The land dispute is a scandal and smacks of feudal politics
Boundary disputes are, thankfully, envisaged by our laws. That is why the constitution created the National Boundary Commission inured with powers to intermediate in such disputes. Unfortunately, the dispute between Rivers and Bayelsa states has been elevated because of the value of oil lying within the bowels of the disputed land. But even more unfortunate is the attempt to foist a feudalistic intermediation, (some insinuate) simply because President Goodluck Jonathan, who is from Bayelsa State, is currently the President. Yet we are in a democracy and the disagreement between the states is already before a court.
In our view, and we guess that of many Nigerians, the resort to primordial sentiments instead of constitutionalism on this issue, belittles the integrity of our democracy. In this case, the President has unwittingly taken over a matter that is sub judice, and is gregariously seeking to use his official status as the head of the executive to determine same. This development is not good for the image of the President and is not tenable in a democracy either. What is right is for the boundary commission to diligently exercise its constitutional responsibilities and forward its findings to the court, which is empowered to weigh the evidence and make profound pronouncements as the facts of the matter dictate.
To do otherwise is to engage in the abuse of due process. The President and governors who are attempting to foist their stature and personal disposition on the matter need to be reminded to retrace their steps, and allow the unfettered intermediation of the law. The courts must also rise up to their constitutional responsibilities of enforcing the rule of law, in this matter. If truly the courts sanctioned that the money realised from the oil derived from the disputed land should be kept in an escrow account, the officials of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) that released it to Bayelsa State must be sanctioned.
If the decision to keep the money in an escrow account since 2000 when the dispute arose was administrative, then the President needs to explain who ordered the commission to hand over the money to his home state government. Without a plausible explanation by the commission why the money in dispute was released to one of the claimants, the accusation of bias and undue influence levelled against the President may stand. The President stands accused because he is from the benefitting state, Bayelsa; and many would argue that if not for his influence, the commission would not suddenly get into an overdrive to pay Bayelsa State the money kept since 2000, when the matter is yet to be resolved.
We also ponder why the courts have been dillydallying over this matter, or were they hamstrung by the failure to procure facts from the administrative agencies to resolve the dispute? Considering the potent power of the dispute to disrupt the national economy, we are surprised that more than a decade after, there is no concerted effort to resolve an ordinary boundary dispute. Again, if the boundary commission accepted in a letter that the last official map, unlike the previous maps, wrongly situated the land in Bayelsa State, why didn’t it as a matter of priority do a fresh map since 13 years ago, to save the country the hiccups?
If there should be a descent into anarchy over this dispute, will it not be right to hold the commission culpable for dereliction of duty? To avoid unpleasant consequences, considering the previous history of the region, it is important that the boundary commission is encouraged to quickly do the right thing. The ongoing resort to influence peddling and mudslinging by officials of the two states should be stopped. Our country cannot claim to be practising democracy and availed of modern capabilities in the field of survey and area mapping, yet we prefer anachronistic tendencies of the big man syndrome.
In this respect if truly as alleged by the Rivers State Government, political permutations over the 2015 election are underlining the dispute, that must be condemned. If the allegation is correct, we remind those involved that they are playing games with the lives of the neighbouring communities, who may resort to violence to settle the dispute. If such disingenuous calculation is at play, then those using the influence of President Jonathan today, would be sure to regurgitate the money paid once a president beholden to the interests of the people of Rivers State gets into Aso Rock. As we have stated, a land dispute is not a rocket science, and can be fairly resolved based on historical fact as can be proved in the courts. To avoid unnecessary rancour among the Ijaw brothers of Bayelsa and Rivers states, their elites must raise law over illogic and the sentiments of feudalism.
