By Wole Oyebade

INSTEAD of the piecemeal amendment of the 1999 Constitution being initiated by the Presidency, professionals from the South-South and South-East geo-political zones have called for a constitutional conference to review the entire legal document.



advertisement

At a press conference in Lagos on Tuesday, the experts, under the platform of the South-South and South-East Professionals (SSSEP), said the amendment of the constitution as sought by President Goodluck Jonathan is an acceptance of the fact that there is a fundamental need to restructure the country.

The group said "it is reassuring that President Jonathan decided to start his transformation agenda with the constitution, but we disagree with the current approach of tinkering with one clause here and there, believing that it not sufficient".

Its president, Emeka Ugwu-Oju, urged Jonathan to, however, demonstrate the political will by opting for a constitutional conference to find support from most Nigerians, which he described "as a credible alternative for the re-engineering of a malfunctioning nation".

Ugwu-Oju said ahead of such a conference, the SSSEP proposes the adoption of the current geo-political zones as the federating units in "our federal structure".

SSSEP said the geo-political zones' arrangement that the federation had been operating were in order, adding that "what remains is to constitutionally recognise this arrangement, which the Federal Government has conventionally used in the administration of the country so far".

The group said for Nigeria to remain a federation, it must first define the boundaries of the federating units, their powers and functions and this is the basis of all the agitation in the land.

"We must ask ourselves whether the states and local councils as they now are, should continue as the federating units and be allowed to be draining the scarce development resources. Such issues are not going to be handled by tinkering with the much-derided 1999 Constitution.

"We need a constitutional conference to provide a forum for the peoples of Nigeria to sit down and negotiate these issues and the basis for the continued existence of the country".

Ugwu-Oju said the proper restructuring of the country "would halt the fears of the minorities and of injustice among Nigerians" and canvassed an enabling law for each zone to have its own constitution.

He added that the on-going debate on tenure elongation is neither good nor bad but has to rest on proper political structure and a people-consented constitution.

http://odili.net/news/source/2011/aug/4/12.html

Bliss4Lyfe:

Ugwu-Oju said ahead of such a conference, the SSSEP proposes the adoption of the current geo-political zones as the federating units in "our federal structure".

Ugwu-Oju said the proper restructuring of the country "would halt the fears of the minorities and of injustice among Nigerians" and canvassed an enabling law for each zone to have its own constitution.

Cosign on both of these statements. Federating units should be the zones, not the states. And then if a zone wants to create just 1 state or 1000, that should be their own business.

Zonal constitutions also makes sense to me. Is this US style presidential/governor system the best way to run each zone, for example?

Perhaps Zone A wants to generate its revenue through income tax, and Zone B wants to generate it through a VAT tax. Right now, the constitution greatly limits the powers of the federating units to generate revenue.

Regarding the elephant in the room (resource control), I made this suggestion earlier that I think most would find agreeable:

ekt_bear:

Would anyone be opposed to say 50% resource control (rather the current 13%) over a 20 year period? I think if you space it out over time, then you cushion the immediate blow to regions that don't produce much oil.

Thoughts on this? Say something like from 13% to 50% increasing linearly over 20 years or something.

Then again, I'm not sure that the current arrangement is constitutionally defined (havent read the constitution fully, so correct me if I am wrong).

Would anyone oppose this? It is only a small change over each of the 20 years. Which should give the states/regions plenty of room to generate additional revenue. You could also tweak it to make it eventually 100% resource control (say over 30 or 40 years). The main point is the idea, not the exact #s used.

ekt_bear:

Regarding the elephant in the room (resource control), I made this suggestion earlier that I think most would find agreeable:

Would anyone oppose this? It is only a small change over each of the 20 years. Which should give the states/regions plenty of room to generate additional revenue. You could also tweak it to make it eventually 100% resource control (say over 30 or 40 years). The main point is the idea, not the exact #s used.

50% over 10 years, and 100% over 20 years with tax paid to the FG would be more like it. The idea of resource control is at the heart of true federalism.

@ Topic,
I think Jonathan will generally acquiesce to constitutional conference rather than SNC. Reason being that the North will do everything (threat, blackmail, sabotage) to prevent an SNC.

Constitutional conference would be seen as a middle ground.

PointB:

50% over 10 years, and 100% over 20 years with tax paid to the FG would be more like it. The idea of resource control is at the heart of true federalism.

not too sure about this one when u consider our leaders' penchant for reversing previous administration policies  

^^
They have not reversed 13% for a long time. It would rather be difficult to agree to it, than to reverse it.

13% is paltry compared to 50%, not to mention 100%. It's what we need to move forward but I doubt if it'll ever happen

Now included at the top and noted for future Posting. http://odili.net/news/source/2011/aug/4/12.html

More beating around the bush to split. Maybe everyone is waiting for a bomb in their villages in the south first.

^^^
Even that would not cause a split!

Because Nigerians hate tackling the problem. They'll just sit there with palm wine in their hand and let noise roll out their mouth.

PointB:

50% over 10 years, and 100% over 20 years with tax paid to the FG would be more like it. The idea of resource control is at the heart of true federalism.

It sounds too rapid to me, but even that might be possible. The initial 50% over 20 years though could be done fairly painlessly, I think.

is true oo so the north are using mustafa in prison to black mail SW leaders because they know that Yoruba leaders especially ACN they are advocating for SNC to be implemented in Nigerian constitution, Yoruba's should fight back don't let northerners use you again

^-- I don't think the core north can prevent it. I think everyone aside from them wants it as this point. SW needs more control over its own destiny, even if this comes at the cost of smaller (or zero) oil checks from the FG

ekt_bear:

Regarding the elephant in the room (resource control), I made this suggestion earlier that I think most would find agreeable:

Would anyone oppose this? It is only a small change over each of the 20 years. Which should give the states/regions plenty of room to generate additional revenue. You could also tweak it to make it eventually 100% resource control (say over 30 or 40 years). The main point is the idea, not the exact #s used.

ekun_bear, 50 - 70% resource control is absolutely reasonable to me with the caveat that the resources currently located in areas designated as Federal (for security, environmental, or other legitimate reason), be exempted. This will give each region a free hand to explore and develop the resources in their land. All resouces located off-shore, miles away from our coastline, within the territorial waters of Nigeria must remain under the control of the Feds.

I  am in agreement with your idea, in principle. Most of the people who oppose this idea think of resources as crude oil, alone, while forgetting that 90% of the natural resources found in Nigeria remain untapped. BTW 90 -95% of the oil exported from Nigeria in the past 15years were from off-shore sources.

Each region should be free to drill for oil and perform oil exloration activities in its area - 50% control of the said resources is very fair. Off-shore oil must remain under federal control 100%. If ogbanje fishermen from the coastal areas cannot swim or ride their local boats to the location of off-shore oil resources, they cannot lay any claim to such a resource, i.e. unless they want the rest of us to chase them into the ocean by force,

Can you provide a reference for this 90-95% of the oil being from off shore?

I don't think that it is true.

Anyway, I'm in theory not opposed to your suggestion of retaining the onshore/offshore dichotomy. At least for now.

ekt_bear:

Can you provide a reference for this 90-95% of the oil being from off shore?

I don't think that it is true.

Anyway, I'm in theory not opposed to your suggestion of retaining the onshore/offshore dichotomy. At least for now.

ekun_bear, The figure is quite accurate and as a matter of fact, some reports show that Onshore oil and gas production in Nigeria declined at a CAGR of 4.8% over the 2000-09 period, I believe the decline is more like CAGR of 10-20%. For reference, refer to the attached file - the book is quite expensive but you may find a copy in a University's Petroleum Engineering department's library.

The 100% Federal off-shore thing would be a loss of South Western Nigeria.

[center][img]http://www.rbudde.de/GEO7/Nigeria_Oil/Nigeria_GasOil-1979.jpg[/img][/center]

^^
how, i thought ondo state and Lagos get oil or they haven't found oil in Lagos

ndu_chucks:

ekun_bear, The figure is quite accurate and as a matter of fact, some reports show that Onshore oil and gas production in Nigeria declined at a CAGR of 4.8% over the 2000-09 period, I believe the decline is more like CAGR of 10-20%. For reference, refer to the attached file - the book is quite expensive but you may find a copy in a University's Petroleum Engineering department's library.

Your linked reference doesn't support the 80% or 90% offshore.

ezeagu:

The 100% Federal off-shore thing would be a loss of South Western Nigeria.

http://www.rbudde.de/GEO7/Nigeria_Oil/Nigeria_GasOil-1979.jpg

Hrm, I see. In that case, let me not give away my people's birthright w/o knowing exactly what the impact is, heh.

This is one of the few times I agree with ndu_chucks. All offshore resources should remain a jointly owned asset. Onshore resources should be a different thing. For me 100% resource control for onshore. 

@ekun_bear, did you read the book "Onshore Oil and Gas in Nigeria – Production, Drilling and Expenditure" mentioned in the link? If you did, you'll find the information there. There are more oilfields onshore, but the output from a single offshore platform could be 10 or even 100 times that of a typical onshore field.

@Onlytruth, a better idea may be to freeze the status quo - by that I mean the feds continue to control all of the existing onshore oilfields because of the investments already made, contracts, and legal issues. All new exploration would then be carried out by the regions and the region controls 100% of all new finds. How about this idea?

who created the 6 zone. Igbo people. abeg comot jo. there are only 3 region in nigeria.

Does this man look anything close to you. or Yoruba

do you like this map

Posted by: ndu_chucks

@Onlytruth,[b] a better idea may be to freeze the status quo - by that I mean the feds continue to control all of the existing onshore oilfields because of the investments already made, contracts, and legal issues. All new exploration would then be carried out by the regions and the region controls 100% of all new finds. [/b]How about this idea?

Well, at least this demonstrates that you are proposing a forward looking solution. Well yes I totally agree with the bolded. Because of how complex things have become in Nigeria; no reasonable person would want to rush things. If the freeze would achieve a gradual (but clearly defined and timed) approach to eventual 100% onshore control, then fine by me.

ndu_chucks:

@ekun_bear, did you read the book "Onshore Oil and Gas in Nigeria – Production, Drilling and Expenditure" mentioned in the link? If you did, you'll find the information there. There are more oilfields onshore, but the output from a single offshore platform could be 10 or even 100 times that of a typical onshore field.

I don't have access to that book right now; I'm out of town and far away from my library. Since you do, scan the relevant page (or quote from it.) Like I said, I highly, highly doubt that most of Nigeria's current oil production is offshore. Perhaps the more attractive new fields are there, but existing, no way.

Let me say what I have privately believed. As long as Nigeria continues to remain one, all offshore oil resources must continue to belong to the Federal Government. It makes simple sense.
The onshore ones are different because they are within clearly defined state and regional boundaries.
The Nigerian nation owns the offshore resources. PERIOD.

Onlytruth:

Posted by: ndu_chucks
Well, at least this demonstrates that you are proposing a forward looking solution. Well yes I totally agree with the bolded. Because of how complex things have become in Nigeria; no reasonable person would want to rush things. If the freeze would achieve a gradual (but clearly defined and timed) approach to eventual 100% onshore control, then fine by me.

When Biafrans Nigerians who are Igbos such as Onlytruth, begin to see things in a more reasonable manner, then there is hope for us. Sai One Nijeria!

I look forward to you providing evidence that "90 -95% of the oil exported from Nigeria in the past 15years" came from offshore oil.

ekt_bear:

I look forward to you providing evidence that "90 -95% of the oil exported from Nigeria in the past 15years" came from offshore oil.

ekun_bear, I no longer have the book, but if you find it you'd see the info therein. It is quite easy to see why the 90% figure is correct if we consider the fact that Royal Dutch Shell's offshore Bonga field alone, pumps about 10 percent of Nigeria’s crude.