The Northern State Governors Forum may well be on its way to challenging the constitutionality of the Onshore/Offshore Act based on a previous Supreme Court verdict and the assertion that the Act negates constitutional provisions that give control of the country’s territorial waters to the federal government.

While former speaker of the House of Representatives Aminu Bello Masari has absolved himself from engineering the passage of the Act, suggesting it was a political compromise among the presidency, governors and National Assembly, he said there was no reason why it could not be revisited.

Believing there is a good chance the Supreme Court could strike out the Act, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Yahaya Mahmood, has advised President Goodluck Jonathan to seek a political compromise to the impasse rather than allow the northern governors to head for the Supreme Court.

A close aide to the chairman of the forum, Governor Muazu Aliyu of Niger State, told LEADERSHIP Sunday that taking their case to the Supreme Court remained an option for them unless an agreement was reached with all stakeholders.

Mahmood said: “In 2002, the attorney-general of the federation engaged Chief Rotimi Williams and Alhaji Abdullahi lbrahim, SAN, to file a suit in the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government against the 36 states.

“The claim was for the court to say or determine what is the boundary of each of the littoral states for the purpose of calculating the amount of revenue accruing, i.e., 13% pursuant to S.162(2) of the 1999 constitution.

“The states were Akwa lbom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo and Rivers. The states filed counter-claims which were not relevant except the claim asking the federal government to render an account of monies in the Federation Account.

“The Supreme Court held that the powers and authority of the federal government over the entire maritime belt or territorial waters of Nigeria are beyond doubt; consequently, the littoral states lack control of or authority over territorial waters of Nigeria.”

That judgement, Mahmood said, began the on-shore offshore debate. “In 2004, the National Assembly, through an Act, abolished or abrogated the dichotomy, in essence setting aside the judgement. If the littoral states have been judiciously using the 13% on the host communities, the matter would have been settled by now.” he said.

“And each littoral state gets almost 10 times what, for instance, Benue and Sokoto states get monthly. A political solution should be found. But as a lawyer, I tell you that the 2004 Act is unconstitutional. The northern states can go back to the Supreme Court. But President Jonathan should not allow that. He should be just and settle the matter politically.”

Masari on his part said, “When in 2003 we came, it was re-introduced; and this time when it was re-introduced, it was done after the parties involved – the Governors’ Forum and everybody - agreed to come out with a political solution that would be acceptable to all.

That was why it was reduced from 500 to 200 nautical miles. For anybody now to come and say we should blame Mr. A or B, I think they missed the point. This Act was a compromised position of the governors, president, political parties and the National Assembly.”

He continued: “I could remember when we were discussing the issue with the former president, he said he envisaged a situation where maybe after 10, 20 years with the offshore exploration, maybe over 70 to 80 per cent of all the oil will be on the offshore, so that the pressure on onshore-offshore will cease.”



http://www.leadership.ng/nga/articles/34962/2012/09/16/onshoreoffshore_controversy_northern_governors_may_go_supreme_court.html