely disappointed at the insensitivity of the National Assembly to the plight of the people of Niger Delta.
“It is provocative and annoying that in spite of the protest and the outcry, the National Assembly went ahead to insist on the three per cent,” PANDEF National Publicity Secretary, Hon. Ken Robinson, told The Nation yesterday.
“They didn’t even consider the protest by members of the National Assembly from the South-south and other southern senators and House of Reps members.

“We consider it as the continuation of the oppression of the people of Niger Delta and the oil producing communities in particular.
“This shows that the Nigerian state has decided to continue to emasculate the people economically and continue the suffering and the oppression of the Niger Delta people.”

He said the forum would meet over the development.
Continuing, he said: “There have been conversations going on since that decision was taken by the National Assembly. We will meet and we are certain that the Niger Delta people will express disaffection over this situation.
“We made a demand and we spoke with some of our lawmakers and we had a feeling that perhaps these people would for once be sensitive to the desires and aspirations of the people of the Niger Delta, especially those of the oil producing communities.

“But unfortunately, as it has always being, they have again shown disregard for the concern of the people. They don’t bother about how we feel and our interest.

“Paradoxically, they went ahead and approved 30 per cent of the profit of the so called planned new NNPC Limited to go for oil exploration in the frontiers, which is basically northern Nigeria. “Meanwhile, where the resources are coming from is given a paltry three per cent.

“It is a clear a statement of disregard, clear statement that we don’t mind what you think, and we cannot continue like that in a federal republic.
The PANDEF spokesman’s position was echoed by former President of MOSOP, Chief Legborsi Pyagbara.

Pyagbara said: “It is not acceptable to us. Discussion around extractive is no longer between company and the government. As far as we are concerned, the National Assembly is an arm of the government.
“In this 21st Century, arrangement between company has become something of a tripod between government, community and the company.
“There has to be discussion about how to handle beneficiaries. You can’t sit down in the comfort of your room in Abuja and decide that oil communities should take three per cent.

“When Ken Saro Wiwa launched the Ogoni struggle in 1992 and government said they were increasing 1.5 per cent to three per cent, he said ‘you took my cloth and I’m asking you to return it and you, instead of giving it back to me, gave me three buttons.

“Offering us three per cent is like the example Saro Wiwa gave. It is unacceptable. The decision was not as a result of any negotiation that came up between the company, the communities and the government.
“Secondly, the management structure of what they are calling the host communities is not acceptable. You cannot be creating a structure that is controlled by the oil company and you still tell us you are giving us something.
“Thirdly, three per cent of what are they giving? All of us that are familiar with the oil budget industry know that operation budget is just salary and things like that. Why is it not based on the total budget? Why must it be based on operational budget?”

Continuing, he said: “The whole thing is not properly defined and it didn’t come out of any negotiation. It must be soothing that is mutually agreed and not what somebody sat down and just decided.
“Today we talk about MAT- Mutually Agreed Terms. We must sit down and agree that this is what is good for all of us, and at the end of the day, we will have a win-win situation.

“Why are they creating a different legal regime for the oil and gas industry and create a different legal regime for the solid mineral sector? Today, the solid mineral sector is done in such a way that there is an artisanal mining of gold and others.

“When you look at the solid minerals and you see there is enough latitude for the community to participate in the industry even in terms of benefit sharing, in terms of running their additional process. So why are we having two different legal regimes for the same resources coming out of the land?”
Like the PANDEF spokesman, Pyagbara said Niger Delta will have to meet and review the decision before the President signs it.
”It is not the end. We have to meet and take certain steps to look at this whole thing again.”

Another South-South group, the Mangrove People Leadership Initiative (MAPLI), also asked Buhari to decline his assent to the bill as passed by the National Assembly.

The group in a communiqué in Yenagoa, the Bayelsa State capital, said the people were holding out for nothing less than 10 per cent for the oil-bearing communities.

It rejected the 30 per cent allocated for oil and gas exploration in the frontier basins in the North “while the oil-producing region is bedevilled by oil spillages and illnesses.”

It said the PIB should “be specific on the definition of host communities. What constitutes host communities? Is it where oil is found, where there are pipelines, refineries or depots?”

The organisation warned that the South-South people would be forced to confirm their fear that they were no stakeholders in “the contraption called Nigeria” and seek an alternative if their concerns were not addressed adequately.

Niger Delta activist, Ankio Briggs is of the view that Niger Delta leaders and people should seek legal redress against the decision of the National Assembly.

Briggs, who described the percentage provision as an insult, called for increase on the equity share.

She said: “I am not expecting President Buhari to do anything about the three per cent share for host communities. I know that left for Buhari, the Niger Delta will not get even one per cent.
“As the Convener of Niger Delta Determination Movement, I continue to call on the Niger Delta people to reject this injustice. The land and the water, wherever this oil is found belongs to the people. It does not belong to the federal government.

“So it’s up to the people to make a decision, because the three per cent is an insult. They should go to court. People should use whatever legal process they have to lay claims to their land”.

The National Chairman Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) Senator Emmanuel Ibok-Essien, said leaders of the region were yet to meet to decide on how to address and ventilate their position on the matter.
Ibok-Essien said: ‘’I have told you that we would meet at the level of PANDEF to discuss how we will register our rejection of the 3% for host communities in the PIB.

‘’But I want you to know, in fact Nigerians should know, that the Niger Delta is not in agreement with the injustice meted to us. We reject the 3% now and will continue to reject it.”

A former minister for lands and housing, Chief Nduese Essien, said he was in shock that the National Assembly could belittle the contributions and sacrifices of oil-bearing communities.

Essien said leaders of the area would come up with the next plan of action after their meeting.

But the National President Hostcom, High Chief Benjamin Style Tamaranebi, said host communities were prepared to move because the legal framework will help stabilise the oil industry.

His words: “The most important thing is that the bill has come to stay and we, in turn, accept it as it is. Not that we are happy about it. We thank President Buhari, at least, the PIB was passed during his tenure after 20 years. We are hopeful that there will be an amendment quickly.

“The grey areas highlighted include the section on frontier services, gas flaring and pipeline surveillance.”

Tamaranebi, who spoke in a telephone interview, expressed hope that an amendment to the PIB would start in a not too distant future, adding that the grey areas would be reviewed for the smooth running of the industry.
He highlighted the grey areas to include frontier services, Sections 103/104 that deal with gas flare and Section 147 that deals with contract for pipeline surveillance.

He said the pipeline surveillance contract should be given to host communities.

A cultural group, Supreme Egbesu Brotherhood, described the three per cent allocation to oil communities as a deliberate move to provoke the Ijaw people.
Coordinator of the group, Apostle Bodmas Kemapadei, said the deceptive definition of host communities was clearly another strategy to divert the resources of the Niger Delta region.

Just like the RUGA controversy arose tensions beginning from 2019 in SouthSouth region of Edo, Delta, and other parts of the country, stoking ethnic tensions, the current bill is generating heat across the SouthSouth.
Many stakeholders in the region have said only
only fairness, equity can guarantee peace in Nigeria.

Recall that Muhammadu Buhari had in 2019 planned to use public funds to set up Ruga farming settlements for herdsmen in 12 states.
Earlier in 2019, a group in the south-south region, Midwest Movement, rejected the plan to establish settlements for Fulani herders in Delta and Edo states.

In a statement then issued in the thick of the RUGA controversy, the pan-Edo/Delta group consisting of members from the ethnic nationalities of the old Midwestern Region, said: “While not opposing the desire of the Federal Government to settle nomadic herdsmen (and any other such groups whatsoever), these should be done in areas and land that are native to such groups.

“The planned aggregation in whatever guise, of the lands of the 12 ethnic nationalities of the Midwest Region of Nigeria, without recourse to consultations with the traditional and bonafide owners, is akin to an invasion.“As peace-loving people, and firm believers in a one Nigeria where peace, justice and equity reign, the Midwest/Bendel peoples of Delta and Edo states firmly advise the Federal Government against the perpetration of any policy that may impact negatively on the seeming already strained unity of the Nigerian federation.

“We call on Mr. President, the governors of Edo and Delta states, our national legislators, our leaders, the international community and all persons of goodwill to help keep Nigerians and its indigenous peoples safe.”

The current controversy, the RUGA debacle and the attempt by the federal government to take control of the coastal land through the equally controversial Waterway bill have led to tensions in the Niger Delta. The way forward is for the president not to put his accent to the bill according to professor Adeagbo Moritiwon, a political scientist.

” The tensions in the Niger Delta will not abate until the president declines accent ,let the National Assembly revisit the percentage and review it upward to 10 percent.

As Southern Nigeria, especially the SouthSouth boils over all of this move by the Buhari administration, they are once again ,like many Nigerians jolted by the determination of the administration to resuscitate the controversial Water way bill, which is an executive bill sent to the Senate seeking to concentrate the control of water resources in the hands of the Federal Government.
When it was sent in 2017, it divided senators across regional lines.

Expectedly, northern senators supported the bill and its objectives, their southern counterparts are opposed to it.

Those opposed to it pointed out that the bill, if passed into law, would further centralise power and the nation’s resources. This, they pointed out, would counter the current move towards devolution of powers, which is currently skewed in favour of the Federal Government.

Much more than that, many nationalities see the move as a strategy by the Buhari administration to collect land by backdoor and handover to herders, since Ruga policy had been vigorously opposed and rested.

Buhari had sent the bill to the legislature in 2017, while the Majority Leader, Senator Ahmad Lawan, presented the bill as it is customary for executive bills.
It is ‘A Bill for An Act to Establish a Regulatory Framework for the Water Resources Sector in Nigeria, Provide for the Equitable and Sustainable Redevelopment, Management, Use and Conservation of Nigeria’s Surface Water and Groundwater Resources and for Related Matter.’

The summary of the bill reads, “This Act repeals the Water Resources Act, Cap W2 LFN 2004; River Basin Development Act Cap R9 LFN 2004; Nigeria Hydrological Services Agency (Establishment) Act, Cap N110A, LFN, 2004; NationaI Water Resources lnstitute Act Cap N83 LFN 2004; and establishes the National Council on Water Resources, Nigeria Water Resources Regulatory Commission, River Basin Development Authorities, Nigeria Hydrological Services Agency, and the National Water Resources Institute.”
The proposed bodies, if established, will “provide for the regulation, equitable and sustainable development, management, use and conservation of Nigeria’s surface water and groundwater resources.”

The southern senators particularly criticised the move to create new Federal Government’s bodies to take over the responsibilities of the states over the water resources within their territories.

The controversial parts of the bill are contained in Clauses 1 to 5.
The clauses read, “All surface water and groundwater wherever it occurs is a resource common to all people, the use of which is subject to statutory control.

“There shall be no private ownership of water but the right to use water in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
“The right to the use, management and control of all surface water and groundwater affecting more than one state pursuant to Item 64 of the Exclusive Legislative list in Part l of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, and as set out in the First Schedule to this Act, together with the beds and banks, is vested in the Government of the Federation to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

“As the public trustee of the nation’s water resources, the Federal Government, acting through the minister and the institutions created in this Act or pursuant to this Act, shall ensure that the water resources of the nation are protected, used, developed, conserved, managed and controlled in a sustainable and equitable manner, for the benefit of all persons and in accordance with its constitutional mandate.

“States may make provisions for the management, use and control of water sources occurring solely within the boundaries of the state but shall be guided by the policy and principles of the Federal Government in relation to Integrated Water Resources Management, and this Act.”
The passage of the bill however suffered a setback when the Senate dissolved into the committee of the whole to consider the 152 clauses of the proposed law.

In a veiled persuasion of the lawmakers, the Senate President, Bukola Saraki said, “This bill has 152 clauses. This bill is the Leader’s first bill. This bill is the President’s bill, so we are going to have a very swift movement in passing this bill.”

Unlike the normal process of taking the clauses one after the other, the Senate President put Clauses 1 to 50 to a voice vote at once.
Senator Yahaya Abdullahi (APC, Kebbi-North) however raised an issue with one of the clauses, asking the Senate to properly define ‘bank’ especially where it starts from and the distance it should be from a water body to the shore.

While he stated that he was not opposed to the bill, he noted that the clarification was needed for rivers that cross two or more states.
He likened it to a federal road which makes the government to acquire 50 metres from the centre of the road to both sides.
“Otherwise, a lot of conflicts are going to arise. River banks are much more contentious than roads because of agricultural and other activities,” Abdullahi stated.

Senator Barnabas Gemade (APC, Benue North-West), however, dismissed Abdullahi’s fears, saying that while the nature of the road was fixed, a river could increase or decrease in size.
Opposing the bill, the Minority Leader, Senator Godswill Akpabio (PDP, Akwa Ibom North-West), who raised issues against Clause 3, warned against making a law that would lead to the Federal Government taking over the landed areas of riverine communities, especially communities where the water bodies dry off.
“When they dry off, they become residential. So, it will cause a lot of confusion. We really need to be careful,” he noted.

Akpabio made reference to Lake Chad which used to have over 25,000 kilometres of water but had dried up to about 5,000 kilometres. He said it meant that the community now had 20,000 kilometres for farming and other activities, stressing that it would have been out of the reach of the people if the government had possessed the bank.

He said, “The kind of river we are talking about should be clearly defined. If we want to say that all waters in Nigeria must be legislated upon by the Federal Government, then we will cause a lot of confusion because there are a lot of communities that depend on small rivers to survive.

“If the banks now belong to the Federal Government, we are doing what we are not supposed to do; we are centralising power at the centre, we are not devolving powers. We are bringing Nigeria back to a unitary state. We are now making sure that even communities are now dispossessed of their land. Some of those places are natural elongation of the land.”

Senator Emmanuel Paulker (PDP, Bayelsa-Central) backed Akpabio, noting that there was a need to define what a bank is.
He also pointed out that the Federal Government was about to take over resources in the states at a time when Nigerians were calling for devolution of powers.

He said, “Most of these rivers dry off, they are seasonal rivers. If we say banks are owned by the Federal Government, definitely it will create a lot of problems. We should look at it closely before we pass it. Most of the waters are drying off, so how do we define the banks?”

The Majority Leader, Senator Ahmad Lawan (APC, Yobe-North), however, countered Akpabio, stating that the lawmaker was arguing in error.
Lawan noted that the clause was in reference to waters like River Benue and River Niger which flow through several states. Then many senators took side based on geopolitics.

To douse the rising tension, Saraki cut the debate short, ruling that the bill be stepped down and be reviewed.

The Senate President referred the bill to the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Committee on Water Resources and Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Director of Legal Services and Gemade “for further legislative action.”

Many nationalities were suspicious of government’s intention and rose against the bill.

The Ijaw Youth Council had kicked against the bill, noting that it was against the clamours of Nigerians for restructuring and state control of resources.

The IYC President, Pereotubo Oweilaemi, then issued a statement, “That is unacceptable to us. Sending such a bill to the Senate is a tactical plot to control resources in the Niger Delta region. Nigeria is at a time when there are agitations for restructuring and resource control, but the President is seeking a bill that will enforce more federal control over the state resources.
“It is wrong and it doesn’t go well with us as a people. It is a plot to further embarrass the people of the Niger Delta.”

Femi Falana, SAN, a human rights lawyer, stated that the executive bill was a mockery of the principle of federalism and the agitation for restructuring which seeks the devolution of powers at the centre to the federating units.

He reiterated that the National Assembly could not legislate on “just any water” but only water that passed through more than one state.
Falana recalled that there was a judgment in which the Court of Appeal made the pronouncement when the court nullified the licences given by the Federal Government for dredging of some Lagos waters.

He said, “It is a mockery of the principle of federalism. It also makes a mockery of the widely accepted agitation for the devolution of powers from the centre to the federating units.

“The Court of Appeal has ruled that the National Assembly cannot legislate on just any water but only waters that pass through more than one state.”
Recall that in August 2020, the Nigeria Labour Congress had warned the National Assembly not to resurrect or cause to be passed into law the National Water Resources Bill because of the danger it portends to national unity.

In a statement signed then by the NLC president, Ayuba Wabba, the group said although the National Assembly is constitutionally vested with law-making, they should not ambush Nigerians.
“Information in the public domain has it that the National Assembly leadership is working surreptitiously with vested interests outside the Assembly anxious to pass the bill without due legislative process,” read the statement dated August 28, 2020.

“We equally warn against legislative abuse or betrayal of Nigerians as this is what it will amount to if the bill is passed or caused to be passed without public engagement and scrutiny. Already, the sentiments expressed against this bill are too grave to be brushed off.”
The labour union’s warning came just as Nigeria’s Nobel laureate, Wole Soyinka, criticised the attempt by both the executive and legislative arms to “sneak” the bill into law.

Civil society groups across the country have also criticised the bill, saying it would breach citizens’ right to water. Controversial parts of the law include the part that vests ownership of water bodies on the federal government and the part that mandates citizens to get federal permission to drill bore holes in their homes or businesses despite the inability of the government to provide potable water to majority of its citizens.

The National Water Resources Bill failed to secure a concurrent passage by both Houses in the Eighth Assembly. In the current Ninth Assembly, it has passed second reading in the House of Representatives and has been referred to a House committee.

“Although there is no law against re-presentation of a killed or rejected bill, however, given the strong sentiments expressed against this bill from practically all sections of the country, then and now, we would strongly advise that this bill should not be resurrected, said NLC.
“We have in our hands at the moment enough challenges to court fresh and costly controversy.

“Although legislation is one of the three constitutional functions of the National Assembly, it should not be a licence to dictatorship but a representation of the will, aspirations and sensitivities of the populace. In light of this, we state unambiguously that the National Assembly should listen to the voice of reason by resting this bill.”

The bill could not sail through the 8th Assembly. Though it was surprising that the presidency reintroduced the bill at the onset of the 9th Assembly when Ahmed Lawan a stout defender of the controversial bill became Senate president.

The reintroduction of the bill has again raised reasonable concerns
“The return to the National Assembly of the executive bill seeking to take over the control and ownership of various waterways in Nigeria by the federal government is curious and already generating controversy. For me there is more to the bill than meet the eyes”, professor Adeagbo Moritiwon, a political scientist told Business Hallmark last week.

Critics of the bill that did not survive the Eighth National Assembly are asking questions about why it was returned by President Muhammadu Buhari.
Moritiwon said “the federal government should steer clear of issues that have the tendencies to generate acrimony and further divide the people.

He stated further that “this is nothing but total disregard for the will of the people. The bill generated so much heat in 2018 that the National Assembly had to drop it. Now retitled “National Water Resources Bill, 2020,” it has survived for third reading and final passage by the House of Representatives.
Like the earlier proposal, section 13 of the bill states that “in implementing the principles under subsection (2) of this section, the institutions established under this Act shall promote integrated water resources management and the coordinated management of land and water resources, surface water and ground water resources, river basins and adjacent marine and coastal environment and upstream and downstream interests.”

Meanwhile, section 2(1) of the bill, stipulates: “All surface water and ground water wherever it occurs, is a resource common to all people.”
Recall that in 2018, the bill had initially passed the second reading in the Senate and was consequently sent to the committee stage for further legislation. However, after the committee brought back the bill for final passage, it generated a controversy that prompted the upper legislative chamber to constitute another ad-hoc committee to further look into some of the controversial provisions.

During a clause by clause consideration of the bill, then Minority Leader and former Akwa Ibom State Governor, Godswill Akpabio who is currently the Minister of Niger Delta, had kicked against the provision seeking to empower the federal government to take control of all waterways and their banks in Nigeria. The provision vests large pieces of land adjoining the river banks across the country, which have been the exclusive preserve of state governments, to the federal government. It is the same bill that has now been reintroduced with a different title.

If it sails through, it will alter the critical provisions in the Land Use Act which vests the ownership of the land in the state governments except in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) where the federal government holds sway.
Professor Samuel Odemo of the Department of Political Science, Kogi State University said the National Assembly should not allow itself to play the role of a rubber-stamp and should listen to the yearning of their constituencies that are against the bill.

” Honestly, I do not understand why the federal government would want to take a substantial part of the powers of state governments on land particularly at water fronts. I support and share the opinion of many stakeholders that it is a ploy to deprive people living along riverbanks of their basic livelihood as they will lose ownership of such land to the federal government. Despite the rhetorical question, “is this not the same bill that generated controversy in the media?”, House of Representatives Speaker, Femi Gbajabiamila, has given tacit endorsement.
Dr. Olusiyi Anjorin, a doctoral student of Sociology told this newspaper that ” this is gross insensitivity and tyranny on the part of this administration, especially coming at a period many Nigerians are calling for a restructuring of the federation so that more powers and resources are devolved to sub-national units, the idea of the federal government appropriating the waters is ludicrous to say the least.”

Indeed a good place to draw the curtains.