Breaking: OML 112: Court stops RMAFC, AGF from deducting money from Rivers State statutory allocation

Godwin Tsa

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ordered the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) to comply with judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of OML112 Offshore and to stop the deductions of the sums of N502, 298,943.03 or any sum whatsoever forming the proprietary rights of Rivers State government.

In addition, Justice Taiwo Taiwo has ordered directing the Defendants to make a full refund of the 13% derivation illegally denied the Plaintiff from the crude oil and gas production within OML 112 offshore from September, 2018 till the determination of the suit; and thereafter.

He equally ordered the Attorney General of the Federation, the Accountant General of the Federation and the RMAFC to pay interest at the various commercial rates not being less than 15% per annum with monthly rests, on the illegally deducted and denied 13% derivation due to the Plaintiff from OML 112 offshore until satisfaction of the whole debt.

Justice Taiwo further restrained the Defendants, their agents, assigns, representatives, privies or howsoever called from disregarding the finality of the Supreme Court judgment delivered on 18th March, 2011 in Suit No: SC/27/2010, between: Attorney General of Rivers State and Attorney General of Akwa Ibom State & Anor as it relates to the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff in respect of OML 112 offshore.

The suit was instituted by the Attorney General of Rivers state to challenge the deduction of the  sum of N502, 298,943.03 accruing from OML 112 from the Statutory Allocation of the state by the defendants.

Meanwhile, before the judgment, the court resisted attempts by counsel to RMAFC, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) to arrest the judgment via an application for stay of proceedings.

Justice Taiwo who dismissed the application for lacking in merit held that it did not meet the condition precedent for it to be granted.

While describing the application as a veil attempt to arrest his judgment, Justice Taiwo said the rules of the court did not donate to him, the power to arrest his own judgment.

” I have looked at the affidavit in support of his application and I did not see how this court can stay proceedings,” Justice Taiwo held.

He added “the applicant has failed to furnish the court with all relevant documents for due consideration of his application and he does so at his own peril as this application will be refused.”

He maintained that the first defendant did not meet the basic principles in the granting of stay of proceedings which he listed to include; whether there is a pending appeal properly entered at the Court of Appeal or where such an appeal raised issue of jurisdiction of the trial court.

According to him, the first defendant was fully aware of the matter in court but chose to sleep on his right by not entering appearances or filling any process.

“The first defendant was dully served  with the originating summons and hearing notices on July 5, 2019 but he did not enter appearance or file any processes in court, only the second defendant who is a nominal party did.

” He was equally on July 10, served with the interim order of this court made on July 9, by this court along with hearing notice and the originating summons.

“The first defendant who chose to voluntary stay away from the proceedings is not covered by section 36 of the 1999 constitution.

” The role of the court is to maintain a level playing field for parties to ventilate their grievances. Where counsel failed to utilize the opportunity he cannot now turn around to blame the court. Once that opportunity is offered, the duty of the court ends.”

“I hereby find no merit in this application and same is hereby refused,” Justice Taiwo ruled.

After refusing the application, the court proceeded to read it’s judgment in the suit which was filed and argued by counsel to the plaintiff, Lucius Nwosu (SAN).

Justice Taiwo after analysing the issues canvassed in the originating summons and the counter affidavit filed by the Accountant General of the Federation, resolved all the issues in favour of the plaintiff.

He noted that the non filling of a counter affidavit by the first defendant to challenged the facts contained the affidavit in support of the originating summons was fatal to his case.

Justice Taiwo held that the consequence of an unchallenged affidavit is that the facts are uncontroverted and well established.

The suit raised some constitutional questions for the determination by the court as follows: “Whether it is constitutionally ultra vires the powers of the Defendants to by administrative fiat deviate from the subsisting conclusions of facts and law arrived at by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in its judgment delivered on 18th March, 2011 in Suit No: SC/27/2010, between: Attorney General of Rivers State and Attorney General of Akwa Ibom State & Anor in respect of OML 112 offshore.

“Whether the provisions of Section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) gives a stamp of finality to any decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and thereby renders the purported administrative acts of review by the Defendants to deduct or purport to deduct the sums of N502, 298,943.03 or any sum whatsoever forming the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff granted and established by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in its judgment delivered on 18th March, 2011 in Suit No: SC/27/2010, between: Attorney General of Rivers State and Attorney General of Akwa Ibom State & Anor in respect of OML 112 offshore is unconstitutional, null and void and off no effect whatsoever.

“Whether the 1st Defendant has the constitutional powers to disregard the decision and finality of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered on 18th March, 2011 in Suit No: SC/27/2010, between: Attorney General of Rivers State and Attorney General of Akwa Ibom State & Anor, which determined the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff in respect of OML 112 offshore, whether by altering the original nomenclature or purporting to claim it is a new field referred to as “Okoro Oil Field” in its pieces of correspondences dated 26th November, 2018, 30th April, 2019 and 25th June, 2019 respectively.

If the answers to questions 1 and 2 above are in the affirmative, whether the Defendants, their assigns, agents or privies can legitimately deduct or recommend for deduction the sum of N502, 298,943.03 or any sum whatsoever from the Statutory Allocation of the Plaintiff for a period of 112 months or any period whatsoever.

If the answers to questions 1 and 2 above are in the affirmative, whether the Defendants are not obligated to make a full refund of the 13% derivation from crude oil and gas production from OML 112 offshore which has been unconstitutionally denied to the Plaintiff from September, 2018 to determination of this suit.

Upon the determination of the above questions, the plaintiff prayed the court for a declaration that the subsisting conclusions of facts and law arrived at by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in its judgment delivered on 18th March, 2011 in Suit No: SC/27/2010, between: Attorney General of Rivers State and Attorney General of Akwa Ibom State & Anor in respect of OML 112 offshore is sacrosanct and same cannot be deviated upon by the Defendants, their agents, assigns, or privies by administrative fiat or any manner whatsoever.

A DECLARATION that the provisions of Section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) gives a stamp of finality to any decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in respect of the oil field in OML 112 offshore, and that same renders the purported administrative acts of review by Defendants, their assigns, agents, privies or any person or authority unconstitutional, null and void and off no effect whatsoever.

A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant does not have the constitutional powers to disregard the decision and finality of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered on 18th March, 2011 in Suit No: SC/27/2010, between: Attorney General of Rivers State and Attorney General of Akwa Ibom State & Anor, which determined the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff in respect of OML 112 offshore, by altering the original nomenclature of the oilfield and referring to the said oilfield as “Okoro Oil Field” in its correspondences dated 26th November, 2018, 30th April, 2019 and 25th June, 2019 respectively.

A DECLARATION that the Defendants, their assigns, agents or privies cannot legitimately deduct or recommend for deduction the sum of N502, 298,943.03 or any sum whatsoever from the Statutory Allocation of the Plaintiff for a period of 112 months or any period whatsoever.

A DECLARATION that the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in its judgment delivered on 18th March, 2011 in Suit No: SC/27/2010, between: Attorney General of Rivers State and Attorney General of Akwa Ibom State & Anor, whereby it declared the Plaintiff as the legitimate owner of 86 oil wells in the then disputed OML 112 offshore is valid and subsisting.

AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside the administrative decisions taken by the Defendants in respect of OML 112 offshore which is at variance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered on 18th March, 2011 in Suit No: SC/27/2010, between: Attorney General of Rivers State and Attorney General of Akwa Ibom State & Anor.

AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to make a full refund of the 13% derivation illegally denied the

Plaintiff from the crude oil and gas production within OML 112 offshore from September, 2018 till the determination of the suit; and thereafter.

AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to forthwith continue payments of the 13% derivation generated from the crude oil and gas production within OML 112 offshore to the Plaintiff.

AN ORDER of this Honourable Court perpetually restraining the Defendants, their agents, assigns, representatives, privies or howsoever called from disregarding the finality of the Supreme Court judgment delivered on 18th March, 2011 in Suit No: SC/27/2010, between: Attorney General of Rivers State and Attorney General of Akwa Ibom State & Anor as it relates to the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff in respect of OML 112 offshore.

AN ORDER directing the Defendants to pay interest at the various commercial rates not being less than 15% per annum with monthly rests, on the illegally deducted and denied 13% derivation due to the Plaintiff from OML 112 offshore until satisfaction of the whole debt.

The plaintiff avered his supporting affidavit that “Sometime in 2006, the then President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, GCFR, intervened in the dispute between the Plaintiff and Akwa Ibom State Government who were represented by their respective executive Governors, they met and agreed to a Political Solution Method which led to the weighting of 50% of the disputed areas comprising 172 oil wells with each of the two littoral states receiving 86 oil wells and the revenue accruing there from with effect from November, 2006. This agreement which was reduced into writing and dated 31st October, 2006. It was exhaustively analysed and appraised by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in its judgment delivered on 18th March, 2011 in Suit No: SC/27/2010, between: Attorney General of Rivers State and Attorney General of Akwa Ibom State & Anor.