₦airaland Forum

Dudu_Negro: I am not sure of the significance of most of your post...it isn't an issue of Delta or whatever to me.

Long story short, coastal states own whatever is in their waters.

Any argument one wants to use for why derivation should apply to LAND should also apply to the water attached to that land.

Seun: @ekt_bear: I can't help you if you refuse to tell me the truth. What you're describing is not possible.

lmao.

What reason do I have to lie? Fire up a client to your SQL server and figure it the issue...I shouldn't have to debug your stuff for you.

At a minimum, you can verify for yourself that it says I've been logged in for 2+ months..

why does offshore belong to the FG, but onshore not?

Which law says this?

Probably what happens is that when someone logs in, a new session isn't necessarily created if your software believes an old one exists.

So probably sometime 2 months ago, I logged into some computer at the library or something, never logged out of NL, and your software things that session is what is active.

Double check that when someone logs in, that a new session is created and all old ones destroyed.

Also double check that when someone logs out, all sessions are destroyed..

Look, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do. I could debug the problem if I were on your end, but I am not. I don't know *why* clicking logout doesn't actually destroy my session variable too. But surely you can investigate and find out why. You have access to your source code and to the sql database. I do not..

Seun: If we do that, it will be possible for anyone to log you out by posting an image with the logout url.

Image with logout URL? What? Wouldn't I have to click the URL? Wouldn't that URL have to encode my session information? How is this "anyone" getting the session information?

I cannot investigate the problem if I don't have an accurate description of what's actually happening.

Well, I have described the problem as easily as I can. When is left for you is to access your SQL database (or wherever else you are storing the session information) and delete my current session. Or have sessions automatically time out after X hours of inactivity (e.g., 8.)

Or make the session variable expire after 1 month. Most people don't have sessions last forever necessarily..

Spiritual ke?

Just expire the session from your end.

Or ensure that when someone clicks LOGOUT, their session is killed completely no matter where else your software thinks they might be logged in from..

My point is that your software is buggy...has nothing to do with the spiritual

I don't think too many people would say that I'm one of the most tribalistic posters.

And if they do, well... *shrug*

Why are people so keen to ally with a group with nothing to offer?

In your personal life, do you team up with a guy who will contribute 0 to the project, or even be a burden?

When there is a project at your job, do you immediately look for the weakest link, the slowest guy at your job to partner with?

What sense does it make in a Nigerian context to team up with a burden?

How can someone take a "siddon look" approach when you might be the biggest loser of that approach?

What happens if the next Bonga field is discovered in your backyard?

Do you want to be Esau who gave away his birthright for almost nothing?

Again, this isn't rocket science.

bayooooooo: Going by the scenarios on Nairaland alone which mirror Nigerian reality, the best and the most trusted alliance the West can make is with the North.

Smh. Ya'll just don't learn, do you? What type of alliance can there be when someone wants to steal what is your birthright?

I don't understand the way you guys think.

OK, you want to make one-sided alliance where you cook dinner and everyone else eats.

So what is the benefit you get from it?

This is simple. Support the coastal states...making alliance with folks who have

(a) nothing to offer
(b) who will only drain your finances

makes absolutely no sense.

This is not an issue which one can site on the fence, DuduNegro.

Think about it for a few minutes...the correct position is to support the rights of coastal states.

And if you don't care about the correct position, the maximally beneficial position for the SW zone as a whole is also to support the coastal states.

Fully 50% of the states in our zone are coastal.

Even if you are from Oyo, Osun or Ekiti, you imo are obliged to seek the greater good of the zone as a whole rather than that of your state (for a variety of reasons that are mostly obvious and thus I don't need to go into.)

Man wtf is this sh1t

I personally don't know where my own folk will stand. Who knows, maybe they will sit on the fence or actively support ending offshore.

But from my own perspective and analysis, both would be the incorrect move to make.

Then again, it seems that they aren't too keen on doing necessarily what I think is best.

My hope is that the relevant people will think hard about this (shouldn't take more than 3-5 minutes really) and realize what the correct course of action is.

*shrug*

Then in that case, the SS would be wise to ensure that whoever follows after GEJ is not a northerner.

They are in no position to be dictating demands when not even in power...

Honestly, this isn't even purely a SS issue, in my opinion.

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...)

[quote author=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[/quote]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: 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.

[quote author=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.[/quote]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.

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.

Heh.

If what Deep Sight says is true, then we are done.

There is nothing else to be said.

So what is the argument for onshore derivation?

Someone explain it to me, why they think that states should control the resources on their land.

Once you spell out the argument, let's see if the argument doesn't also imply control over your waters.

Realchange: Says who?

The water belongs to the land.

If Nigeria lost say Akwa Ibom State's LAND to Cameroon, you do realize it would also lose anything 200 miles from AKS's coastline, right?

Given this, does the the portion of the sea that Nigeria claims, does it not claim it THROUGH AKS?

No Akwa Ibom State, no sea claim. Thus the sea claim is only due to AKS, and thus those from that state should benefit from it, no?

How can you deny Akwa Ibom State the benefit that is theirs? How can you decide to chop what you'd never even get to eat if they weren't with you?

It is devilish and evil.

There is no consistent argument one can make for supporting onshore derivation while simultaneously being AGAINST offshore.

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 mean, this is clearly a devilish, mischievous proposal.

Koruji, I am very surprised that you support it.

One cannot say, "yes to onshore resource control", "no to offshore."

If your guiding principle is, "let the benefit Nigeria gets from State X be enjoyed primarily by State X", then you should apply this principle consistently.

Coastal states should get all of the resources associated with the sea.

The Federal Republic of Nigeria maybe in theory has sovereignty over them, but in practice, given that Nigeria is a collection of groups who don't see themselves as one people, one should treat this as if it were several distinct units operating.

The same argument for on-land resource control also applies to offshore.

If one says that the resources found in Bayelsa state belong to the people of that state, then presumably the territorial waters Nigeria has as a result of being fortunate enough to have Bayelsa also belong to the people of that state...

Any coastal peoples in Nigeria (and their friends) who foolishly agree to let offshore resources remain under the control of the FG are no different from Esau, who sold his birthright for a pot of stew..

lwkmd

you guys have turned this thread into something else

Seun: New Nairaland has been on for less than 2 months. Does this issue predate New Nairaland?

yes.