The renewed attacks in the Niger Delta in the last few months have reawakened a crisis many people thought was dead. Following the attacks on Shell and Chevron production facilities, it is estimated that Nigeria, at a time oil price is rising, is losing about 800,000 barrels per day (bpd), estimated at about $1 billion per month if it continues, causing disruptions to Kaduna and Warri refineries, gas supply and the drop in power generation.
While the Niger Delta Avengers (NDA) have claimed responsibility for most of the attacks, and community contractual issues are the immediate causes of this crisis, this lingering crisis has been with us for about 40 years. It is a history littered with kidnapping, violence, piracy, and of course, that of destruction of lives and livelihoods caused by environmental degradation and pollution. In the past, the solutions have included the establishment of more states in the region (that is how Bayelsa became a state), the establishment of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), the 13% derivative formula in federal allocation, the establishment of the Niger Delta Ministry, and of course, a slightly different approach in the Presidential Amnesty Programme(PAP) of 2009.
While none of the measures have provided a permanent solution to the Niger Delta crisis, the Amnesty Programme is particularly flawed. I will discuss three reasons why:
First, the amnesty programme presupposes that the award of a contract, payment of “salaries” or position to someone from the region or a subset of the region is synonymous and tantamount to a “settlement” for the region or the community or state. This is one of the national epidemics in our politics, with the greatest devastation found in the Niger Delta. While the militants fought in the name of the Niger Delta, the programme for each individual is not a programme for the region.
Second, following the inadequacy of the notion that a settlement of one equates a settlement of all, every reward for militancy and or reward for a representative of community leaves the remainder of the people or the community worse off. So, whether we like it or not, there is a disincentive to behave well, or in fact, it is an incentive to behave wrongly. While the amnesty of 2009 resulted in the militants of class 2009 putting away their guns and powder, it failed to address the disastrous situation of the rest of the people and the rest of the Niger Delta, and therefore paved the way for militants of the year 2016. Essentially, those under the “school age” in 2009, have now become students in 2016. In addition, to the extent that that the amnesty programme exacerbated the inequality in the region because it makes it more difficult for individuals and groups to cooperate (because of the disunity created by the programme), it actually fuelled inequality, both within and outside, and not diminished it.
Third, and the worst of all, the amnesty programme fostered a culture of dependency, both by the state (Nigeria), and the beneficiaries of the Amnesty programme on the proceeds from oil. How? Hostilities resumed in the Niger Delta the moment the federal government signalled its intention to withdraw from the programme. This is a grave mistake, especially without due and extensive political and economic consultation. Practically, some measures of the amnesty programme, outside of the inadequacies mentioned above, also serve as an “unemployment benefit”, and an unemployment benefit for that long becomes like a permanent arrangement that becomes disastrous if withdrawn suddenly.
Now, I can imagine those from other regions of the country laughing at the crisis in the Niger Delta. But we are all guilty of the same politics that gave rise to such dependency. It is our fear that has made our country of 180 million great potential, knowledgeable, and industrious people continue to rape a region of its God-given resources for the revenue of just 2 million barrels per day. We can do better. It is our fear that makes us think and behave as if a barrel of crude is more important than the lives in the Niger Delta. So, we will do everything to secure our dependence on the oil, including paying militants rather than holistically deal with the problem of the region and that of Nigeria, which is to restructure the entire country and give control to the states.
So, because of our dependency, we continue to pander to fear. That same fear permeates our discussions, media, and politics, forgetting that societies are transformed on the basis of economic policies, founded on equity, justice and fairness, and not on the dependence on an exhaustible resource. Indeed, we pander to fear by controlling the resources of the Niger Delta from Abuja. The government has been sounding tough, making threats, and the navy spokesmen are doing the same, but Nigeria’s unity cannot be fostered by the singing of National Anthems, by maintaining a fault line unity government at the centre with 36 dependants answering to the President, or by progressing at the same pace or exhibit the same rate of economic development. Please, no! That is just not the way. Since we are diverse and we know it, the quickest way to our development is to let each go back to its village and be the champion there. I thank you.
Ogho Okiti
