‘Allocation of 9 oil wells to Bayelsa flouts S/Court ruling’ The allocation of additional nine oil wells to Bayelsa State was done in negation of the Supreme Court ruling on offshore/onshore dichotomy that states can only lay claims to oil wells located within a radius of 200km isobaths, former member of House of Representatives, Dr. Junaidu Mohammed and Kaduna based lawyer, Yahaya Mahmoud, have said.Speaking in separate interviews on the BBC monitored in Kaduna today, the duo faulted the allocation of the oil wells to President Goodluck Jonathan’s state of Bayelsa as having been done in breach of the constitution.“There is a Supreme Court ruling few years ago, which says a state could claim oil fields as part of its natural resources only when they are within its landmass confines or located in a neighbouring body of water or ocean not beyond 200-kilometer isobaths from the landmass.

“Now, this issue of nine oil fields in neighbouring ocean of Bayelsa said to have been made another source of revenue to be taken into consideration by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) in its future 13% derivation may not be acceptable because these fields are located beyond the  ruling’s 200-km isobaths limit, because other neighbouring states are already saying it is illegal regardless of the commission’s endorsement,” Mahmoud said.Mahmoud said the executive powers conferred on President Jonathan are limited to the constitutional provisions, which he swore to uphold along with all other defined laws of the land.

“So long as it is the Constitution that provides that resources be shared  appropriately based on laws by the National Assembly and accordingly interpreted by the Supreme Court, the President cannot act contrary to it. Therefore, the executive power is about being law-abiding and not being unruly,” he said.

He said any state could take the matter to the Supreme Court for adjudication, on the ground that contrary to the constitutional sharing formula that every state should receive its share, the decision to allocate nine oil wells to Bayelsa state cannot stand scrutiny.

On his part, Junaidu said the allocation of the oil wells to Bayelsa state for the purposes of the 13% derivation shows that the President is preoccupied with serving the interest of his own people. “This indicates Jonathan is only doing what he likes or what he is more concerned about, which is serving his own people, but constitutionally he  doesn’t have any leverage to even attempt to do such outrageous things, which  only the National Assembly is invested with such powers,” he said.  He said the allocation to Bayelsa, which is one of three states that enjoy over  60% of the nation’s oil revenues, would only impoverish other states.       

“Those to suffer from Jonathan’s action are the states that are not blessed with oil. Even oil producing ones would in one way or the other also feel the pinch because there are three states that enjoy over 60% of the nation’s oil revenue, and Bayelsa is one of them.“This clearly shows that, it’s the rich getting richer at the expense of others, suggesting that the country is not truly a federation in terms of even distribution of its resources therefore no considerations are given to sense of humility, honour and responsibility,” he said.Junaidu dismissed claims that the allocation was predicated on some peculiar problems of Bayelsa, which President Jonathan had been agitating for since his days as governor of that state.

“You mean any state could wake up and ask for allocation of an oil well and without following due process get it? Whatever we want to do must be within the legal and constitutional ambits. It means if I have problem I could make such ridiculous demand and get entertained?” he queried.