• Personalities
• Voices

Channels

• About Nigeria
  
• NigeriaExchange
  
• Entertainment
  
• Business
  
• Paging
  
• Lifestyles
  
• More...
  

Related News Stories

• Govt sues states over resource control

MID-WEEK ESSAY
On the Federal Government Suit Over Resource Control

Mobolaji E. Aluko, PhD
Burtonsville, MD, USA

Post Your Comments Here | View Posted Comments

February 8, 2001

The announcement yesterday that the Federal government is suing all the 36 states of the federation before the Supreme Court to enable that apex court to give constitutional interpretation to the issue of resource control is both very welcome and very curious for many reasons:

1. For the first time in this democratic dispensation, the FG acts - even if some will think in this case that it pretends - as if it does not have all the power to make its own interpretations of the constitution.

2. While states have sued the Federal government before during the Shagari regime - and won; Bendel's Alli government is a case in point - this is the first time in which the Federal government has sued not just ONE state but ALL the states under it put together! The uniqueness of this case must be an exciting one for constitutional lawyers and enthusiasts in Nigeria, if not the world.

3. Naturally, the suit gives those states that do NOT support resource control the opportunity to opt out of the legal tussle, thereby enabling the world to know which of all the states does or does not support resource control. If in the unlikely event that the suit fails - that is, the Supreme Court rules that the states should have resource control - the layman interpretation of course would be that only those states who stayed on to fight should have resource control, while others lose their right to state resource control. Of course, one can be sure that success would then have a thousand friends, and the others would jump onto the success bandwagon!

4. Judging from the fact that the Federal government's argument for not going to court over the Sahelian States' adoption of Sharia was that it was an explosive politico-religious matter, and that it was not certain that it would win in a Supreme Court riven with religious loyalties, one is left to wonder whether the Federal government really feels that its present case in taking on particularly the Littoral States over onshore/offshore oil resource control dichotomy is any less explosive, and that its win at the Supreme Court has been "guaranteed."

5. One wonders whether the National Assembly was consulted over this issue. It would appear that as representatives of these states in Abuja, a need to get the sense of their own sentiments about the issue would be a wise course. Such course appears to be few and far between these days.

6. Finally, bearing in mind that this decision to sue must presumably have been a taken at a Federal Executive Council comprised of ministers chosen FROM VARIOUS STATES according to a constitutionally-dictated federal-character formula, one then wonders who these ministers REALLY represent once chosen into the FEC. If for example the overwhelming majority of the Delta State delegation in the National Assembly supports resource control, and the Rivers State government (state assembly and governor) support resource control, how could a minister chosen to represent Delta State in Obasanjo's federal cabinet not support resource control?

Let me however make a prediction: The Federal government will TRIUMPH in this case after a rather short hearing because the 1999 Constitution is VERY CLEAR as to who controls the resources in question: It is the Federal Government. I do not even think that the States are arguing about that. Rather they seek a change of that constitution in line with "True Fiscal Federalism", and those who are most aggrieved are pushing the envelope in terms of passing local laws that VIOLATE the constitution to show their resolve and test that of the federal government.

That is a better alternative to violence, which, while adoptable by unorganized or militantly organized individuals, is no option for a constitutionally organized state government.

If the Federal government feels, as the trial goes on, that it will not prevail over the wider issue of resource control, it will seek to narrow it to the issue of onshore/offshore dichotomy wherein, to my mind, it is on much surer footing, constitution or no constitution, for I believe that the International Law of the Sea supports the Federal position on who controls offshore waters. Whether the Federal government wishes to concede a portion or all of those waters is up to the FG.

I believe that it should concede a portion - but not all - to the extent that that portion affects the fishing livelihood and environmental fears of the onshore people, and it involves the investment of their direct sweat equity.

We must not forget that what the Obasanjo 1979 Constitution did, and which was ossified in the Abacha 1999 Constitutions, was to institute bad laws that stand true federalism on its head. What the Federal government is now trying to do is a preemptive, delaying tactic - the suit might stop the states in their forward tracks - and also pull a publicity stunt to get the Supreme Court apparently to "legitimize" a bad law.

The best that the states can expect is for the Supreme Court to say that the laws should be changed, but that its "hands are tied." What the states should do, particularly the littoral ones, is to use this opportunity to mount a public relations campaign to state their case before the people of Nigeria, as well as continue their preparations for a Sovereign National Conference or Conference of Nationalities which should be convened with or without goverment support.

There is a maxim: "be careful what you ask for, you might just get it."

This maxim might yet apply to the Federal government in this its rather unique and welcome suit.

We shall see.
Read The News Story: Govt sues states over resource control  

Post Your Comments Here | View Posted Comments

Published with the permission of Dr. Bolaji Aluko