The restlessness that has greeted the passage of the much-talked about Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) by the National Assembly (NASS), the other day, has clearly counteracted the desired goodwill that the proposed law should ordinarily command. The bill ought to represent a good starting point in the effort to re-position the oil and gas industry but it does seem that the legislature has bungled such an important assignment after several years of undertaking it.
As it were, some of the criticisms are not misplaced as, given the crisis of a warped polity, the bill fails to reflect the desire for fiscal federalism where regions can control their resources and the country can grow. In view of the uproar still bedeviling the harmonization by both arms of the National Assembly, lawmakers should realise that they have not finished work until all disagreements and differences arising from it are fully resolved. For the aggrieved parties, mostly from the oil-producing Niger Delta communities, this is the time to pursue their grievances steadfastly and diplomatically before the president assents to it, so as to prevent being presented with a fait accompli.
The bill contains 319 clauses; the overriding issues that have raised opprobrium seem to be the percentage allocations made to various stakeholders. For instance, whereas, the Senate approved 3 per cent equity share of profits accruing from oil and gas operations by the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to the host communities, the House of Representatives granted 5 per cent. This contrasts with the 10 percent demanded by the host communities in the original PIB. The Senate Committee had proposed 5 per cent that was rejected. Over and above that, the Senate granted 30 per cent of the same profits for exploration of oil in what it calls “frontier basins.” The Niger Delta communities feel short-changed in the new bill. Pundits say it amounts to robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The bill also threw up other controversial issues. For instance, the definition of host communities is contentious; as “host communities” are no more restricted to the oil-producing areas alone but includes communities where pipelines pass through. Under the bill, non-oil producing states that have pipelines passing through them will now be beneficiaries of the percentage allocation for that purpose. That automatically grants some northern states the status of oil-producers.
The granting of humongous 30 percent to imaginary frontier basins that are mostly in the north is blatantly unjustifiable. If that is not cheating, then the meagre 10 per cent demanded by the oil-producing communities in the Niger Delta should be granted for peace to reign in view of the crass underdevelopment and degradation of the region and its livelihood system by oil pollution. Expectedly, the Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) and the host communities have rejected the 3/5 per cent equity shareholding and have called for its reversal. The public perception is that the 30 per cent is skewed to favour the north.
Besides, that such a huge percentage is made for oil prospecting when the rest of the world is moving away from oil is astounding and myopic. Why did the Senate choose to ignore the emerging trend worldwide that has to do with a future without oil? Why did the bill not make provision for finding alternatives to oil?
The bill passage is the second time in two decades. The first was under the Obasanjo administration that refused to assent to it. If the provisions are satisfactory and assented to by President Buhari, the bill is expected to drive investment into the nation’s oil sector. It needs to be stressed that the bill is not an end in itself but a means to a desired end.
The Guardian
