Osiris.211:
Getting closer to Oodua Republic? Ondo and Lagos blessed with rich oilfields?

charzyn: Yorubas should built the refinary first to prove that they have the oil and stop shouting and making noise . Anambra state built thier refinary first and commission it before making it known to people that they have belong to oil producing state. keep quiet and take action instead of making noise

Bliss4Lyfe:

I don hear. With command from OBJ, start preparin dat case for ICJ.

We are progressive and see nigeria with an economic specs not the tribal one. Dat oil, na we get am.

slim fit :
what are you talking about, apart from the bridges nothing is in a Lagos since The 1970s the only contribution of FG was the third mainland bridge apart from that what else. Its not like the FG had a housing system where all the houses are built by the government. There wasn't even a planing structure that was follow even building law didn't exist, if it exist it wasn't followed.Lagos been the capital didn't add much to its beauty.

Lobolintin: 10yrz 4rm nw,oil wil lose its value

naptu2:
Section 134 (6) of the 1960 and 1963 constitutions (which dealt with revenue allocation formula) had the sentence

"(6) For the purpose of this section, the continental shelf of a Region shall be deemed to be part of that Region".

This subsection was deleted in the 1979 constitution (which forms the bedrock of the 1999 constitution).

The deletion of this subsection was the reason for the on-shore/off-shore dichotomy crisis of the early 2000s.

Basically, the southern states sued the Federal Government and tried to get the Supreme Court to declare that they were entitled to revenue from off-shore oil production.

The northern state governments also sued the FG and tried to prevent the FG from giving any percentage of revenue from off-shore oil production to the southern states.

The matter was settled out of court, but the off-shore/on-shore dichotomy exists, even till today.

macfarland: These are offshore fields and going by Obasanjo onshore/offshore oil dicotomy policy, Lagos as a state wont get a dine frm dis oilfields. OBJ cunningly defrauded d south-south pple with dis policy and took the revenue dat is supposed 2 go 4 d benefit of d south-south states 2 d FG. Let nobody fool himself 2 think dat Lagos wil earn direct revenue from these oilfields. Now frm OBJ policy, it will be d turn of south west 2 suffer d same fate mated 2 d south-south states. I am saying d fact and not talkin like Sir Alex Ferguson of Man United when he loses a match.

naptu2:

6 The history of revenue allocation in Nigeria dates back to October 10, 1957 when the fiscal commission was set up on the recommendation of the London constitutional conference to specifically examine revenue allocation and the problem of taxation in Nigeria.

The commission in its report recommended that, “Mining and mineral royalties and rents should be shared between the regions of their origin, the Federal government and all the regions together, the least by way of a distributable pool. The proportions in which these royalties and rents should be divided are respectively 50%, 20% and 30% and the considerations of these proportions subject to fiscal review”.

This is reflected in The Constitution Of The Federation Of Nigeria 1960, section 134, which states as follows: -


7 “134. (1) There shall be paid by the Federation to each Region a sum equal to fifty percent of-


(a) The proceeds of any royalty received by the Federation in respect of any minerals extracted in that Region; and


(b) Any mining rents derived by the Federation during that year from within that Region.


(2) The Federation shall credit to the Distributable Pool Account a sum equal to thirty per cent.

A) The proceeds of any royalty received by the Federation in respect of minerals extracted in any Region; and

B) Any mining rents derived by the Federation from within any Region”.
Section 134 (6) states further: -

“(6) For the purposes of this section the continental shelf of a Region shall be deemed to be part of that Region”.


According to professor Itse Sagay, 8“Under the 1960 and 1963 constitutions, a true federal system of strong States or Regions and Central or Federal ‘state’ with limited powers, was instituted. Both the 1960 (Independence) constitution and the 1963 (Republican) constitution were the same. The only differences were the provisions for ceremonial President (1963) in place of the Queen of England (1960) and the judicial appeals system, which terminated with the Supreme Court (1963) rather than the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council (1960)”


However section 162 (2) of The Constitution Of The Federal Republic Of Nigeria, 1999 states as follows: -



9 “162 (2) The president, upon the receipt of advice from the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, shall table before the National Assembly proposals for revenue allocation from the Federation Account, and in determining the formula, the National Assembly shall take into account, the allocation principles especially those of population, equality of states, internal revenue generation, land mass, terrain as well as population density:
Provided that the principle of derivation shall be constantly reflected in any approved formula as being not less than thirteen per cent of the revenue accruing to the Federation Account directly from any natural resources”.












The data provided in the table below shows graphically the change in the derivation percentage: -
10Table 1: Federal - State percentage share in petroleum proceeds
Years
Producing State (%)
Federal Government (%)
Distributable Pool (%)

1960-67
50
20
30

1967-69
50
50
-

1969-71
45
55
-

1971-75
45 minus off-shore proceeds
55 plus off-shore proceeds
-

1975-79
20 minus off-shore proceeds
80 plus off-shore proceeds
-

1979-81
-
100
-

1982-92
1 and half
98 and half
-

1992-99
3
97
-

1999-
13
87
-

Source: Sagay, 2001

The decrease in the derivation percentage from fifty percent in the 1960 constitution to “at least thirteen percent” in the 1999 constitution and the omission of the phrase, “continental shelf of a state” has caused both the derivation percentage crisis and the “on-shore, off-shore dichotomy” crisis respectively.

Bliss4Lyfe:

I don hear. With command from OBJ, start preparin dat case for ICJ.

We are progressive and see nigeria with an economic specs not the tribal one. Dat oil, na we get am.

Dudu_Negro: naptu,

i reviewed your last post. in the period between 67-69 and 69/71, one can argue that it (the ratio) was redefined ro finance the war and as well for the rebuilt and rehabilitation immediately following.

its hard to place the sharp drop from 75-79. this period is very interesting in understanding political relationships and a new dfinition going into North/South economic balance and equal opportunity. this was also the period when the issue of federal character gained huge push.

79-onward is crazy, part of second republic.

obasanjo restored some sanity in 99.

naptu2: Re-Barkin Zuwo comment:

Barkin Zuwo was governor of Kano (I think he was also a senator at one time). He was the only northerner who supported increased derivation % for states during the debate about increased derivation % for the states (2nd republic).

Surprised journalists cornered him afterwards and asked him why he supported increased derivation % for states when his state had no minerals. He replied, we have a lot of minerals like coke, fanta, etc.

seanet01: Nigeria don suffer. How come this guy become governor?
Chei, my head o

naptu2: Re-Barkin Zuwo comment:

Barkin Zuwo was governor of Kano (I think he was also a senator at one time). He was the only northerner who supported increased derivation % for states during the debate about increased derivation % for the states (2nd republic).

Surprised journalists cornered him afterwards and asked him why he supported increased derivation % for states when his state had no minerals. He replied, we have a lot of minerals like coke, fanta, etc.

Dudu_Negro: personally, i believe 50% is a fair return. if enacted that could also deter state splits and get people around commonality of interest and inter dependency, rather than agitating self-sufficiency.

naptu2: This was my proposal.

On-shore:

The individual who owns the land should own the resources and get the revenue derived from the resources. He then pays tax to the government.

The local government gets 25% of that tax and remits the rest upward. The state government gets 35% of the tax and remits the rest upward. 20% of the tax goes to the Federal Government, while the remaining 20% is put in an account in case of emergencies (to help states that have suffered floods, drought, earthquake, etc).

Off-shore:

50% of the revenue should go to the Federal Government, 30% to the litoral state and 20% to the local government.

The Federal Government should also shed some of its responsibilities (this it has already started doing) by returning private companies/institutions that were taken over in the 1970s and relinquishing functions/agencies like the Federal Fire Service, etc and devolving them to the state and local governments.

CFCfan:

He might have been backed by the "powers that be" in those times. Also, he might have been a member of the Kaduna mafia.

naptu2: What happens at the moment is that, if oil is found on your land, the federal government takes that land from you and pays you a pittance as "compensation".

Yet, if I farm cocoa, cotton, etc, the land remains mine, the revenue remains mine, I simply pay tax to government.

Of course that's not fair, neither is it justice.

Why should the government forcibly take land that has belonged to my ancestors for generations? This is one of the causes of the Niger Delta struggle.

Again, we might give 90% of derivation revenue to the state governments and yet it might not impact on the life of the person who owns the land. We might only have succeeded in breeding new James Ibori, Diepreye Alamiesegha and Emmanuel Uduaghan. This is another reason for the Niger Delta crisis.

So, to the issue of bloodbath, land theft, etc. This is what good government (good laws, good policing, etc) is meant to solve. This is also one of the reasons why we have human rights agencies and groups.