nigeria – torulaghareportsdotcom

Why do the Indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South Behave like Colonial Subjects of Nigeria?

Why do the Indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South Behave like Colonial Subjects of Nigeria?

Priye S. Torulagha

Introduction

Politics is defined currently as “who gets what, when, and how” (Dye). David Easton defines it as the “authoritative allocation of values” (Hanumanthappa ,2023. This definition implies that only those who consciously fight for their political, economic, legal, and human rights through political and legal means will determine who “gets what, when and how” of political power and public resources. On the other hand, those who sit on the sidelines and expect to “get what, when, and how” will end up with little or nothing because politics is a struggle for power over rulership and the sharing of resources. Both political power and resources are scarce commodities, therefore, only those who fight stridently will prevail in ruling and enjoying a greater portion of the national resources and those who do little, or nothing will get very little.

This is why in every country in the world, the rich always get more and the poor always get the least from the state because rich people are very active trying to dominate the state and capture most of the available resources. On the other hand, the poor always get the least even though they need the most. The reason is that they complain a lot but always fail to mobilize themselves in a manner that is sufficient to influence government policy. This seems to be the case globally. This is why some political thinkers and analysts infer that there is no such a thing as democracy since the elites dominate the political system in every country in the world.

An ethnic group in Nigeria which takes the definition of politics very seriously is the Fulani nationality. As a result, despite their smaller numbers, the Fulanis have been able to dominate Nigerian politics to the extent of serving as the primary power-wielding group in the country. This is why all the would-be-presidential candidates in Nigeria always pay visit to the Sultan of Sokoto and other high-powered Fulani political and religious elites to receive their blessings. On the other hand, the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South seem to have the slightest appreciation for the weightiness of the “who gets what, when, and how” definition of politics. As a result, instead of being proactive in pursuing their political, economic, legal, and human rights, they wait patiently for the those who wield political power in Nigeria to come and knock at their doors and give them a fair share of the wealth generated from resources in their region. The sad part is that the inhabitants of the oil region do not even realize that they have enormous political and economic power in Nigeria due to the strategic importance of oil and gas in Nigeria and globally. Indeed, no region in Nigeria commands so much power as the Niger Delta/South-South but the Niger Deltans do not know how exercise to use their resources to their advantage.

The lesson here is that the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South cannot and must not sit idly by and expect those who wield power in Nigeria to do the right thing and treat them fairly in the management of oil and gas and the sharing of the wealth generated. The reason is that politics, as defined above, calls for active involvement in demanding your rights.

Purpose of the Article

The purpose of this article is to identify the factors and circumstances which tend to portray the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South as colonial subjects of Nigeria. To accomplish the task, the following arguments are made: (1) the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South have failed to pay attention to the fact that politics is a struggle for power and control of resources; (2) due to lack of appreciation of the importance of politics, they allow themselves to be treated like colonial subjects of Nigeria, thereby, justifying their being exploited by those who wield national political power; (3) they do not realize and appreciate the fact that they have tremendous political and economic clout due to the availability of oil and gas in their territory and (4) due to lack of appreciation for the tremendous power they possess, they inadvertently accept to be treated as colonial subjects by allowing Nigeria to apply a double standard in the management of mineral resources in the country to their disadvantage.

It is essential to define colonialism in order to understand why the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South act passively as if they are colonial subjects, thereby failing to proactively defend their political, legal, and economic rights in Nigeria. What is colonialism? The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) defines colonialism “as the practice of controlling another country or area and exploiting its people and resources,” (2023, February 14). According to Aniete A. Inyang and Manasseh Bassey, colonialism is:

A system of rule which assumes the right of one people to impose their will upon another leading inevitably to a situation of dominance and dependency which will systematically subordinate these governed by it to the imported culture in social, economic, and political life (2014, September, p. 1945).

Based on this definition, the Niger Delta/South-South is colonized, and the oil and gas resources are exploited by Nigeria for the betterment of other parts of the country to the disadvantage of the inhabitants of the region. Due to the exploitative relationship, they have internalized the treatment, hence, behave as if they are colonial subjects of Nigeria by failing to actively pursue and protect their interests through pushing for resource control since Nigeria has failed to nationalize solid minerals. Instead of using proactive political and legal tactics to put pressure and influence national policy in favor of resource control, they sit back and wait to be compensated based on the decision of those who wield national power and make public policy over oil and gas. They have not been able to compel the Federal Government to institute a proactive environmental pollution cleaning regime in the region after more than sixty years of oil exploration.

The Reaction of the Oil Region Towards the Double Standard in the Management and Regulation of Natural Minerals

This article is written after a critical examination of the way Nigerians from the oil region react in ways that baffle the mind concerning the double standard that exist in the Federal Government’s management, regulation, and enforcement of national laws dealing with mineral resources in the country. Consequently, the following is the systematic identification of the failures of the inhabitants of the Niger Delta/South-South to actively fight politically and legally for their political, legal, and economic rights over the control and management of mineral resources in the region.

First, the late Gen. David Ejoor first noticed a double standard being manifested by the Federal Government of Nigeria. He noted that while President Olusegun Obasanjo was in power as a civilian president, both the Niger Delta and a section of the Southwestern region, particularly the Ife and Modakeke people had disputes that led to violent confrontations over the ownership of land and the rights to own mineral resources. Gen. Ejoor noted that President Obasanjo did not hesitate to send the Nigerian military to the Niger Delta to ensure that oil operations were not disturbed following intertribal conflicts in the Warri area. On the other hand, even though the Ife and Modakeke conflict was over the illegal mining of gold and sharing of the wealth generated, President Obasanjo did not send the Nigerian military to stop the dispute and prevent the private mining of gold in the Ife area. Instead, he encouraged them to resolve the dispute amicably and share the wealth generated from gold mining, even though gold is a national resource like oil and gas (Osinaike and Oyegunle, 2005, July 6).

After raising the issue of double standard, nobody in the oil region took up the matter and used it to put both political and legal pressure on the Federal Government to either nationalize all minerals or denationalize oil and gas. The people in the region barely paid attention to the issue raised by Gen. Ejoor. It was as if they were all sleeping and did not want to be disturbed.

Second, the senators and representatives of the oil region in the National Assembly (NA) either speak very little or remain voiceless about the dichotomy over the national control, management and regulation of mineral resources in the country. These senators and representatives, perhaps, except for a few, like Sen. Seriake Dickson, might have tactically decided not to say anything about the fact that Nigeria has a double standard which affects their constituents negatively. It seems that the regional legislators have accepted the view that the oil region is worth being sacrificed to sustain the country. Otherwise, they would have spoken loudly to show their displeasure regarding the way their region is being unduly exploited. Perhaps, since their number in the national legislature is small and insufficient to create much political impact compared to the number of legislators from the non-oil-producing regions who always join forces against them, they strategically decided to go slow in pursuing the oil region’s agenda to avoid putting their political careers in jeopardy.

Third, the national commissioners/ministers of the oil region have not been able to influence national policy on oil and gas in any remarkable manner. These personalities have known for decades that the oil and gas region is treated differently from regions with solid mineral deposits. Yet, they did not and have not worked frantically to change national policy which penalizes the indigenes of the oil region while rewarding the indigenes of the regions where gold, tin, coal, columbite, lithium, coal, manganese, and other solid minerals are found. Even in former President Muhammadu Buhari’s Administration, there were highly placed government officials from the oil region who served as ministers, directors and political advisers, yet they seemed uninterested in persuading the Federal Government to change policy and equalize the playing field for exploration of minerals in the country.

Fourth, the governors of the oil-producing region seemed unbothered by the fact that while governors in solid mineral-producing states can invite private mining companies to come to their states and carry out mining activities, they cannot do so in the oil region. In other words, the governors of the states with solid minerals can create wealth and employment for their citizens through mining of minerals to boost their economies while the governors of the oil region cannot do so. It is puzzling why the governors in the oil region have not filed a class action suit to force the Federal Government to apply the same standard across the board in the management and regulation of liquid and solid minerals in the country.

In fact, when former Governor Nasir El-Rufai of Kaduna State stated that his state has more gold than South Africa and he was going to invite mining companies to explore gold (Tijani, 2016, April 6), a governor in the oil-producing region would have tested the constitutionality of the draconian military-era decrees that nationalize oil and gas ownership by announcing that he too would invite an oil company to explore oil and gas in his own state to test federal response. Unfortunately, none of the governors paid attention to the implication that a governor in the same country can invite foreign mining companies into his state to engage in mineral exploration and a governor in an oil-producing state cannot do so. The lack of response to Governor El-Rufai’s announcement to hire private mining companies means that the governors of the oil-producing states have accepted the status quo, which is that the Federl Government has a right to totally nationalize oil and gas, hence, decided not to challenge the constitutional authority of the national government.

Perhaps, the governors of the oil-producing states are not eager to challenge the total nationalization of oil and gas and the failure to nationalize solid minerals due to the nature of politics in the country. It should be noted that in Nigeria, to become a governor requires an intense bargaining with the leadership of the political parties and other important political stakeholders in the country. Thus, having gone through such a grueling process, the region’s governors probably feel exhausted and strategically decide not to add to their political burden by challenging national authority over the management and regulation of liquid minerals. Basically, they decided to let a sleeping dog lie without arousing it to create political obstacles or for them as they govern their respective states. Some Nigerians infer that the governors are not willing to stir the hornet’s net because some of them probably have financial skeletons in their cupboards.

Fifth, a baffling thing about the lack of proactive response from the oil region is the almost absent-mindedness of the civil society organizations in the region to the double standard that exists between the way the Federal Government totally nationalizes the oil region and the total lack of national enforcement in the management of solid mineral resources in the country. It seems that the region’s civil society organizations are not bothered by the fact that the citizens of the region are not having a fair deal in the country

Additionally, the oil region’s civil society organizations are not very helpful in articulating the political and legal rights of the oil region. Why? Because they tend to fight and oppose each other. Hence, for every regional civil society organization that speaks for the rights of the indigenes of the region, there is another regional civil society organization that speaks for the interest of the national government. As a result, if one regional civil society organization calls for a protest, another regional civil society organization is most likely to condemn the proposed protest. When that happens, the Federal Government always supports the group that opposes protest, thereby putting the other civil society group in a bad light. The lack of consensus among the region’s civil society organizations weakens the overall effect of their campaign to enhance the economic and political rights of the region. Due to the rivalry and divisiveness, it is very easy for the national government to sponsor civil society organizations that oppose those organizations that want change. This divide and conquer tactics have been very effective, hence, the Federal Government pays little or no attention to the concerns of the oil region. The indigenes of the oil region have not been able to develop an effective strategy to counter or neutralize the divide and conquer tactics deployed by the national government against them.

Sixth, it is inferable that the citizens of the oil region are overwhelmed and tactically defeated to the point where they have given up any hope that Nigeria will reconsider its double standard and allow them to engage in private exploration or gain at least 50% share of the revenue accruing from oil and gas exploration. It is assumable that after decades of protesting and decrying their unfair treatment without positive response from the Federal Government, many of them have given up and simply decide to exist, knowing full well that there is not much they can do to change the minds of Nigerian rulers. Moreover, many citizens in the oil region feel that their political leaders are not doing enough to put political pressure on the national government to pay attention to their unfortunate plight.

Seventh, the different national regulatory standards for solid and liquid minerals have existed since the enactment of the Petroleum Act, yet the sons and daughters of the oil region who have served as leaders of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and other oil-related agencies kept quiet and allowed their people to be exploited.

Eighth, the surprising fact about the anomalous situation is that a son of the oil region, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, actually served as the head of state of Nigeria for six years without crafting a bill to equalize the standard for regulating liquid and solid minerals or remove the ignominious acts that turn the citizens of the oil region into colonial subjects of Nigeria.

Ninth, the most painful thing is that the leaders of the oil-producing region know that there is a different standard for liquid minerals and another one for solid minerals yet fail to do something about it. They did not protest and take legal action to stop the undue nationalization of liquid minerals. They know that oil blocks are given to individuals who are mostly from the non-oil-producing regions yet did not scream loudly to stop the practice. In other words, the leaders of the oil region stood by while the Federal Government gave oil rights to a selected few to amass tremendous private wealth from public resources.

Instead of totally nationalizing solid minerals, the Federal Government registered about 600 private mining cooperatives. This means that private cooperatives operated by Nigerians and foreigners, especially the Chinese, can earn income officially from solid minerals (Onehi, 2020, February 19). It should also be noted that 50 mining leases and 952 exploration licenses were awarded to foreign and local mining companies and individuals in 2007. During the same time, the government encouraged private investment in solid minerals exploration by relaxing some of the regulatory rules (Reuters. 2007, August 9). In 2024, 10,000 people applied for mining licenses, but the Federal Government awarded 4,000 (Aina, 2024, May 24). On the other hand, there is no relaxation of the regulatory rules in the liquid mineral sector.

Tenth, the Niger Delta/South-Southand South-East regions were not consulted when Nigeria negotiated with Algeria to build the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration finalized the agreement with Algeria to build a $13bn gas pipeline in February 2025. Emmanuel Chilamphuma reported:

The Nigerian government has reached agreements with Algeria and Niger to advance the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline (TSGP) initiative, a key project aimed at boosting gas exports to Europe.

Representatives from the three nations concluded crucial agreements during a conference in Algiers, Algeria. These agreements, involving energy companies fromNigeria, Algeria, and Niger, cover essential aspects of the project, including:

Updated feasibility study to assess financial and technical viability.

Compensation framework ensuring equitable benefits for all stakeholders.

Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to protect commercial interests (2025, February 17).

It is predictable that a few highly connected individuals from the non-oil-producing regions would be the primary beneficiaries of the $13bn deal, as it is always the case in Nigeria, as far as the oil region is treated as a colony of Nigeria. It is necessary for the leaders of the oil and gas region to insist that no gas should be taken from their territory without their inclusion in the negotiations.

Again, the Niger Delta/South-South and South-East were totally absent when former President Muhammadu Buhari negotiated with European nations and Morocco to develop a gas pipeline from the oil and gas region to Europe through Morocco. The deal has been reinforced by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Nadim Kawachi reported, “Morocco and Nigeria have agreed to create a joint venture to manage a long-planned $25 billion pipeline which will ship gas to Europe, a Moroccan minister has said (2025, April 24). Imagine, a $25bn gas pipeline contract in which the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South and South East are not consulted or included in the package. This means that some highly placed Nigerians from the non-oil-producing regions will benefit greatly from the deal, and the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South will end up with little or nothing just like the way they are treated in the distribution of the oil wealth. The signing of this deal without effective consultation or involvement of the stakeholders in the oil region means that Nigerian officials have little or no regard for the indigenes. Thus, the leaders of the oil and gas region should petition the Federal Government and declare emphatically that no gas should be taken from their region without their inclusion in the negotiations. If possible, send a petition to the Federal Government and copy the Moroccan government and the European Union. Then take legal action to address the demand.

Eleventh, Nigeria’s ruling elites and high-government officials who negotiated to explore and exploit the Niger Delt/South-South cannot be solely blamed because the political and legal leaders of the oil and gas region seem to be apathetic and wait for someone from Abuja to come and knock at their doors, instead of marshalling their political and legal forces to change the colonial relationship between the Federal Government and the oil-producing region.

Twelfth, although it is officially stipulated that all minerals are in the Exclusive List, meaning that the Federal Government has total control and regulation of all minerals, in practice, this is not the case. Most of the oil and gas industry has been privatized. Hence, it is individuals who own oil blocks. The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) has been tactically privatized and controlled by a powerful cartel which benefits most from the oil wealth. There is also a plan on the ground to allegedly “sell oil equity to President Tinubu’s nephew Walle Tinubu’s Oando ally Chagoury’s firm” (Sahara Reporters, 2025, September 14). If the alleged plan materializes, the Tinubu family will become the most powerful oil baron in Nigeria. Despite the revelation, the stakeholders in the Niger Delta/South-South have not spoken forcefully to condemn such effort to privatize the oil industry in Nigeria. Thankfully, the Committee of Patriotic Forces (CPPF) made up of patriotic Nigerians vigorously opposed the idea (Sahara Reporters. 2025, September 10). Where are the leaders of the Niger Delta/South-South on this issue? By now, they would have mobilized to demand resource control before the high and mighty totally take over their resources.

Thirteenth, already, due to the total disregard for the feelings of the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South and Nigerians in general, crude oil is now being used by the Federal Government as a collateral to borrow loans. Kevin Emmanue, an energy analyst, remarked:

At a time when the Nigerian government should be laying out a detailed plan to conduct house cleaning for NNPC Ltd or books, start book building for an IPO, the Nigerian government is amortising precious future crude oil earnings in a deal structure that robs the federating units of millions of barrels of crude oil in oil for swap transaction that sums up the point Jeffrey Frankel made in his working paper about the ‘Resource Curse Theory’ at Harvard University (Oladehinde, 2024, July 10).

Already, about three or four international loans have been borrowed in what is known as oil-for-cash-deals. These loans are being taken without consulting the indigenes of the oil region to let them know that their resources could become the properties of foreign countries if Nigeria fails to pay the loans. While the Niger Delta/South-South is being burdened with unnecessary loans, solid minerals are not being used as collateral. Here again, Nigeria treats the oil region as a colony that can easily be exploited. Meanwhile, most major infrastructural development projects are carried out in the non-oil-producing regions. So why are the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South still sleeping, instead of waking up and fighting politically and legally for their natural rights.

Fourteenth, instead of working together as a team to put pressure on the Nigerian government to achieve resource control or at least get a 50/50 share of the revenue accruing from oil and gas exploration, the ethnic groups in the region tend to compete against each other and negotiate clandestinely with the national government to have advantage over other ethnic groups in the region. Some ethnic groups are always eager to create the impression that they are more civilized and peaceful than others in the hope of attracting the attention of the Federal Government and gaining advantage over other ethnic groups. The youth groups sometimes compete unnecessarily over the right to gain surveillance contracts, to the point of almost engaging in physical confrontation. The civil society organizations in the region often take contradictory positions, thereby neutralizing the political effect of their demands. Most of the politicians do not want to offend those who wield national power in the country because of their desire to run for elective offices or retain their elective offices. Only the Ogoni nation proactively pursued its goals and gained in the process. As a result, the Ogonis were able to work with the United Nations Environmental Programs (UNEP) to recommend the cleaning of oil pollution in their territory. It is also the Ogonis who succeeded in using the legal process to ban the exploration of oil in their territory for twenty years. During the heydays of the oil struggle, they were also able to gain political asylum status for their members in the US and other countries.

Fifteenth, due to the passivity of the indigenes of the oil region, the oil wealth is treated as a free for all manna from heaven. Hence, a substantial proportion of the oil wealth is embezzled by high level public officials. Thus, it is arguable that a sizable number of Nigeria’s millionaires and billionaires acquired their wealth through the embezzlement of public funds generated through oil and gas exploration. As far as the indigenes of the oil region fail to take appropriate political and legal action to gain control of the oil wealth, massive embezzlement of the oil wealth will continue. As a result of massive embezzlement of the oil wealth, the masses are not benefitting from the oil wealth.

Sixteenth, to avoid forfeiting total control of the oil and gas resources, the political and traditional leaders of the Niger Delta/South-South should come together and emphatically make it clear to Nigerian authorities that no oil or gas facility in the oil region should be sold without first consulting and negotiating with the host communities and the region’s leaders. This is important because when Nigerian authorities permit major oil companies like Shell, Eni, Exxon/Mobil and Tota/Energies to sell their oil and gas facilities to domestic private companies without compelling them to clean the massive pollution they generated, it means that Nigeria’s political rulers do not care about the oil and gas region since they view it as a colony, rather than as part of Nigeria.

Due to the passivity of the leaders of the oil region and the willingness of Nigerian authorities to sacrifice the oil region, it is the United Nations that has spoken loudly to warn of the danger of allowing the major oil companies to sell their facilities without first cleaning the mess they created in the Niger Delta/South-South. Indeed, a UN panel wrote a letter to “Shell, ENI, Exxon/Mobil and Total Energies, warning the companies that they cannot sell off their assets and dodge their responsibilities to local communities” (RFI. 2025, September 9).

Conclusion

Indeed, the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South behave as if they are colonial subjects of Nigeria, hence, allow the country to openly exploit them for decades. As a result, wealth generated from the oil region is used mostly in developing and modernizing the infrastructure in other parts of the country while the region that lays the golden egg is often neglected by Nigeria’s ruling elites. Due to their passivity and an unwillingness to proactively demand their rights, Nigerian ruling elite and some highly connected individuals from the non-oil-producing regions now behave as the owners of the oil and gas resources while the indigenes of the oil region behave like beggars and are happy with having just 13% percent share of the revenue generated. Meanwhile, solid minerals are treated like private resources in which anyone can mine with little or no consequence.

There is no doubt that Nigeria treats the oil region as a colony and the citizens of the region as colonial subjects. Under the pretext of nationalization, highly connected individuals are incrementally privatizing the wealth generated through tactical purchasing of oil facilities and the NNPCL, yet the indigenes of the oil region do little or nothing to reclaim their rights to the resources. Again, Nigeria treats the Niger Delta/South-South as a colony, hence, refused to regulate the behavior of the multinational oil companies by allowing them to flare gas and pollute the region. Likewise, Nigeria treats the oil region as a financial plantation, hence allows the oil companies to sell their assets without compelling them to clean the pollution generated through gas flaring and oil exploration. Despite the failure to clean Ogoniland, the Federal Government wants oil exploration to resume, against the interest of Ogoni people. Nigeria’s recklessness and the indigenes powerlessness has compelled the United Nations to intervene by warning about the danger of allowing the major oil companies to sell off their assets without cleaning the oil region.

The inhabitants of the oil region must express their appreciation to the United Nations for speaking on their behalf. It is very sad that Nigerian authorities are only interested in the quantities of oil and gas being produced daily to boost their financial wherewithal and care very little about the massive pollution that has devastated the oil region. The Indigenes of the oil region must stop behaving like colonial subjects of Nigeria and demand their natural, political, economic and legal rights to own the resources in their region. Over sixty years of nationalization and exploitation should come to an end immediately because Nigeria has repeatedly demonstrated that it is irresponsible and incapable of managing the resources of the region to the benefit of all Nigerians.

References

African Manager. (2012, May 9). Nigeria licenses 7 firms to mine gold. https://en.africanmanager.com/nigeria-licences-7-firms-to-mine-gold/.

Aina, D. (2024, May 24). FG grants 4,000 investors mining licenses. Punch. https://punchng.com/fg-grants-4000-investors-mining-licences/#google_vignette.

Chilamphuma, E. (2025, February 17). Inside the US13bn Trans-Saharan gas pipeline. Further Africa. https://furtherafrica.com/2025/02/17/inside-the-us13b-trans-saharan-gas-pipeline/.

Council on Foreign Relations (2023, February 14). What is colonialism and how did it arise? https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/what-colonialism-and-how-did-it-arise#:~:text=Colonialism%20is%20the%20practice%20of,vast%20majority%20of%20the%20world.

RFI. (2025, September 9). Oil giants accused of dodging Niger Delta clean-up as UN panel intervenes. https://www.rfi.fr/en/africa/20250905-oil-giants-accused-of-dodging-niger-delta-clean-up-as-un-panel-intervenes

Hanumanthappa, D.G. (2023). An overview of David Easton and the political system. International Journal of Political Science. Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 14 -16. https://doi.org/10.20431/2454-9452.0901002.

Inyang, A. A. and Bassey, M. (2014, September). Imperial Treaties and the origins of British colonial rule in Southern Nigeria, 1860 – 1890. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Volume 5(20).

Kawachi, N. (2025, April 24). Morocco and Nigeria agree terms for $2bn gas pipeline. Arabian Gulf Business Insights. https://www.agbi.com/oil-and-gas/2025/04/morocco-and-nigeria-firm-to-manage-gas-pipeline/.

Oladehinde, D. (2024, July 10). Rising appetite for cash loans traps Nigeria’s next generation. Business Day. https://businessday.ng/news/article/rising-appetite-for-oil-for-cash-loans-traps-nigerias-next-generation/.

Onehi, V. (2020, February 19). Federal Government harps on small miners formalization, registers 600 cooperatives. Daily Trust. https://dailytrust.com/fg-harps-on-small-miners-formalisation-registers-600-cooperatives/

Osinaike, G. & Oyegunle, J. [July 6, 2005] Maj. Gen. David Ejoor’s eye-opening statements. Vanguard. Posted on Ijawnation@yahoogroups.com. 7/6/2005.

Reuters. (2007, August 9). Nigeria awards 1000 licenses to investors. https://www.reuters.com/article/legal/government/nigeria-awards-1000-mining-licences-to-investors-idUSL13261013/.

Sahara Reporters. (2025, September 10). Group rejects plan to sell Nigeria’s oil equity to Tinubu’s nephew wale Tinubu’s Oando, Ally Chagoury’s firm. https://saharareporters.com/2025/09/10/group-rejects-plan-sell-nigerias-oil-equity-president-tinubus-nephew-wale-tinubus-oando.

Tijani, M. (2016, April 6). El-Rufai: Kaduna has more gold than S’Africa. The Cable. https://www.thecable.ng/el-rufai-one-kaduna-lga-has-more-gold-than-safrica/.

Why a State of Origin is Preferable to a State of Residence Policy in Nigeria?

By Priye S. Torulagha

A debate has been going on in Nigeria concerning whether the principle of State of origin or the principle of state of residence should be adopted constitutionally to legalize the status of Nigerians who live in states other than their states of origin (Olugbile, 2024, June 3). The principle of the state of origin emphasizes the view that only the indigenous citizens of any given state should have the right to vote for state-related elective offices as well as enjoy the rights, benefits, and obligations emanating from the state. This means that Nigerians who reside in states other than their states of origin should not have the right to vote for state-related elective offices as well as enjoy the benefits and obligations accruing to the indigenes of the state.

On the other hand, those who support the principle of the state of residence emphasize the view that Nigerians who reside in states other than their states of origin should have the right to vote for elective offices in the states they live or reside and be able to enjoy the benefits and obligations accruing from the states they reside rather than the states they originate from. This option implies that Nigerians should have the right to vote and be treated as the citizens of the states in which they reside, regardless of their original states of origin. Basically, a Nigerian should be recognized as a citizen of the state where he or she resides or lives and not where the individual originally came from. Those who support this position often point to the United States where the state of residence allows Americans to live in any part of the country and enjoy the benefits and obligations of the states where they live, after completing the requirement for state residency.

However, in critically examining the Nigerian sociopolitical environment, it is argued here that the principle of the state of origin should be the standard constitutional framework for deciding who is a resident of any state. In other words, the state of origin should be the standard for determining the status of Nigerians, at the present time in Nigerian history. Why the preference for the state of origin over the state of residence? There are many reasons for choosing the state of origin option.

First, Nigeria contains three of the most populous ethnic groups in Africa with each numbering more than 30 million people. At the same time, there are hundreds of small or minority ethnic groups in the country. If a state of residence is allowed to take place, there is no doubt that members of the three largest ethnic groups are most likely to dominate the smaller ethnic group as they move around to take advantage of the policy of state of residence. As a result, during elections, the settlers from the major ethnic groups are likely to overwhelm the populations of the indigenous groups to the extent that they will become the determinants of who becomes the governors, local government chairs, senators, and representatives of the states with small ethnic groups through massive voting.

Such a development will simply take Nigeria back to the era of regionalism where the major ethnic groups dominated the minority groups to the extent that they became mere vassals in each of the three regions. It should be recalled that as soon as the British established the colony of Nigeria, minority ethnic groups started to campaign vigorously for the creation of states to avoid being absorbed or gobbled up by the major ethnic groups. It was the desire to create a political space between them and the major ethnic nationalities that enabled them to demand the creation of states during the Henry Willinks Commission Hearings in London in 1957-1958. Therefore, the creation of states by Gen. Yakubu Gowon on June 27, 1967, was intended to enable the minority groups to manage their own affairs without being dominated by the major ethnic groups.

Second, a state of residence policy will result in dragging the country down economically. Why? Because Nigerians who hail from economically unproductive or depressed states with high unemployment levels are likely to flock to states with high economic productivity to compete with the indigenes for jobs and to overwhelm the social services of those states. Thus, as more Nigerians move from economically unproductive and gloomy states to those with high economic growth, those states would be forced to bear the brunt of accommodating the economic refugees, thereby, putting undue pressure on their infrastructures and financial resources. Such pressure can result in economic downturn and push the states to the point of collapsing due to the population overflow. Moreover, the economically vibrant states would be forced to solve problems generated by the unproductive states. The possibility of unrestrained migration as Nigerians rush to states that are doing well to claim residency should not be dismissed. After all, that is what is happening in the global system as people migrate in large numbers from the developing countries to the developed countries in search of greener pastures, thereby putting undue pressure on the economy and social welfare programs in those countries, especially in the West.

Third, it is quite possible that states which are led by incompetent or less imaginative governors might tactically encourage their citizens to migrate to states with robust economic growth, thereby putting on undue pressure on the productive states while the less productive states end up with less problems to solve as they encourage their citizens to migrate. In other words, what happens internationally where citizens from poorer or economically depressed economies are sometimes encouraged to move to the economically vibrant industrialized countries with the hope that they can gain employment and send money home through foreign transfers to boost the local economy will also take place in Nigeria.

Fourth, a state of residence policy will enable Nigerians with wealth to move to less economically developed states and use their financial power to dominate the political system by serving as godfathers and godmothers to the politicians. In so doing, the settlers might eventually end up dominating the politics of such states to the extent that they become political kingmakers and queenmakers. Such a development will force indigenous politicians of the less productive states to increasingly rely on the financial donations of the settler population to campaign and run for political offices. Eventually, the wealthy Nigerian settlers might end up acting like colonial masters to the indigenous population and take over the states with the promise to assist them to generate their economies.

Fifth, those who support the principle of state of residency try to justify the system by referencing the U.S. state system where American citizens call wherever they live as their states of origin. It is obvious that the American system is unworkable in Nigeria because the Nigerian sociopolitical environment is not compatible with that of the United States. The reason is that the U.S is basically a settler state where most of the citizens originated from other parts of the world to settle in the U.S. Like the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, most countries in the Caribbean and Latin America are settler states because the indigenous populations were replaced by settlers. Therefore, in such countries, it is easier for an individual to move from one state or region to another to become a resident since majority of the citizens are settlers. In Nigeria, people are irrevocably tied to the territories of their ethnicities because most Nigerians are indigenous groups.

Nigeria is a country where the ethnic nationalities existed for hundreds and thousands of years before the establishment of Nigeria as a colony. Thus, each ethnic nationality has its own territorial space and operates like a state. Hence, there is Hausaland, Igboland, Kanuriland, Yorubaland, Tivland, Ijawland, Ibibioland Edoland, Junkunland, Urhoboland, and so forth. The lands in Nigeria are owned by the ethnic groups and they have a right to make decisions about their territories without someone from another ethnic group dictating how they should live and use their lands. Therefore, the principle of the state of origin is more compatible with the African cultural tradition whereby each ethnic group has a territorial space to manage its existence. A state of residence policy will seriously impede the African cultural tradition, thereby resulting in constant conflict as the indigenes fight against the settlers to maintain their ownership of their territorial lands. Land conflicts are already raging in Nigeria, especially in Northeast and Northcentral Nigeria. Thus, people in the Middle Belt have paid dearly as settlers try to grab their lands through violent invasion.

Sixth, a state of residency works in Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and so forth, because these Western countries operate an individualistic social system where the individual is treated like a legal corporate entity as soon as the person reaches the age of adulthood (either 18 or 21 years old). As an adult, the individual is free to leave his or her family and take a path that is opposed to the family without facing any consequence as far as the law is not violated. Thus, an individual can move from state or region or province to another and become a resident by cutting off previous connections. In Nigeria, the prevailing social system is collectivism or communalism where the individual is irrevocably tied to the extended family, community through kinship and the ethnic group in perpetuity. Quite often, in Nigeria, family decisions are made collectively. Consequently, it is culturally impossible to adopt a system that glorifies individualism in an environment that is based on collectivism.

Seventh, Nigeria’s ethnic groups are characterized by two geographic modes of existence. Some ethnic groups are migratory in nature like nomads, and their members prefer to settle and own land wherever they put root due to the nature of their economic activities. On the other hand, other ethnic groups are stationary in nature, where their members prefer to establish their permanent residence in their territorial homelands without moving all over the place to settle. Therefore, if a policy of state of residence were instituted through the constitution or statutory law, it is the ethnic groups that have migratory tendencies that will benefit the most. The reason is that such a law will enable their members to spread all over the country and establish political and economic bases to eventually dominate the country. On the other hand, the stationary ethnic groups will bear the brunt of surrendering their lands to members of migratory ethnic groups to the extent that conflict between the indigenes and settlers will erupt uncontrollably to destabilize Nigeria. Why? Because the stationary ethnic groups might feel that the migratory groups are tactically using the policy of the state of residence to take over their lands.

Eighth, a state of residence policy will lead to a situation whereby the indigenous owners of the lands are displaced by the settler population from different parts of the country. There are many examples to cite to show the possibility of land displacement. The indigenous people of Lagos, that is, the Awori or Amori people are not happy that settlers from other parts of the country have almost literarily taken over their territory, thereby, turning their homeland into a No Man’s Land. The overwhelming population of the settlers’ forces Lagos State government to spend considerably to cater to the needs of the settler population while the indigenes suffer from marginalization and neglect. Additionally, it is mostly settlers who have served as the governors of Lagos State since 1999 while the indigenes are treated like invisible and unimportant entities (Olumoro, 2025, January 17).

Similarly, the indigenous people of Abuja have lost control of most of their territory since they agreed to allow Abuja to be turned into Nigeria’s capital. Today, only very rich settlers can afford to buy land in Abuja and the indigenes are treated like refugees. The settlers do not care about the plight of the Abuja people who cannot afford to buy land in Abuja because wealthy Nigerian settlers have turned the place into an exclusive enclave for wealthy settlers.

Ninth, Nigeria is not politically, sociologically, and legally ready to create an environment where the entire country becomes an open space for Nigerians to congregate and claim to be residents of the states they live while also having their own states of origin. Since Nigeria has not metamorphosed to a stage where a state of residence can replace a state of origin, it would be a major strategic mistake for Nigerian authorities to pass legislation approving a state of residence as a public policy. Why? Because Nigeria is a British creation and it is a mere geographical expression until Nigerians restructure the country and come up with a constitution that reflects the interest of the generality of Nigerians.

Otherwise, the policy of state of residence will be abused and used to exploit and marginalize hundreds of ethnic groups in the country because Nigerian institutions are too weak and easily exploited by the financially and politically powerful members of society. It should be reminded that the policy of nationalization of mineral resources resulted in the exploitation of the oil wealth while the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South are marginalized and deprived. Sadly, the oil wealth has been privatized by highly connected individuals in Nigeria who have accumulated substantial wealth from the resources that belongs to the people of the oil region. It is predictable that a policy of state of residence will be abused the way nationalization of mineral resources has been abused.

Tenth, a state of residence policy will encourage powerful individuals to relocate to states with enormous mineral resources and dominate the exploration of the minerals by claiming to be residents of the states. This possibility is not far-fetched because it is widely reported that part of the violence, killings, and destruction of communities that are being perpetrated are sponsored by powerful individuals who form mining cartels to exploit gold and other solid minerals in Benue, Kaduna, Nasarawa, Plateau, Sokoto, Taraba, and Zamfara states (Daily Trust, 2024, January 20). The same will happen if a state of residence is adopted. Greedy and crooked Nigerians who want to get rich quickly will form human trafficking cartels to purposively encourage thousands of Nigerians to migrate to states with critical minerals and use such settlers to exploit the minerals at the disadvantage of the indigenous owners of the lands. This is why people in Benue, Kaduna, Niger, Plateau, and Zamfara states and paying dearly with their lives as sponsored gun-totting gangs operate the mines.

Eleventh, if a state of origin is replaced by a state of residence, soon or later, settlers who are financially endowed are most likely to use their wealth to bribe police and military officers and judges to bend and interpret the law against indigenous members of the states whenever land issue arises between the original owners and settlers. This is a great possibility because in Nigeria today, there is a tendency by police and military personnel to take actions in favor of the high and mighty who bribe them to act in a certain way. This is why land grabbers today can grab land from their original owners with the assistance of corrupt police and military officers. Thus, if a state of residence is legalized, settlers might end up owning the most productive lands in various states by bribing police and military officers and judges to enforce the law and rule in their favor.

Twelfth, if the state of residence becomes the law of the land, in most states, the settlers might act like cattle herders who have been using violence to force out indigenous owners and occupy their lands through displacement. They would be able to do so by forming interest groups to influence national and state governments to enact laws and make public policy decisions on land in their favor the way Fulani herdsmen have been able to influence the Nigerian government to look the other way and allow them to invade, destroy, and kill indigenous farmers with the security forces not intervening aggressively to stop them. On the other hand, currently, if an indigenous Nigerian commits a crime against a herder, the police and the army react quickly to arrest the individual. Thus, the law is tilted in favor of herders due to special political relationships, hence the police and the army are not eager to use full force against herders, bandits, and kidnappers.

It is also the case that due to special relationships or connections, the Nigerian Police Force and the Nigerian Army rarely apprehend herders who carry prohibited guns. On the other hand, security agencies generally do not hesitate to arrest any indigenous Nigerian who carries a gun. Even judges have no hesitation in sentencing indigenous Nigerians who are arrested for carrying guns while they hesitate to sentence Fulani herdsmen to imprisonment for carrying guns. Right now, in Adamawa State, a farmer known as Sunday Jackson who fought and killed a herder named Ardo Bawuro who allegedly invaded his farm and attempted to kill him was sentenced to death and the Supreme Court agreed with the sentence by disregarding the fact that the farmer fought to protect his life from someone who attempted to kill him (Ogebe, 2025, March 7). It should also be noted that a kidnap kingpin named Hamisu Bala, otherwise known as “Wadume” who had been involved in several kidnapping cases and was later involved in a case in which an army officer allegedly ordered the killings of five police operatives of the Intelligence Response Team (IRT) when the accused escaped from the police team and gained protection of a unit of the 93 Battalion of the Nigerian Army, stationed in Takum, was only sentenced to seven years imprisonment for his heinous crimes. The army captain who ordered the killings of the police officers was promoted by the Nigerian Army. Moreover, Mr. Wadume was released from prison after serving less than three years because of the backdating of his date of arrest to 2019 (Abeku, 2024, April 8). Consequently, a state of residence will give an advantage to the settlers against the indigenes of the states whenever there is a dispute involving the two groups.

Thirteenth, a state of residence, if passed as a law, will violate the African cultural tradition in which every ethnic group exercises authority over its own territory. In other words, it is against the law of nature in Africa to prevent various nationalities in Nigeria from exercising authority over their lands as tradition demands. A state of residence policy will destroy the ethnic groups in Nigeria by allowing those with money and political power to impose their will on nationalities that do not command political influence in the country. Indeed, hundreds of ethnic groups would suffer under a state of residence policy because aggressive Nigerian settlers will spread all over the country and impose their will through capturing the states.

Fourteenth, the notion of a state of residence is too radical because Nigeria has not metamorphosed politically to a state of national cohesion where all Nigerians can shed their ethnicities and embrace one nationality. Despite being over sixty years old, Nigeria has not congealed to form a united nationhood because the founding fathers competed during the struggle for independence along ethnic and regional lines to dominate the country rather than work together to unite the country. In other words, Nigeria continues to be a mere geographical expression because it was created by a foreign power and continues to operate disjointedly. Consequently, it would be too revolutionary for Nigerians to give away their ethnicities and embrace a country in which the ethnic coloration no longer matters when the politics of the country continues to be based on ethnicity, region, and religion.

Fifteenth, a state of residence policy will only breed more problems for Nigeria as settlers compete with the indigenes of the states for land ownership, the right to vote to determine who becomes the senator, governor, representative and the local government chair and to share the resources of the states. To avoid the internecine conflicts that might take place, it is necessary for the state of origin to remain so that resources of the states are used for the benefits of the indigenes of the states. A state of residence is not practicable at this time in the history of Nigeria because Nigerians are culturally and religiously attached to their ancestral homeland like other Africans.

Sixteenth, political parties and politicians will abuse a state of residence policy during elections by sponsoring Nigerians to move to states where critical elections are being held. The tactic is likely to involve paying some Nigerians to change their residency by moving to states where presidential, senatorial, representative, gubernatorial, and local government elections are being held and vote as residents to tilt election outcomes in favor of either a political party or a candidate. Thus, about six months before a scheduled election takes place in any state, hired voters are likely to gradually move to the state to increase the population of voters who may vote for a particular political party or a candidate. This possibility should not be dismissed because it has been allegedly reported variously that sometimes Nigeriens are Chadians are encouraged to come to Nigeria through payments to participate in elections and censuses. Similarly, it is a common practice among Nigerian political parties and candidates to pay voters at the election centers to vote for their parties and candidates (Salihu, 2023, February 1).

Seventeenth, A state of residence policy, if enacted into law, will encourage double residency by some Nigerians. Basically, some Nigerians might exploit the system by claiming rights in both their states of residence and states of origin. They are likely to exploit the system by claiming to be residents of the states they live in while secretly going to their states of origins to also claim benefits, thereby enjoying the rights to both states. In a country where corruption is rampant, a citizen may register as a resident of the state he or she resides and then quietly go to his or her state of origin to bribe some officials to register him or her as a resident, thereby voting and enjoying the rights and obligations of both states at the same time.

Conclusion

It would be a grievous strategic political mistake for Nigeria to adopt a state of residence policy at the present time. The reason is that the country is highly fragmented based on ethnicity, region, and religion, hence, the country continues to be a mere geographical expression created by Britain and Nigerians have not fully embraced it. Moreover, it is against African cultural tradition to adopt a state of residence policy that denies the ethnic groups the right to exercise authority over their ancestral homelands. The policy could trigger massive migration by Nigerians from states with depressive economies to those with productive economies, thereby, literally bringing down the national economy when the productive states are overwhelmed by migrants from the unproductive states.

Due to the importance of communal landownership as dictated by the ancestral tradition, a state of residence policy is most likely to result in land conflicts all over the country as migratory ethnic groups compete with stationary ethnic groups to gain control of land, resources, and political power. The struggle could lead to the disintegration of the country as some ethnic groups might opt to secede from the country rather than surrender their territories to migratory groups. This implies that the state of residence idea is a threat to the national security of Nigeria.

References

Abeku, T. (2024, April 8). FG frees notorious kidnapper, Wadume two years after sentence. The Guardian. https://guardian.ng/news/fg-frees-notorious-kidnapper-wadume-two-years-after-sentence/.

Daily Trust. (2024, January 20). Powerful Nigerians were behind banditry – Alake. https://dailytrust.com/powerful-nigerians-were-behind-banditry-alake/.

Ogebe, E. (2025, March 7). Supreme Court confirms death sentence on farmer who resisted Fulani herdsman. Attacker. News Express. Supreme Court confirms death sentence on farmer who resisted Fulani herdsman attacker | News Express Nigeria.

Olugbile, F. (2024, June 3). Between residence and origin: The national question in Nigeria. Business Day. https://businessday.ng/columnist/article/between-residence-and-origin-the-national-question-in-nigeria/.

Olumoro, A. (2025, January 17). Discrimination against Lagos indigenes: The leaders needed at this time. Vanguard. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/01/discrimination-against-lagos-indigenes-the-leaders-needed-at-this-time/.

Salihu, F. D. (2023, February 1). Vote buying in Nigerian politics. Daily Trust. https://dailytrust.com/vote-buying-in-nigerian-politics/

It is time to Denationalize the Ownership and Management of Oil and Gas in Nigeria if Solid Minerals are not Nationalized

Priye S. Torulagha

After more than fifty years of the nationalization of the ownership and management of liquid minerals, particularly oil and gas, it is time to change the policy and revert to the principle of derivation in order to stop the mismanagement, lack of accountability, lack of transparency, massive exploitation and embezzlement of the oil wealth. Nationalization of mineral resources has been an abject failure since oil and gas are totally nationalized while solid minerals are not subjected to the same stringent standard of nationalization in violation of the decrees, acts and laws that Nigerian authorities have passed.

It should be recalled that during the First Republic (1960 -1966), the principle of derivation was the principal means of owning, controlling, and managing of mineral resources in the country. This meant that each region had the constitutional authority to explore and manage its resources and share a percentage of the revenue generated with the national government. As a result, the regions were able to utilize the wealth generated from their natural resources for the infrastructural and economic development of their regions.

Perhaps, as an instrument of war to deprive Biafran authorities from gaining financially from the oil wealth as well to secure the oil wealth for the prosecution of the Nigerian civil war, the military regime of Gen. Yakubu Gowon initiated a policy change and nationalized the ownership and management of mineral resources, particularly oil and gas in the country. Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo and subsequent military regimes and civilian administrations followed suit with the policy of nationalization. As a result, various regimes passed the following decrees and or acts: (1) The Oil in Navigable Waters Act of 1968; (2) The Petroleum Act of 1969; (3) The Oil Pipelines Act of 1969; (4) The Associated Gas Reinjection Act of 1969; (5)The Offshore Oil Revenue Decree of 1971; (6) The Petroleum Production and Distribution Act of 1975; (7) The establishment of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation on April 1, 1977 to control, regulate and manage petroleum and gas production in Nigeria; (8) The Exclusive Economic Zone Act of 1978; and (9) The Land Use Act of 1978.

Most of these decrees were passed during the military regimes of Gen. Yakubu Gowon and Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo.

The inhabitants of the Niger Delta/South-South and some sections of the Southeast zones lost ownership, control, and management of oil and gas in their zones as the Federal Government assumed total ownership, control, and management of the two major resources.

The inhabitants of the oil region tolerated the change as far as the intention was to ensure the effective and efficient management of the resources as well as support the even development and modernization of the infrastructure and the economy across the board without discrimination or favoritism.

Perhaps, to ensure even-handedness and equity, the military under the caretaker regime of Lt. Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar enacted the 1999 Constitution which nationalized all minerals in the country. The constitution vested the ownership and control of Nigeria’s mineral resources to the Federal Government. Additionally, the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act of 2007 was enacted to replace the Minerals and Mining Act #34 of 1999. It vested the ownership and control of solid minerals to the Federal Government. With this act, Nigeria completely nationalized the ownership and control of all minerals in the country. One of the conditions of this act is that “No person shall search for or exploit mineral resources in Nigeria or divert or exploit or impound water for the purpose of mining except as provided in this act” (https://www.lawnigeria.com/LFN/N/Nigerian-Minerals-and-Mining-Act.php).

Based on the principle of nationalization, all minerals in the country are supposed to be owned, controlled, and managed exclusively by the Federal Government of Nigeria with no exception. However, the operationalization or functionalization of total national ownership by the Federal Government has been problematic, resulting in massive exploitation, marginalization, deprivation and discrimination against the nationalities in the oil region. Why?

Because, while petroleum and gas are totally nationalized to the extent of rendering the rightful owners of the resources helpless and poor, solid minerals are not. As a result, individuals and cooperatives have been allowed by the Federal Government to mine solid minerals for decades without the authorities taking any decisive action to stop them. Evidently, individuals are allowed to mine solid minerals and earn income to take care of their families and enrich themselves in Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Bornu, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Nssarawa, Niger, Oyo, Osun, Plateau, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe, and Zamfara states (Isenyo, 2016, April 7) while the citizens in Abia, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Imo, Ondo, and Rivers State cannot explore and refine oil to earn income to take care of their families and enrich themselves.

As part of the double standard in nationalizing mineral ownership in Nigeria, not until March 2024 did the Federal Government announced a plan to inaugurate mining marshals to combat illegal mining of solid minerals in Nigeria (Idoko, 2024, March 2). On the other hand, the Federal Government deployed the Nigerian military since 2002 to secure the oil region for oil exploration. Thus, the Niger Delta/South-South is under military occupation while the solid minerals regions are not under military occupation. Even in 2025, the mining marshal’s plan has not been activated to private mining of solid minerals.

Likewise, the wealth generated through oil and gas exploration from the Niger Delta/South-South has been primarily responsible for the infrastructural enhancement of Lagos, the development of Abuja from the ground up, the construction of major roads and railway lines in other parts of the country, the financial pipeline for maintaining and sustaining the national government, 36 states, and the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja for about five decades now.

While Nigerians are told that all minerals belong to the Federal Government, yet most oil blocks are privatized and owned by highly connected individuals from the non-oil-producing regions while the owners of the oil wealth are left to scramble to pick the crumbs (Eguzozie, 2021, August 2). This is why tension is always high in the oil region as the ethnic groups compete for the crumbs left behind by the looters who feast insatiably on the oil wealth. Even the Nigerian masses do not benefit from the oil wealth, contrary to the expectation that nationalization would result in an effective management of the oil wealth to the benefit of the entire country.

In addition, most of the private wealth accumulated by individuals in Nigeria is generated from the oil and gas resources from the Niger Delta/South-South. They do so through the ownership of oil blocks, contracts, oil blending refineries, fuel imports, the domination of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) and oil and gas companies. The sad part of the oil and gas business in Nigeria is that most of these privileged Nigerians who have commandeered the oil industry are from the non-oil-producing regions while most Nigerians from the oil-producing region wallow in extreme poverty, neglect, and dehumanization.

Nigerians are told that oil and gas are national resources, yet a substantial part of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) has been privatized to the advantage of the few and the disadvantage of most Nigerians. The NNPCL, controlled by an invisible cabal, seems more powerful than the Federal Government to the extent that it does what it wants without accountability and transparency in its operations.

While the Niger Delta/South-South lays the golden egg that maintains and sustains Nigeria, the region is utterly neglected in national infrastructural development and modernization projects. Hence, the East-West Road, the major transportation artery in the oil region, has been neglected by the Federal Government for decades. As a result, it is a death trap for the citizens of the oil region, especially during the rainy season when some sections of the road become impassable. While the oil region is neglected in infrastructural development, Nigeria spends the oil wealth massively for the infrastructural development of other regions and expects the citizens in the oil region to keep quiet, suffer, and smile in silence.

All the major government agencies responsible for controlling, regulating, and managing oil and gas resources in Nigeria are dominated by Nigerians from the non-oil-producing regions. Most of the high-level positions in these agencies and corporations are held by Nigerians from the non-oil-producing regions. As a result, only a few individuals from the oil region gain employment in the oil industry even though the industry is located in their region.

All the major oil companies have their headquarters outside the oil region. This means that they pay taxes for their operations elsewhere and not to the oil-producing states.

Thus, the Niger Delta/South-South is treated like a colony of Nigeria and not as part of Nigeria. Nigeria’s ruling elites exploit the resources of the region for the accumulation of their private wealth, the infrastructural development and modernization of their regions, and creating businesses in their regions to generate wealth while utterly neglecting the oil region.

Since 1957 when commercially viable oil exploration began in Oloibiri in Bayelsa State and continuing up to the present day, Nigeria has never embarked on any measurable environmental cleaning operation of the massive oil pollution and gas flaring that have devastated the Niger Delta/South-South zone. Pollution has destroyed farmland and fishing waters, thereby devastating the traditional economic activities of the peoples of the oil region.

Additionally, the massive environmental pollution has led to the emergence of devastating medical conditions that afflict people with incurable diseases. The Federal Government seems unconcerned about the special health care needs of the inhabitants of the oil region as they bear the brunt of toxic chemicals generated by oil and gas operations. Due to gross negligence and corruption, even the Ogoni clean up that the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) recommended is done haphazardly and disinterestedly. The only thing national decision makers seem to care about is increasing the quantity of oil production in order to increase the wealth generated to offset foreign debts incurred through reckless borrowing and spending.

The Federal Government militarily occupies the Niger Niger/South-South like a colonial power by stationing the Joint Task Force Operation Restore Hope (JTF) to prevent individuals from engaging in the refining of oil while the Federal Government is not interested in creating a JTF to prevent individuals from illegal mining of solid minerals.

Indeed, the reckless exploitation of oil and gas in the oil region is an existential threat to the survival of the peoples of the Niger Delta/South-South. Therefore, Federal Government should take the following steps to remedy the situation:

Nationalize solid minerals the way oil and gas are nationalized.
Establish the Nigerian National Solid Minerals Corporation (NNSMC) to carry out effective ownership, control, and management of solid minerals the way oil and gas are owned, controlled, and managed through the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL).
The Board of Directors of the NNSMCL must come from the six zones of the country.
Establish a military Joint Task Force (JTF) to stop illegal mining of solid minerals the way illegal refiners are prevented from doing so in the Niger Delta/South-South.
Revenue generated from the mining of solid minerals must go directly into the Federation Account.
The funds must be shared the way the oil wealth is shared through the Federation Account to the Federal Government, states, local governments and the Federal Capital Territory.
The Federal Government must set up a proactive pollution cleaning program to clean the oil region.

If these steps are not taken to nationalize solid minerals, then Nigeria must denationalize petroleum and gas. This means that the citizens of the oil region should be able to explore and refine petroleum the way Nigerians mine gold and other solid minerals. In other words, failure to operationalize the nationalization of solid minerals should result in automatic denationalization of oil and gas in the Niger Delta//South-South.

This further means that if the Federal Government continues to look the other way and allow individuals and cooperatives to mine solid minerals, then, the indigenes of the oil region should be allowed to explore and refine petroleum and gas.

Indeed, Nigeria must stop the double standard in controlling, regulating and managing mineral resources in the country. The double standard creates the impression that the oil region is a colony because the inhabitants of the region are not power-wielding groups in Nigeria, hence deserved to be exploited and deprived of their natural rights to make use of resources in their territory while solid minerals are mostly found in the regions of the power-wielding groups, hence, the citizens of those regions can mine and create individual and family wealth from solid minerals exploration.

References

Eguzozie, B. (2021, August 2). Nigeria’s Oil Block ownership: A dubious national oil industry management. Business A.M. https://www.businessamlive.com/nigerias-oil-block-ownership-a-dubious-national-oil-industry-management/#:~:text=An%20oil%20block%20or%20oil,to%20be%20extracte.

Idoko, C. (2024, March 2). FG inaugurates mining marshals to combat illegal mining. Nigerian Tribune. https://tribuneonlineng.com/fg-inaugurates-mining-marshals-to-combat-illegal-mining/#:~:text=Mining%20Marshals%2C%20a%20unit%20cr.

Isenyo, G. ( 2016, April 7). Kaduna gold deposit bigger than S’Africa’s reserves. Punch. https://punchng.com/kaduna-gold-deposit-bigger-than-safricas-reserves/.

Minerals: Is there a complacency? Business Day. The Silence of the Ministry of Solid Minerals; Is there a Complacency? – Businessday NG.

Nigeria Minerals and Mining Act, 2007. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://msmd.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Nigerian-Minerals-Mining-Act-2007.pdf; (https://www.lawnigeria.com/LFN/N/Nigerian-Minerals-and-Mining-Act.php.