By Emmanuel Oladesu

How do you assess the post-amnesty period in the Niger Delta, against the backdrop of complaints by militants that the government is trying to renege on its promises to them?Let me say that I think that the way the post amnesty scheme has been arranged leaves room for some concerns. And I think there is some confusion out there between settlement of issues of militancy with the settlement of the issues in the Niger Delta. I don’t think the militants are the true representatives of the people. I believe that it is wrong to think that the whole Niger Delta was peaceful until armed militancy came in. Armed militancy is only a minor offshoot of the crisis that has been in the area. Just this morning, I read in the newspapers that the Federal Government has set up a committee of host communities where militants from some communities were asked to represent such communities. How would that represent the people? I also see the composition of this committee as meaning that once you are in government you have the answers. All the people picked are government people. Why shouldn’t these communities be allowed to constitute a committee themselves on how to share the 10 per cent? And I think that what will happen will depend on the government’s sincerity in dealing with the whole issue. And whether there will be resurgence of hostility will depend on many factors, one of which is how the 2011 elections are going to be held. If we must be truthful to ourselves the armed militancy has some connections with the last faulty election. How politicians manipulate or use the militants in trying to capture power will also determine what happens next.How in your opinion can this 10 per cent issue be handled or implemented?

When I chaired the Technical Committee, we looked at a whole lot of things, including the issue of allocation of some percentage of royalty. We think it is also a recipe for far more crisis. We looked at the legal issues. We said the issue of certain percentage of equity is not the same as saying that I’m getting money. You cannot subscribe to that; it is not the main thing. When we were writing our report, we put bullet points of government should do this, government should do that. Our expectation was that someone will ask us what do you mean, how do you expect this to happen? Then we can give you some processes that we went through before arriving at it. For instance, 10 per cent for communities. How do you define a community for this purpose? Take the Ijaw for instance. Do you say that Ijaw is a community? Or do you say the number of villages where oil is produced. And if you are talking of villages, how do you weigh what they get? One community might have 50 oil wells in their villages, the other might have two. How do you share it? Are you also going to deal with those through whose villages pipeline pass? How do you define community? If there are about 500 villages that have these oil facilities, are you going to say 10 per cent for these communities? And in want ratio do you share it? Are you going to share it per barrel? This could be a recipe for far more trouble in that area. Or they can come around, say, okay, they appoint one person as a member of the NDDC or NNPC board and they will say he is the representative of the community. If you put an Ijaw man there, the Ogonis will say we are not represented. In any case, that person is just going to do something for his family or at best those close to him. That has not solved the problem of ownership or of a woman whose only farmland has been taken over by oil activities. So, the issue of equity was rejected?

We rejected the process of equity and went for the question of saying that the community should be entitled to two dollars per barrel of the actual production of oil or gas from their land. We were dealing with something like royalty for each community, which should go to a trust fund. In that way, each of the oil companies knows who signed which agreements with them as host communities. We also need to balance the interest of the particular owner of land from where oil is dredged. If, for instance. the only land I have has been taken over by oil activities, am I compensated by the fact that a road passes by my LG headquarters? So we thought that at that level you should pay rent at economic rate (to owners), which should be negotiated. What in every year will I be getting because of the oil on my land? That solves the question of ownership. The community should get what we call community tax. If you go to some communities in Delta State, young guys with cutlass will hold you. It is called ‘mashing ground’ in some parts of Rivers State. They will ask you to pay. This is equivalent to what in sane society they call community tax. For operating there, you pay some tax to the community from which they get their own share. We looked at all that and preferred it to just saying you will pay equity. I’m sure it has not been well thought out, and again I don’t think it will solve the problem. So, you think government is not sincere?

We think government should stop deceiving itself that because you are in government, you have answers to all the problems of the people. They do not have superior knowledge and they should not always think that the local people are ignorant. They might feign it because they feel you won’t listen. But clearly it does not work. The Ogoni people have shown that it requires a merger of two licences to operate. You need the legal licence from Abuja and you also need the social licence from our people. The Shell has the legal licence but they do not have the social licence from our people, which is why they have not been able to operate, and it is to the buy into the social element that is important. It is not just paying equity or so. We suggested, for instance, that 15 kilometres radius from any flow station should have electricity or water from the flow station. In that case if someone wants to pull out a flow station the host community will not feel the flow station being pulled off but see themselves being deprived of water and electricity. So, you tie the interest of the oil company to the interest of the community. They now have a stake as to why this should go on production. These are some of the things we thought. We thought then that clearly for the government to ask us to sit down and under those trying circumstances to do the work we did, and just jettisoned all we did and say we are just picking amnesty and say we are dealing with militants on behalf of the people; that shows it is not clearly thought out…. So I have reservations for the way the whole things have been carried out.Does it mean that the work of your committee has been implemented to the letter?

I do not even see one that has been implemented. I do not see one. For instance people talked about amnesty as part of what we did. Amnesty for us was just one little element of the whole process; we suggested disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration. But you just pick amnesty alone. The whole processes must be involved, not just you and the militants. The whole society must be involved. Religious and community leaders need to be involved. For instance, I heard the other day that one ex-militant leader went for a burial recently and the people railed at him, because the community has not been involved in the process of dealing with the issue. I think there is a whole lot of gaps in what has been going on. The government has been so much in a hurry that I don’t think the whole issue has been well thought out.There was this optimism when your committee was set up that the recommendations would be adopted. But from what you are saying now it appears it is all another gimmick to divert people’s attention.

When the committee was set up, they gave us 10 days within which to work. I know the pains that members went through. We were sitting till 10pm just to ensure that we conclude the assignment. Professor Onoge of blessed memory when we were closing, the old man with his frail health took time and chaired the committee. In the closing remark, the man said he just hoped that the report would be implemented during our lifetime. Now the man has died, and this pains me a lot because I thought the best legacy would have been for some of these