Or maybe Nigeria's coast belongs to the FCT?

Or perhaps Akwa Ibom's coastline doesn't belong to Akwa Ibom State, but instead to Zamfara, eh?

Lmaoo

I mean, this is self-evident stuff here...ain't rocket science.

re@lchange:


but akwa ibom is still in nigeria, and nigeria still has a constitution which vests powers to different levels of government
until it leaves nigeria, it is bound by nigerian constitution.

Why should Akwa Ibom have onshore derivation?

What is the argument? I assume you are for onshore derivation, right?

Spell out the argument for me. We'll then see where the logic takes us.

ekt_bear: Or maybe Nigeria's coast belongs to the FCT?

Or perhaps Akwa Ibom's coastline doesn't belong to Akwa Ibom State, but instead to Zamfara, eh?

Lmaoo

I mean, this is self-evident stuff here...ain't rocket science.

but you are not making sense bruv
why do we have federal universities inside nigerian states serving the catchment area local to them ie the states citizens? why do we have federal roads funded by the federal government inside states?

nobody is answering this question

I reproduce below Section 2 of the Constitution of Nigeria -

2. (1) Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(2) Nigeria shall be a Federation CONSISTING OF States and a Federal Capital Territory.

As such, every part of Nigeria is either in a state or the FCT.

That is the law.

I don't see why anyone from the following states: Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Rivers, Delta, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa and Cross River should support this stupidity. Since the federal government don't support these states, whenever there is an Ocean surge - I don't see why they should share the wealth accrued off-shore with other states. I think all the ports in Lagos should be managed by the Lagos government - and not the federal government.

ekt_bear:

Why should Akwa Ibom have onshore derivation?

What is the argument? I assume you are for onshore derivation, right?

Spell out the argument for me. We'll then see where the logic takes us.

my bruv the only "argument" is the nigerian constitution. end of story

Deep Sight:
I reproduce below Section 2 of the Constitution of Nigeria -

2. (1) Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(2) Nigeria shall be a Federation CONSISTING OF States and a Federal Capital Territory.

As such, every part of Nigeria is either in a state or the FCT.

That is the law.

As the Igbos would say...shikena.

End of story.

Argument over, discussion over.

The constitution is consistent with what common sense, justice and fairness dictate.

re@lchange:


but you are not making sense bruv
why do we have federal universities inside nigerian states serving the catchment area local to them ie the states citizens? why do we have federal roads funded by the federal government inside states?

nobody is answering this question

Because the Federation has responsibilities as stated under the Constitution. The FG may legislate on matters on the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative lists, and act thereon.

However, under the same constitution, ALL parts of Nigeria are either in a state or the FCT.

That is the law.

re@lchange:


but you are not making sense bruv
why do we have federal universities inside nigerian states serving the catchment area local to them ie the states citizens? why do we have federal roads funded by the federal government inside states?

nobody is answering this question

Why is the Federal government taking the lion share of the Nigerian revenue? If the federal government can't provide the things you listed above - they should hands off the resources, and let every state control its resources, period.

re@lchange:


but you are not making sense bruv
why do we have federal universities inside nigerian states serving the catchment area local to them ie the states citizens? why do we have federal roads funded by the federal government inside states?

nobody is answering this question

Even those federal universities. E.g., the new one they are establishing in my own state. The FG must seek permission from the state government before it is given land to use.

The land in Ekiti State belongs to the indigenous people of Ekiti State (e.g., folks like me).

Even the FG cannot establish a university in my state without our permission. Our land belongs to us.

Deep Sight:

[b]Because the Federation has responsibilities [/b]as stated under the Constitution. The FG may legislate on matters on the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative lists, and act thereon.

However, under the same constitution, ALL parts of Nigeria are either in a state or the FCT.

That is the law.

exactly. i would add "shared" responsibility.

I asked you before, and I'll ask you again.

Why should Akwa Ibom have onshore derivation, realchange?

What is your argument for it?

(though in light of DeepSight's posts, this discussion isn't necessary any more...)

ekt_bear:

Even those federal universities. E.g., the new one they are establishing in my own state. The FG must seek permission from the state government before it is given land to use.

The land in Ekiti State belongs to the indigenous people of Ekiti State (e.g., folks like me).

Even the FG cannot establish a university in my state without our permission. Our land belongs to us.

ol boy i don't know if that one is true o.
don't you know that the FG is the top dog in naija?
the land use act is not binding on the FG. if they need land, they simply take it and pay compensation if it is developed already.

@ noiseless

emmatok and emmke are completely different posters. Emmatok is Yoruba. Emmke is from somewhere in the North-central, possibly Plateau or Benue.

@ realchange

Who wants to ally with a brainless devil like you that wants to take offshore oil money from the coastal states based on spurious arguments?

The author of this article lied that my state (Edo) was being shortchanged by "5 greedy littoral states" and I opposed it.

As for who is really lying, that insinuation about Italy and about the export of women underage, overage, married and unmarried is far worse than the drunken fisherman stuff this same poster was raging against but he is too dishonest to admit to what he was really getting at. I won't engage with him again because he just has no integrity and resorts to increasing his font size instead of stepping back and honestly examining what he wrote.

Deep Sight:
Actually, under the Constitution of the Federal Republic, Nigeria is stated to consist of 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.

Accordingly, constitutionally, there is no part of Nigeria (land or sea) that is not either in a state or in the FCT.

That, gentlemen, is the law of the land.

Err, please tell your ole n tel'afas (Beaf & co), that there is a clear distinction between (1)any land in Nigeria, (2)its contiguous continental shelf and all rivers, streams and water courses throughout Nigeria and (3)its territorial waters.

Please additionally inform them that Ownership of ALL minerals and natural resources located in Nigeria's territorial waters, by law and constitution is vested in the Federal Government of Nigeria and not to any state.

Deep Sight, stop the laziness and misinformation.

---

TO KEEP NIGERIA ONE IS A TASK THAT MUST BE DONE

@PhysicsQED
Ayam still waiting for proof of your lies. Where is the proof na?
Or are you just a lying scumbag?

ekt_bear: I asked you before, and I'll ask you again.

Why should Akwa Ibom have onshore derivation, realchange?

What is your argument for it?

(though in light of DeepSight's posts, this discussion isn't necessary any more...)

again, i will answer you bruv, the answer is the nigerian constitution.
if we want tomorrow, we can start to share our foreign reserves by state.
the constitution controls everything.

i don't even want to go into the logic of this argument in order not to derail completely

ndu_chucks:

Err, please tell your ole n tel'afas (Beaf & co), that there is a clear distinction between (1)any land in Nigeria, (2)its contiguous continental shelf and all rivers, streams and water courses throughout Nigeria and (3)its territorial waters.

Please additionally inform them that Ownership of ALL minerals and natural resources located in Nigeria's territorial waters, by law and constitution is vested in the Federal Government of Nigeria and not to any state.

Deep Sight, stop the laziness and misinformation.

---

TO KEEP NIGERIA ONE IS A TASK THAT MUST BE DONE

that is really my point

re@lchange:


ol boy i don't know if that one is true o.
don't you know that the FG is the top dog in naija?
the land use act is not binding on the FG. if they need land, they simply take it and pay compensation if it is developed already.

Are you sure of this?

I thought it was only the state governments that can give title to land, not FGs.

There was controversy earlier in my state about where the university would be sited...my understanding of that situation was that it is only the governor who can sign off on the land. Not the FG.

eku_bear:

Are you sure of this?

I thought it was only the state governments that can give title to land, not FGs.

There was controversy earlier in my state about where the university would be sited...m[b]y understanding of that situation was that it is only the governor who can sign off on the land. Not the FG.[/b]

the state governors hold it in trust for the federal government
that is why the federals never pay compensation to land owners when constructing roads.

Deep Sight:
I reproduce below Section 2 of the Constitution of Nigeria -

2. (1) Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(2) Nigeria shall be a Federation CONSISTING OF States and a Federal Capital Territory.

As such, every part of Nigeria is either in a state or the FCT.

That is the law.

With this quote, the thread ends and Deep Sight is hereby elevated to the status of a god.

Realchange: If your argument for onshore derivation is only what the constitution says (rather than fairness), then the offshore derivation will likely also probably continue...

Or is your argument that offshore derivation (which is currently happening) is illegal, unconstitutional and should stop?

If so, no doubt they'll take it to the courts and whoever argues more convincingly will win...

re@lchange:


the state governors hold it in trust for the federal government
that is why the federals never pay compensation to land owners when constructing roads.

I don't think you are correct man. Like I said, the federal university in my state was delayed because the governor didn't sign off on releasing the land.

So I am not sure that the FG can dictate to us necessarily how to use our own land.

Beaf:

With this quote, the thread ends and Deep Sight is hereby elevated to the status of a god.

Well, maybe the new argument will be that Nigeria's coastal waters are part of Gombe State, not the coastal states.

Devilish minds can always come up with new arguments for why down is up and up is down...

eku_bear:

Are you sure of this?

I thought it was only the state governments that can give title to land, not FGs.

There was controversy earlier in my state about where the university would be sited...my understanding of that situation was that it is only the governor who can sign off on the land. Not the FG.

That is correct (except for the petroleum act).

eku_bear:
Well, maybe the new argument will be that Nigeria's coastal waters are part of Gombe State, not the coastal states.

Devilish minds can always come up with new arguments for why down is up and up is down...

Lol! Imagine Ogun or Delta states laying claim to the atmosphere or solar insolation above Sokoto, claiming it all belongs to the FG!

ndu_chucks:

Err, please tell your ole n tel'afas (Beaf & co), that there is a clear distinction between (1)any land in Nigeria, (2)its contiguous continental shelf and all rivers, streams and water courses throughout Nigeria and (3)its territorial waters.

Please additionally inform them that Ownership of ALL minerals and natural resources located in Nigeria's territorial waters, by law and constitution is vested in the Federal Government of Nigeria and not to any state.

Deep Sight, stop the laziness and misinformation.

As far as I know, it is you who was most lazy indeed when last we interacted. I showed you the law, and you could raise nothing of moment up against it.

Again, I show you the law: I am making no arguments - I simply show you the law.

Now you have mentiioned the "contigious shelf, all rivers, streams and water courses." The problem is simply that Section 2 of the Constitution does not mention those. It is the section that defines what Nigeria consists os Politically and it states very clearly that Nigeria Consists of 36 states and the FCT. Accordingly, all parts of Nigeria are either in a state or in the FCT.

Now, understand this carefully - I do not deny that the constitution provides that all resources in and under water and land vest in the Government of the Federation (Section 44(3)). That is the case even with onshore oil. The argument is simply a question as to whether the principle of derivation should apply to off-shore oil.

Under the constitution, it should, because all parts of Nigeria are either in states or the FCT.

Even on-shore oil vests in the Federation, so understand carefully - the issue is how are the proceeds divided? The same constitution provides that 13 per cent of all such proceeds shall be divided based on the principle of derivation. And since those waters are constitutionally within states, then constitutionally, the derivation principle applies to them.

eku_bear:

I don't think you are correct man. Like I said, the federal university in my state was delayed because the governor didn't sign off on releasing the land.

So I am not sure that the FG can dictate to us necessarily how to use our own land.

i didn't say it the right way
what i meant is that the federal government can designate any land as "federal land" and such land would not come under the authority of the governor as stated in the land use act.

eku_bear: Realchange: If your argument for onshore derivation is only what the constitution says (rather than fairness), then the offshore derivation will likely also probably continue...

Or is your argument that offshore derivation (which is currently happening) is illegal, unconstitutional and should stop?

If so, no doubt they'll take it to the courts and whoever argues more convincingly will win...

i think the constitution is very clear on this issue
i haven't even got to the stage of thinking about whether it fair or not

Realchange, I am not sure if you are arguing against fairness and logic is because you think it is beneficial to your own state to do so.

So let us set aside what is right, fair, and logical temporarily and discuss na[b]k[/b]ed self-interest.

Given that you are an Igboman and the interest of at least one majority Igbo state (Rivers) is in both onshore AND offshore resource control, I am not sure it is in the best interest of your people to be against it.

My own "self-interest" calculus is:
a) supporting offshore hurts me and my state slightly
b) but is of massive, massive benefit to my people (Yoruba) as a whole. Like, who knows what will be found offshore over the next 20-30 years? Signing away that is exactly what Esau did.

I imagine that the self-interest calculus of any Igbo who thinks about it for more than 3 minutes will be similar (again, assuming that they are interested in maximizing the benefit of their people as a whole rather than just their own particular state.)

ekt_bear: Then why don't the land and the resources belong to all Nigerians?

What is the argument for ONSHORE derivation that somehow also is not an argument for OFFSHORE?

How can you claim the people of State X own their land, but don't own the water that belongs to their land?

i taya ohh bro. am surprised it has gotten to this. You can't seperate the sea from the states. Abi how i go talk am self? They bear the bad of the sea not the notherners. Loot at the tsunamies and tonadoes oil spillage and so on that take place in the sea and its coastal cities, nobody is talking about that. but with oil matter people from very distance region say na their own. Too bad. If gold is found in the desert up north where nobody lives them go say na their own. They even rear cattles from state to state soooootay fulani say na them get land.

As long as nigeria through delta,bayelsa,rivers extend over 200 meters into the sea, then those states own the sea and its resources.

eku_bear: Realchange, I am not sure if you are arguing against fairness and logic is because you think it is beneficial to your own state to do so.

So let us set aside what is right, fair, and logical temporarily and discuss na[b]k[/b]ed self-interest.

Given that you are an Igboman and the interest of at least one majority Igbo state (Rivers) is in both onshore AND offshore resource control, I am not sure it is in the best interest of your people to be against it.

My own "self-interest" calculus is:
a) supporting offshore hurts me and my state slightly
b) but is of massive, massive benefit to my people (Yoruba) as a whole. Like, who knows what will be found offshore over the next 20-30 years? Signing away that is exactly what Esau did.

I imagine that the self-interest calculus of any Igbo who thinks about it for more than 3 minutes will be similar (again, assuming that they are interested in maximizing the benefit of their people as a whole rather than just their own particular state.)

bruv i'm not really interested in what my people may gain after all nobody knows tomorrow
nigeria needs to start making sense
the federal government owns certain assets in nigeria. that is the way it is.
anybody who doesn't like it should simply secede.