Posted by By Ise-Oluwa Ige on
ONE year after 19 Northern governors and three South-West states went to the Supreme Court, seeking to stop further payment of 13 per cent derivation fund to the oil producing states, the Federal Government has reacted to the suit, urging the apex court to dismiss it in its entirety.
ABUJA - ONE year after 19 Northern governors and three South-West states went to the Supreme Court, seeking to stop further payment of 13 per cent derivation fund to the oil producing states, the Federal Government has reacted to the suit, urging the apex court to dismiss it in its entirety.
It is the contention of the Federal Government that by filing the suit, the North is only crying over spilt milk.
The South-West states, Oyo, Osun and Ekiti, are on the list of the plaintiffs seeking the stoppage of the 13 per cent derivation fund, although Oyo State disowned being a party to the litigation.
The suit was filed barely six months after the Federal Government assented to the Act by the National Assembly, abolishing the controversial onshore-offshore oil dichotomy in the application of the principle of derivation and allocation of revenue in the country.
The Act in question is tagged: "Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy in the Application of Principle of Derivation) Act 2004."
The Federal Government in its brief of argument filed at the registry of the apex court, weekend, contended that it was too late in the day for the plaintiffs to attempt an annulment of the Act which confers the right to 13 per cent derivation on oil revenue accruing to the country to the oil bearing states.
According to the Federal Government, Northern lawmakers not only participated in the legislative process that led to the enactment of the Act, they also constituted the majority without whose concurrence, the passage of the Act would have been practically impossible, stressing that they should not be heard to complain.
The Federal Government said: "As against the defendants' 24 members, the plaintiffs (the North plus the three South West states) have a majority of 66 members without whose concurrence and acceptance, the passage of the Act would have been impossible.Thus, the act of passing the Bill resulting in the Act complained of is in fact the act of the plaintiff or predominantly so."
The Federal Government consequently contended that it was wrong of the North (plaintiffs) to turn round to blame the defendants for the passage of the Act.
Urging the court to dismiss the entire suit, the Federal Government cited a plethora of reasons including: that the northern states and the three from the west had no locus standi; that the plaintiffs' suit constituted an abuse of judicial process; that the provisions of the Allocation of Revenue) Abolition of Dichotomy in the Principle of Derivation) Act 2004 were not in any way unconstitutional having been made pursuant to the express provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
Meanwhile, the Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Muhammad Uwais, has already constituted a seven-man panel of Justices of the Supreme Court to determine the merits of the suit
Although the list of the jurists empanelled to hear the case on merit is yet to be made public, a source told Vanguard that the CJN himself was on the panel.
Justice Uwais has fixed September 29 as definite date for commencement of hearing in the matter, being a constitutional matter and having waited at the registry for almost one year.
By implication, it is one of the constitutional cases to be entertained by the court as soon as the new legal year commences mid- September, this year.
The governors from the 19 Northern states approached the Supreme Court one year ago to reinstate the controversial onshore- offshore oil dichotomy recently abrogated by the Act of the National Assembly.
Three states from the South-West, Oyo, Osun and Ekiti, are also on the list of the plaintiffs seeking the stoppage of the 13 per cent derivation fund. One of the three South-West states, Oyo, has, however, disowned the suit.
But in the main, all the 22 plaintiffs in the case are asking the Supreme Court to issue an order stopping forthwith the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission from implementing and relying on the Act of the National Assembly, abrogating the on-shore/off-shore dichotomy for the purposes of allocating revenue to states and local governments from the Federation Account.
They contended that the Act grossly offended the provisions of the 1999 constitution, the principle of federalism and sundry ancillary laws of the land.
The governors contended that payment of 13 per cent derivation to the oil producing states not only placed greater economic powers on the littoral states but also negated the principles of equality of the component parts of the federating units.
Querying the endorsement of the controversial Abrogation of On-shore/offshore Act by the President, the 22 governors argued that the National Assembly and President Obasanjo who is the repository of executive powers lacked the legal power to cede or assign any part of Nigerian territorial waters to the oil producing states.
According to them, "doing so is against the rules of International Law, the Constitution and Statute. The Act is, therefore, null and void without much ado."
The Federal Government had in 2001, approached the Supreme Court for its pronouncement on what constituted the seaward boundaries of littoral states within the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the purposes of calculating the amount of revenue accruing to the Federation Account directly from any natural resources derived from those states pursuant to section 162 (2) of the 1999 constitution.