The recent calls by a few people in the northern part of our dear country for the re-introduction of Onshore/Offshore Oil Dichotomy in revenue sharing should be worrisome to most Nigerians. This call is particularly distressing (even unpatriotic) given the fact that it is coming on the heels of a wave of terrorism and insecurity, which has claimed the lives of several innocent Nigerians in the North, and has threatened our cooperate existence as a nation. Finding a solution to this bloodletting should preoccupy the minds of all patriotic Nigerians – not delving into other areas, which could exacerbate the already tense situation.

One believes that such talk could further stoke the fire of insecurity and endanger the virtues of “freedom, peace and unity” canvassed in our National Anthem. The Dichotomy Law was not only so detrimental to our nationhood that it was given the appellation “obnoxious”; it was one of the evil vestiges of military dictatorship. The military itself tried lamely to excuse it, given its unjust nature, on the exigencies of the Nigerian Civil War, and its reconstructive efforts after the war.

It has been said that a page of history is worth more than a tonne of logic. The history of this issue would suffice before we look at the sophistic arguments for its reintroduction. It is a fact that no civilian government ever implemented such an unjust law, and until the advent of the military the revenue sharing formula (for both onshore and offshore) wealth was more than the mere 13 per cent currently enjoyed by the states.

Before the unfortunate advent of Military Dictatorship, Nigeria had witnessed five different revenue allocation arrangements in the course of our democratic development. These were the Chick Commission of 1953, which recommended a 100 per cent derivation for resources to the resource-bearing communities. The Raisman-Tree Commission of 1958, which recommended a derivation of 50 per cent to host communities, 30 per cent to regions and 20 per cent to the Federal Government. The Hicks-Phillipson Commission of 1961 and the Binn Commission of 1964 which both recommended 50 per cent derivation sharing to areas where the resources were located, 35 per cent to the regions and 15 per cent to the Federal Government. It should be stated in line with this argument that the dichotomy between onshore and offshore wealth was not included in the 1963 Constitution (or any earlier constitution). Had it not been for the advent of the Military, this colossal injustice would not have blighted our history.

In abrogating the obnoxious onshore/offshore dichotomy law in 2004, the National Assembly took patriotic interest in this history and met the demands of democracy and justice. They also took this action in the spirit of Truth and Reconciliation, and consigned to the dustbin of history, one of the most painful relics of a bitter Civil War and a constant nagging reminder of the evils of Military Dictatorship.

However, the National Assembly struck a compromise in abrogating this law by maintaining that states should only receive thirteen per cent revenue on resources located within 200 metres isobars of their continental shelves. This meant that resources located beyond this distance belonged to the Federal Government. Though this was not apparently fair to the littoral states, given the fact that the effects of gas flaring in the high seas lead to air pollution on land and the intermittent oil spillages (as it occurred recently off the coast of Akwa Ibom), destroy aquatic life and endanger the health of the people; it was accepted by the states concerned in the interest of peace and unity.

The claim by these antagonists that the North has been impoverished because of the abrogation of this unjust law is utterly strange. For example, in the month of July, 2012 one of the states in the Niger Delta had an allocation of N12 billion, whereas Kano State had an allocation of N10 billion – not much of a difference! Hypothetically speaking, if the onshore/offshore dichotomy were to be reintroduced, the Federal Government would still take a lion’s share and the rest shared to 36 states. Kano would not have more than N100 million added to its kitty. Is Kano impoverished because N100 million has not been added to what it currently receives? What a fallacy!

It should also be stated that a state governor in one of the northern states, upon leaving office, gleefully announced that he was leaving behind the sum of N64 billion in the state’s coffers. In spite of the sea of needs in the state, he could not think of what to do with so much money! He announced his failings as if it were a major success. Truly, some persons can turn a desert into a palace, and some can turn a palace into a desert! It is a matter of visionary and purposeful leadership.

Regrettably, the Niger Delta is also impoverished by the activities of oil companies in the high seas. It should be noted that health concerns have forced several advanced countries to stop some oil drilling in the high seas. But in Nigeria wherever oil is found, it is drilled irrespective of health hazards to coastal dwellers. It would, therefore, amount to “treason” to deprive those whose lives you put at risk and who die everyday of just 13 per cent revenue.

This ill-treatment of the littoral states was what fanned the Niger Delta anger from the days of Isaac Borro, through the days of Dr. Ken Saro-Wiwa (who paid the supreme sacrifice for this cause) and to the days of militancy during the reign of the President Olusegun Obasanjo, GCFR. The Niger Delta militancy caused oil production in Nigeria to drop to a worrisome 30 per cent. Abrogating the obnoxious law was, therefore, a call to redress this injustice and fully integrate the Niger Delta into the Nigerian equation. The militants fought because the Niger Delta people were not only impoverished but were dying (their creeks and waterways were gone, the fishes dead and sickness prevalent), while the nation shared “blood money,” made at their expense. Justice was done and peace reigned again in our beloved country. Those who were behind this abrogation were true patriots, and those who were against it have no interest in justice.

In his inaugural address in 1960, the late Prime Minister Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Belewa of blessed memory (a victim of military adventurism – like the littoral states) said, “now we have acquired our rightful status and I feel sure that history will show that the building of our nation proceeded at the wisest pace: It has been thorough, and Nigeria now stands well built upon firm foundations.” This message rings as true today as it did when the sage said it. All states have acquired their rightful status in revenue sharing, and our political development, after the dark days of military rule, has been at the wisest pace. It has been thorough (it took two years for the National Assembly to abrogate this evil law) and we now stand built on firm foundations. Anyone who seeks to shake or destroy those foundations seeks to destroy Nigeria.

Photo: Niger Delta militants fought injustice, of which the Onshore-Offshore dichotomy was a part. Reintroducing the dichotomy is, therefore, dangerous.

*Prince John, a public policy analyst, works with the Institute of Communication and Leadership Studies, Uyo.