THE Federal Government says that the demand
by some Niger Delta indigenes that proceeds
from oil and gas should be exclusively
reserved for the oil-producing states is not
feasible.
To buttress its point, the government cited
Section 44 (3) of the Constitution, which
stipulates that the proceeds from these
natural resources shall be managed in such a
manner as may be prescribed by the National
Assembly.
The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF)
made the submission in a written address in
support of preliminary objection to a class
suit filed at the Federal High Court, Yenagoa,
Bayelsa State, by some indigenes of the Niger
Delta area, demanding control of the region's
resources.
Those who filed the class suit are: Idaye C.
Opi, Owupele Philemon, Ilamina Agada,
Samuel Effik, Patrick Ederi and Emeka Dite
Ojoko for themselves and on behalf of the
peoples of the Niger Delta.
Counsel to the Attorney General of the
Federation, Mrs. A. O. Mbamali, noted that the
applicants' prayer for a declaration that they
were entitled to the exclusive use of the
wealth and natural resources as provided by
Article 21 of the African Charter on Human
and Peoples Rights, was in conflict with the
provision of Section 44 (3) of the country's
Constitution.
According to the government, reference to
'peoples' in the said Charter is not a
reference to a particular locality, hamlet,
village, or town but the citizens of Nigeria. It
also pointed out that the Niger Delta was not
a signatory to the treaty that gave rise to the
African Charter, but Nigeria as an entity.
The government counsel further submitted
that the respondents, the Attorney General of
the Federation, the Senate President and the
Speaker, House of Representatives are not
bound by the African Charter on Human and
Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement)
Act, Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria
1990 on the wealth and natural resources in
the Niger Delta.
Section 162 (1) of the 1999 Constitution,
according to the government position,
mandatorily requires that the country shall
maintain a special account called 'Federation
Account' into which shall be paid all revenues
collected by the government of the
federation.
"We submit that the declaration sought by
the applicants is an apparent conflict of
fundamental provisions of the constitution
and should not be granted therefore nor are
they justifiable in any way and we urge your
Lordship to so hold," the government counsel
submitted.
Responding to the issue of the 13 per cent
derivation being inadequate, the
government lawyer stated that there was
nowhere in the constitution where it was
stated that derivation should be adequate,
adding that the claim that 13 per cent was
inadequate was not an exercise of a legal
right.
Government also contended that the
compensation for pollution of gas flaring
was not its duty but rather that of the oil
companies. It pointed out that the
constitution has vested jurisdiction in the
Federal High Court to try matters arising from
mines and mineral, including oil field, oil
mining, geological survey and natural gas.
It observed that since the reliefs sought by
the applicants bordered on revenue
allocation, other states of the Federation,
based on the Supreme Court decision in AGF
V Abia (2001) 11 NWLR (Page 725), ought to
be necessary parties. It insisted that the
failure of the applicants to join the states was
a major impediment to the just determination
of the suit.
"Right to revenue allocation/derivation is not
a right to be enforced by an individual but
by the various states as beneficiaries of the
revenue. Such action can only be instituted at
the Supreme Court by the Attorney-General
of the respective states against the Attorney
General of the Federation," it said.
The matter is slated for hearing on the March
15, 2010.
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/news/article03//indexn2_html?pdate=040310&ptitle=Govt%20rules%20out%20resource%20control