The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Land

  • Dividends or Demands of Democracy? Envir/ Land Use Demands – Terrorist Taxation: A ’penkele mess’

    Dividends or Demands of Democracy? Envir/ Land Use Demands – Terrorist Taxation: A ’penkele mess’

    Alhaji Lam Adesina, Former Governor and ACN leader in Oyo State is dead. We console his family. May he Rest in Peace. His legacy, limitations and achievements, will be analysed politically. All governors must think of their legacy. Today the living working citizens have serious economic challenges in Oyo State aggravated by IGR strategies. This requires intervention by current Governor Ajimobi.

    A letter from a State Commissioner may appreciate you for ‘services rendered’ or be an Internally Generated Revenue Demand. The citizens are asking from government agencies ‘When is a ‘‘legality’’ an immorality?’ Bad Breaking News 1 on 1-11-2012: The Environmental Ministry’s Commissioner Dauda signed a dreaded ‘Demand Notice: Annual Environment Development Charges’ for my and hundreds of other business premises, N50,000/annum backdated 3 years to 2009 before this government came in. This N200,000 is payable ‘within three weeks or you.. ]face] a fine, imprisonment, seal of premises – 2004 law.

    Bad Breaking News 2 on 29-10-12: Courier letter dated 29-10-2012 delivered on 9-11-2012 -10 days lost. Finance Commissioner Adelabu signed to me and hundreds of others a 2012 Land Use Charge of N126,000 for commercial use of building within 30 days. We could pay a discounted N107,000 if paid by 13-11-12, N157,500 paying between 13-28 Dec, N189,000 paying between 29 Dec-Jan 28 2013 and N252,000 paying between 29 Jan-28 Feb 2013, or ‘property will be liable to receivership by the state or its agent and any other ENFORCEABLE reliefs.

    How can a charge double in four months? Does that make it easier to pay? Is this mere law enforcement or extortion? Is this bad political advice, legalised illegality or political rascality like when ‘people’ working during Adedibu/Akala’s time extorted up N20,000 ‘within one week’ from Ibadan businesses for ‘fire protection’? Those promoting excessive government charges should explain and perhaps be ‘sued’ by Civil Society and Consumer Protection Agencies. Are these government charges, their size, time frame, threat factor and insulting wordings not ‘terrorist tactics/Tax Terrorism similar to colonial taxation? Imagine if we had enforcing state police. We should feel at home in a state we love, not in occupied territory.

    Let public officials publish their own payments for charges in their business officers and homes. We hear the Residence Charges are coming also. What an unpleasant End of Year present from Government for an ‘annus horribilis’ with the January fuel strikes, poor power, dwindling business, November fuel scarcity and N120/litre fuel. Now triple taxation! Does government want blood from stone?The Governor, as a professional, businessman and politician, should please intervene. Can the Governor please cut the fees by 80% and cut out corruption opportunities of ‘negotiation’? A little from a lot of citizens is better than a lot from a few. Obama and the Red Cross made ‘billions’ from millions of $10-50 donations and not $1000s from a few.

    These charges may breach the human rights of citizens who deserve civility not ‘demands’. Just because someone calls it ‘TAX’ or ‘Charge’ or ‘Demand’ does not make it morally correct in amount. Even if it is ‘legitimate’ and ‘IGR’, Fellow Nigerian citizens need protection from overzealous taxation. Where is the Citizens Ombudsman? The authors of excessive tax bills should be cautioned and sanctioned because their wild assessments are causing panic among their tax victims, the voting Nigerians of 2015. This ‘mental assault’ intimidates the citizens and the letters should be rewritten. There should be trust and mutual respect between citizens and government, not a master servant relationship. This is not a human face of government.Does no one uphold the SERVICON pact not to abuse the citizens’ trust and respect?

    Would the Commissioners writing these letters be happy to receive letters promising such violence and vitriol? The bills are too high, too late in the year, with too short a notice for payment and too severe punishments. Does government want us to steal to pay these bills? Whenever the amount is agreed, bills and rents can be more easily paid by 12 monthly instalments like in civilised countries instead of once annually, ‘within one month’. An honest business professional could lose his business for this while the dishonest one will pay up and even ‘bribe up’. Meanwhile billions are stolen in government inflated contracts and corruption nationwide daily for no punishment.

    IGR must be ‘Intelligently’ and empathetically collected. Are these letters different from the threatening text messages and letters sent by Boko Haram, kidnappers and robbers forcing citizens to pay ‘protection’? They have ‘legal’ backing but every schoolboy knows the quote ‘The law is an ass’ and interpreted differently by every lawyer and judge. Indeed the ‘law is a manipulated ass’ used by authorities to legalise immorality. The principle of environmental care and land use are good but extortion is not.

    Firstly a charge for 2012 is issued in November 2012. Secondly, which financial wizardry makes N126,000 malignantly become N252,000 in four months, 300% interest per annum? Is that legal? Neither the Mafia nor Shakespeare’s Shylock and his ‘pound of flesh’ charge such interest rates? A la Adelabu of old, this is a ‘’penkele mess’’ demand of democracy, not a dividend. The citizen needs protected from government agents paid by citizens’ taxes. Struggling business, education and health services lift the state’s income and reputation. They are not pariah or the enemy but partners in state progress. The governor can intervene. For me, Agodi prison is a real 2013 possibility.

  • Jonathan fights back as land grab row deepens

    Jonathan fights back as land grab row deepens

    President lashes protesters who accused him of backing Bayelsa against Rivers

     

    The tension between Rivers and Bayelsa states over allegations of land grab and oil royalties boiled over yesterday, with the President joining the fray.

    President Goodluck Jonathan denied backing the alleged move to cede Soku oil wells in five Kalabari communities of Rivers State to his home state, Bayelsa.

    Community elders under the auspices of Kalabari National Forum, on Monday, alleged that there were moves by some Federal Government agencies with presidential acquiesce, to cede Kula, Soku, Ehem-Sargama, Idama and Abose Rivers communities whose oil well produces 300,000 barrels of crude daily, to Bayelsa.

    The Kalabari leaders’ protest was led by former Minister Alabo Graham-Douglas. They marched on Abuja on Monday with placards.

    Chairman of the Akukutoru Local Government Area Traditional Council of Rivers State, Emmanuel Awoyesuau-Jack, who spoke for the forum, said: “The self-explanatory effort was perceived to assuage the initial provocation of the Rivers State government. While Rivers State government patiently awaited the promised correction, of the error-laden 11th edition of the Administrative map of Nigeria, which ordinarily should have redressed the acknowledged fundamental misrepresentations, the RMAFC surreptitiously released all revenue accruing from Soku Fields and Wells, previously kept in an Escrow Account, to Bayelsa State without recourse to Rivers State.”

    But the President denied being part of any plot to cede the communities to Bayelsa. Besides, the Bayelsa State government also accused Rivers State of illegally collecting revenue due to it since 1999.

    It said there are outstanding issues of derivation between the two states.

    In a statement by presidential spokesman Reuben Abati last night, Dr. Jonathan decried Monday’s protest by Kababari leaders. He urged them and their “hidden sponsors” to avoid “the temptation to instigate conflict between the Nembe and Kalabari people of Rivers and Bayelsa states – who are of the same Ijaw stock”.

    The statement said: “Our attention has been drawn to a publication in some newspapers today about a protest staged by the Kalabari National Forum and some monarchs in Abuja, in which the so-called protesters accused President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan of interfering in a boundary dispute between Rivers and Bayelsa states.

    “The protesters alleged directly and through innuendoes, that there are plans to cede five Rivers State oil communities to Bayelsa with the connivance of various Federal Government agencies under the watchful eyes and supervision of his Excellency, Mr. President whose home state, most ingloriously, is the direct beneficiary.

    “We consider these allegations irresponsible and most unfortunate, considering the status of the persons who reportedly championed the protest. The statutory agencies being referred to by the protesters do not take orders from the President; they are independent bodies.

    Besides, there are laid down procedures for resolving inter-state boundary disputes. In this particular case, the dispute between Rivers and Bayelsa states predates the Jonathan administration, and has been a matter for consideration by the National Boundary Commission, the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) and other relevant agencies, long before now. The matter has never at any time been brought before either the President or the Vice President. The school-boy style protest is an attempt at cheap blackmail. We find the motive deplorable.

    “It is all the more surprising that a man of Alabo-Graham Douglas’s stature, a former Minister who ought to know what is right, will team up with a group intent on causing disaffection between the President and his Ijaw kinsmen.

    “We advise the Kalabari National Forum, its members and hidden sponsors, to avoid the temptation to instigate conflict between the Nembe and Kalabari people of Rivers and Bayelsa states, who are both of the same Ijaw stock. The statutory agencies assigned the responsibility of resolving boundary disputes should be allowed to do their work.

    “President Jonathan appeals to the good people of Rivers and Bayelsa to refuse to be dragged into the politics of conflict being orchestrated by individuals pursuing a hidden agenda.

    “The Federal Government, under President Jonathan’s watchful eyes and supervision, remains committed to the promotion of fairness and justice in the interest of all parties concerned.”

     

  • Land allocation abuse

    Sometimes ago there was a news item about a former Minister of Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja allocating several plots of land to his wives, the President and other cronies some of which were done the day he was leaving office. Similarly, a lot of furore has been generated by several abuses of land allocation in Ogun State of recent.

    If other states are examined, the story is not likely to be different. We also woke up one morning only to be told that two first ladies were fighting over allocation of the same plot in Abuja.

    A former first lady claimed that the land in question was allocated to her while a present one was equally allocated the same piece of land! There had also been several cases of political vindictiveness in some states where allocations of land were revoked not for public overriding purposes but because the alottees belong to different political parties from those of the incumbent governors. Those who drafted the land use decree (now Act) must have thought that these kind of things would happen by not arrogating the power to allocate land absolutely to one person, the state governor.

    In their wisdom, they made provision for the establishment of a “Land Use and Allocation Committee (LUAC) whose purpose is to make sure that the process of land allocation to the citizens of each state is subjected to some processes of scrutiny and rational reasoning before allocations of land are made. Hence, section 2.2 of the Land Use Act (LUA) provides. “There shall be established in each state a body to be known as “the Land Use and Allocation Committee” which shall have responsibility for:-
    (a) Advising the Military Governor on any matter connected with the management of land to which paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above relates;

    (b). Advising the Military Governor on any matter connected with the resettlement of persons affected by the revocation of rights of occupancy on the ground of overriding public interest under this Decree; and

    (c) Determining disputes as to the amount of compensation payable under this Decree for improvements on land.
    Now paragraph (a) of subsection (1) states – “As from the commencement of this Decree, all land in urban areas shall be under the control and management of the Military Governor of each state”.

    It is clear from these two sections that the control and management of land in each state is to be done by the Governor subject to or with the advice of the Land Use and Allocation Committee (LUAC)!
    Section 5 of the decree also made similar provision in respect of land in the rural areas, i.e. “there shall be established a Land Allocation Advisory Committee in each local government to advise the local government on any matter connected with the management of land to which paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above refers”.

    The subsection referred to states- “all other land shall subject to this Decree, be under the control and management of the local government within the area of jurisdiction of which the land is situated”

    It follows therefore that the management and control of land in the rural areas should also be subject to the advice of the “Land Allocation Advisory Committee” to be set up in each local government areas.

    The question that should come to mind now is how many state governments have constituted Land Use and Allocation Committee? In the absence of such a committee, state governors have continued to singularly excise the right to allocate land in their states to whoever pleases them and at rates and conditions determined by them! That is why it is possible for some governors to allocate land to their cronies with a waiver of statutory payments some to even to ridiculous extents! The case of Ogun State may be a child’s play if what is happening or has happened in most other states are exposed.

    In the same way, if the FCT has a functional Land Use and Allocation Committee, most of the abuses of land allocation that have been exposed there may not have happened. A former Minister of the FCT discovered and exposed a lot of irregularities in the allocation of land in the Federal Capital where land meant for public uses, open spaces and land over sewers were allocated to cronies of people in power but he is said to have ended up committing similar offences during his own tenure.

    “Absolute power corrupts” is a common saying. Perhaps this is what was in the mind of those who drafted the Land Use Decree that made them to insert the clause that provided for the Land Use and Allocation Committee (LUAC). Unfortunately, ours is a country where those in power choose which part of the laws they will obey. In more civilized countries, somebody would have gone to court to compel the Governors to obey this constitutional requirement of the Land Use Act to constitute the Land Use and Allocation Committee (LUAC) as provided for in the law.

    Section 2.3 made provision for the membership of the Land Use and Allocation Committee. This is to include a legal practitioner and two estate surveyors and valuers of not less than five (5) years’ experience. The inclusion of these professionals is to bring some professional expertise to the process of control and management of land in the states.
    The writers of the law must have envisaged that the Governors would not necessarily be knowledgeable enough in the management of land- a very scarce resource. Hence the provision for two estate surveyors who are trained in the economics of land use and management in the committee. This is to ensure that every action to be taken by the Governor would have passed the necessary test during the deliberation of the committee. In the same vein, all the legal implications of any excise to be recommended by the committee would have been subjected to legal scrutiny to ensure that all actions of the Governors in the process of land allocation and management including revocation of rights are perfectly within the law.

    There is little wonder then why there had been several abuses of land uses whereby land meant for public open spaces, schools, hospitals, shops, fire and police, etc. have been converted to residential plots and allocated to satisfy the demands of friends and political associates of the governors in power! The Land Use and Allocation Committee would have prevented these happening if such decisions have passed through them. But even in the few cases where such committees have been constituted, these professionals are not included as provided by the law.

    There had been calls for the removal of the Land Use Act from the constitution to make it amenable to amendments as and when necessary or to amend several parts of it which have been found unworkable. Thirteen years of the National Assemblies have failed to produce a single amendment to this law! Perhaps the on-going proposal to amend parts of the 1979 constitution to which the Land Use Act was made a part of by the Obasanjo’s supreme military council by a fiat will finally direct its search light on this part of the constitution.

    If this happens, it will be delighted if an amendment could be made to make it compulsory for all land allocations by the Governors to be subject to the recommendation of the Land Use and Allocation Committee. If this is done, it will, to some extent, curb or reduce the flagrant abuse of the process of land allocation by the Governors.