Focus on controversy over control of resources

Militant youths in the Niger Delta, southeastern Nigeria, have campaigned over the past decade for more access for their impoverished communities to the wealth of the region, which is the country’s main oil-producing area. Governors of six Delta states, who were voted into power in 1999 as Nigeria ended more than 15 years of military rule, have adopted the youths’ struggle, putting the quest for greater control of oil resources at the forefront of their demands for constitutional reforms. The demands find favour with the governors of the 11 other states of southern Nigeria. However, they are opposed by the federal government and the governors of the country’s 19 northern states, which produce no crude oil. Consequently, Nigeria has been polarised by a major political and constitutional dispute that has the potential to spin out of control if not carefully managed. President Olusegun Obasanjo appeared to chafe sensitive nerves in the oil region when he declared during a recent visit to Bayelsa, one of the Niger Delta states, that Nigeria’s 1967-70 civil war had been fought for control of the country’s resources. “The entire nation fought a bitter 30-month civil war to ensure that the resources of the nation are kept intact,” Obasanjo told youth leaders in the Bayelsa capital, Yenagoa, in response to a chorus of demands that oil states be given more control over resources in their areas. “Since the whole country fought for it, it would be wrong now to allow a few people to control the resources of the country simply because they are within their territory,” he added. In January, the federal government moved to tackle one aspect of the dispute by filing suit in the Supreme Court to obtain clarification of a constitutional provision that states should receive 13 percent of the revenue from natural resources on their territory. Since assuming office, Obasanjo has permitted payment of only 7.8 percent of oil revenue to the oil-region states, on the grounds that the remainder represents offshore production that does not come under the jurisdiction of the coastal states. When others argued that the constitution made no such distinction, Obasanjo’s response was to seek Supreme Court intervention. On 9 April, the Supreme Court is scheduled to begin hearing in the suit. Governors of the 17 southern states, who had met in January in the southeastern city of Enugu and articulated demands for greater devolution of power to the states, including over natural resources, met again on 26 and 27 March in Benin, capital of the mid-western state of Edo. Heading their agenda was the adoption of a common position in the legal battle with the federal government over the sharing of revenue. Edo Governor Lucky Igbinedion was heartily applauded when he said: “Beyond the basic financial requirements of the federal government, every state in the federation should be entitled to keep all the wealth that accrues to it by natural endowment or the industry of its people.” Such sentiments are hugely popular in southern Nigeria. The widespread perception there is that northerners, who held most of the political power in the country since independence from Britain in 1960, have often misappropriated the oil wealth of the south. Many political analysts also think that federal ownership and control of natural resources have been a major contributing factor to decades of political instability and military rule as generals sought to shoot their way to power and control the country’s oil wealth. Some therefore feel that reducing the amount of resources available to the federal government would make the centre less attractive and engender the achievement of Nigeria’s avowed federalist objectives. However, in northern Nigeria, the agitation for resource control is viewed with serious apprehension and opinions often correspond to Obasanjo’s declaration in Bayelsa state. “Resource control is a way of dividing the nation, a way of encouraging people to take up arms,” Isa Kachako of the All Peoples’ Party told the Vanguard’ newspaper in a recent interview. “These people in the coastal areas knew how we fought the civil war,” Kachako, a northerner, said. “More than two million people died in that war. Now these people want a repeat of what happened.” But this thesis on the reason why the civil war was fought is being challenged by many critics. “Those who are now saying that the civil war was fought over the oil of the Niger Delta are only now coming clean with their previously hidden hegemonic intents,” Fabian Ozoro, a political commentator, told IRIN. “As far as the history books can tell, we know that the war was precipitated by the massacre of southerners, mainly Igbos, in the northern cities while the northern-controlled federal government stood by and did nothing. Those who declared Biafra did so because they felt they could no longer be protected by Nigeria.” While the controversy rages and the federal and state governments sharpen their arguments for presentation before the Supreme Court, some political leaders have advised that a political - rather than legal - solution is the best option. Among them is former Commonwealth secretary-general Chief Emeka Anyaoku, who has called on Obasanjo’s government to convene a meeting of political and other groups for this purpose. “I am calling for a national conference which will focus on the old questions of restructuring of the Nigerian polity, true federation and progressive transfer of power away from the centre,” he said on 26 March.