The nature of Nigerian politics and politicians is often a fun to follow. It’s partly because our politics tolerates drama, and the ego of the politicians is always on display. The back and forth, ups and downs in our politics are all part of the changeless dynamics and ever changing behaviour of the politicians. That’s why friends today can become enemies tomorrow. Therefore, the lessons in power leave us with at least one inevitable conclusion: what politicians do while they are trying to get power is not necessarily what they do after they have it.
Two days to the November 16, governorship election in Bayelsa state, I was astonished at the conspicuous absence of Gov. Nyesom Wike during the grand finale rally of the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) in Yenagoa to drum support for its candidate, Senator Douye Diri. Was Wike’s absence due to any misunderstanding with old friend and colleague in Bayelsa, Gov. Seriake Dickson? Both are real stalwarts of PDP. What could have caused this apparent lack of warmth and cordiality? Is it about oil matter?. These are some of the questions that I asked out of curiosity.
Last week, Gov. Wike took us into the innermost heart of his grouse with Dickson. He was angry. His ego was on display. He alleged that Dickson was plotting to take Rivers oil wells located at Soku in Kalabari, Asari-Toru local government . He accused Dickson of “sneaking” into Rivers state to cause disaffection under the pretence of visiting the Amanyanabo of Kalabari Kingdom, King Theophilous J. T. Princewill. Wike spoke when a group of Kalabari people visited him at the Government House, Port Harcourt. According to Wike, Dickson has been busy, working to take Rivers oil resources at Soku and Kula. He threatened to dethrone the monarch if he repeats such act in future, adding with a stern warning, “I will not listen to further excuse if the monarch allows his palace to be used by the Bayelsa state government for a sinister motive to promote divisiveness”. He also urged Kalabari leaders to prevail on the monarch not to be a “willing tool in the hands of external forces” to create disunity in Rivers state.
Why will Wike use such intemperate language against his colleague, from the same political party? It mirrors our divisive politics and how our politicians can use it to achieve some predetermined goals. I still recall that in 2013, as Minister of State for Education, Wike accompanied Gov. Dickson to Kula over the Soku oil wells without without him(Wike) first paying a courtesy visit to the then governor of Rivers state, Chief Chibuike Amaechi, now Minister of Transportation. What has changed now? Interests, perhaps. Politics too. That’s fine. A courtesy visit is a matter of discretion, not binding on the visitor. That’s my view. But, let’s focus on the matter at hand, that’s, the Soku oil wells dispute. There’s so much misinformation in this matter. Who owns the oil wells in dispute has been on for years. Many times in the past, former governor of Rivers state had accused former President Goodluck Jonathan of ceding the oil wells to Bayelsa. No doubt, this controversy has caused disaffection between the two oil bearing states.
These are the incontrovertible facts: Rivers state government had dragged Bayelsa state government to the Federal High Court on the matter. It lost. The court had ruled that “a party that asserts must prove same”. Instead of following the normal appellate court process, Rivers state invoked the constitutional provisions and filed a suit straight to the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 2011 . It has the right under our laws to do so. As the plaintiff in the matter, some of the reliefs sought by the Rivers state government include: A declaration that the purported boundary between Rivers state and the first defendant (Bayelsa state) as shown in the 11th edition of the Administrative Map of Nigeria does not represent the correct boundary between the plaintiff state and the first defendant. Two, a declaration that the current boundary between the plaintiff state and the first defendant is River Santa Barbara. Also, a declaration that Soku oil wells are situated within the territorial boundaries of Rivers state of Nigeria.
Besides, that the first defendant’s claim to Soku oil fields in the plaintiff’s territorial jurisdiction “is false, wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, vexatious, null and void, and of no effect whatsoever”. Beyond that, a declaration that the plaintiff’s state is entitled to all revenues that had accrued and are still accruing to the Federation Account from the said Soku oil fields from July, 2005 by reason of the derivation principle as stipulated in Section 162(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
On July 10, 2012, the Supreme Court delivered judgment on the matter. Here’s a synopsis of the Judgement. The lead judgment was delivered by Justice Suleiman Galadima. Four justices concurred. Said Galadima, J.S.C.”We do not require copious formulation of the issues by the parties to resolve this case”. The sole issue, the learned Justice said, “is the actual location of Soku oil wells/fields. The determination of the issue is dependant on what the correct boundary of the plaintiff and first defendant state is. Is it Santa Barbara River as claimed by the plaintiff or Saint Bartholomew River as claimed by the first defendant”? That’s the question. The Supreme Court found that from 2006, the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission based its decision of derivation on the 11th edition of the Administrative Map of Nigeria which put the boundary between Rivers state and Bayelsa at St. Bartholomew. The National Boundary Commission later admitted in a letter dated July 3, 2012 that it made a mistake and undertook to amend it in its publication of its 12th edition. But it is yet to complete the exercise.
Based on the evidence before the Supreme Court, Justice Galadima said, “I do not feel comfortable to grant the declarations sought by the plaintiff(i.e, Rivers state government) until the National Boundary Commission concludes its exercise of delineation of disputed boundary to its finality. It will be futile and premature to determine the boundary of the two parties in the present circumstances. However, the appropriate order to make in the prevailing circunstance is to strike out the plaintiff’s suit and I so order accordingly”. He asked each party to bear its own cost. The then Chief Justice of Nigeria(CJN) Dahiru Musdapher also struck out the plaintiff’s suit, saying, “this court cannot arrive at any decision in this matter unless and until the boundary between Rivers state and Bayelsa state is determined”.
Other Justices of the Supreme Court who struck out the claims of the plaintiff were : Mahmud Mohammed, J. A. Fabiyi, Olufunlola Oyelola and Bode Rhodes-Vivour. In their considered opinion, Rivers state government did not adduce material evidence in support of the monetary sum it is claiming from the defendants. By section 3 of the Boundary Commission Act, it has the duty to determine and intervene in the boundary dispute between parties. Therefore the proper placement of Soku oil wells can only be determined by a Map by the commission. In the absence of that, the claim by the Rivers state government that it owns Soku oil fields is premature.
This Soku oil matter reminds me of the age-long tussle between the Urhobo and Itsekiri over who owns Warri. The Itsekiri took the Urhobo to court. They had claimed, among other things, that their king, G
inuea 1 founded Warri after leaving Benin. The lower court rejected this claim. In September, 1976, the Supreme Court though did not say specifically who between the two owns Warri, it said that the Itsekiri provided no concrete evidence in support of their claim. In the same vein, it will be wrong for Rivers to lay hold on Soku oil wells until the Supreme Court makes a definitive pronouncement on the matter. For now, both parties should seek alternative conflict resolution.