Politics
As Jonathan’s PIB War With NASS Rages…
In the heat of insecurity in parts of the northern part of
Nigeria, and sundry distractions,
President Goodluck Jonathan seems obviously bent on accomplishing one of his
major pre-2011election promises – to end chronic power shortage in the country.
And he intends to do this by ensuring that the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) is
passed in its present state.
But with the lawmakers in the National Assembly (NASS)
picking holes here and there in the PIB, particularly with what they see as
undue powers given to the Petroleum Resources Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke
and the President, this seems unlikely.
The lawmakers are particularly vexed because from their
perspective, besides giving too much power to the Oil Minister, Jonathan’s
committee also added a clause in the new draft that permits the President to
unilaterally give oil licenses out. This they consider as both powers beyond
the President, and a usurpation of the powers of the legislature.
The question, therefore, is will the PIB have a better
outing in the NASS this time around when the parliament return from recess in September?
What with the determination of rebellious lawmakers to test President
Jonathan’s resolve to push the bill through the way it is?
In a recent interview with Reuters, most of the lawmakers
minced no word in saying that the PIB, which had been stuck in the parliament
since 2008 when it was introduced by the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua-led
federal government, will not have an easy ride come September.
From the perspective of President Jonathan, if the bill is
passed, it could restore his presidency, which had been seriously battered by
Islamist insurgency in the north, an abortive attempt to remove a popular fuel
subsidy and a raft of corruption scandals since winning the election last year
April. His team had thus made it clear that they expect a swift passage of the
draft he had signed off on.
In the words of the West African analyst at Control Risks,
Roddy Barclay, “As a President who came to power with a landmark reform agenda,
the passage and in implementation of the PIB will provide a key gauge of
Jonathan’s performance in office.
“Having suffered numerous damaging public scandals in recent
months and making headway on his key piece of legislation would go some way to
restoring his international standing”.
The President’s explicit endorsement of the bill gives it a
better chance of passing compared to previous versions, but his increasingly
tense relationship with parliament means that he is likely to have to concede
some ground or face embarrassing delays.
While speaking to Reuters, spokesman for the House of
Representatives, Zakari Mohammed, puts it thus: “We will not be subjected to
pressure to pass the PIB. It will not get a speedy passage but a thorough
passage”.
Another member of the lower House, who spoke to Reuters
anonymously, painted a better picture of the imminent tug of war awaiting the
debate on the PIB when he said ‘we’ve seen the powers given to the oil minister
in the PIB and there is no way we’re going to allow our heritage to be handed
over to any individual. We want this to pass and it will, but not just the way
the President and the oil minister want”.
The apparent disagreement between the Executive and
Legislature not-with-standing, a section of Nigerians believe that the
misunderstanding could also turn out to be the best thing that can happen to
the country in the face of suffocating corruption and distrust in the Nigerian
system.
For Clement Nwankwo, a Director at the Policy and Legal
Advocacy Centre in Abuja, “this unfavourable sentiment towards the President
and oil minister may actually be positive towards giving Nigeria a reasonably
acceptable PIB”.
The questions thus arise: why the hullabaloo over what would
better the lives of Nigerians? And Who benefits by this prolonged imbroglio?
The original PIB as presented to the NASS in 2008 was
designed to force Nigeria’s oil sector to conform more closely to international
norms. The fiscal terms of oil production were to be amended in order for the
government to collect more revenue while the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum
Corporation (NNPC), distinctly lacking in accountability, was to have its
regulatory powers removed. These would be entrusted to the commercial sector.
However, it seems the bill has been greatly watered down.
The restructuring of the industry as proposed by the PIB
would see the establishment of the National Petroleum Commission, which would
be run by a board chaired by a federal minister. It will have the overriding
responsibility of formulating policies for the administration of the industry.
The bill states categorically that the commission under the
Act “shall have power to coordinate the activities of the petroleum industry
and exercise overall supervisory functions over petroleum operations and all
the institutions of the industry.”
It also provides for the creation of some agencies out of
the present Nigerian National Petroleum Commission, while it would transform
into the National Oil Company.
The PIB is expected to bring root and branch reform to an
industry that produces 80 percent of government revenues but has been plagued
by corruption and mismanagement for decades.
The wide-ranging bill would change working terms for major
oil companies like Shell and Exxon and partly privatise the national oil firm,
but has been held up as government, oil firms and other key benefactors argue
over terms under various guises, mostly guided by selfish interest.
This widely believed to have been given credence by the fact
that heading President Jonathan’s reform team is Diezani Alison-Madueke. She is
the Minister of Petroleum Resources and also a former director of Shell
Petroleum Development Corporation. This employment history is seen as being
capable of potentially posing a conflict of interests.
The same interest comes to the fore when it becomes glaring
that some aspects of the bill are being contested by international oil
companies. They include areas that have to do with tax regimes that tend to put
more burdens on such companies and make them more responsible in the way they
do business in Nigeria. Captured under the Nigerian Hydrocarbon Tax, operators
would be required to pay taxes on gas products separately as against what it is
now.
Close observers of the industry believe that Shell is one of
the biggest beneficiaries of the murkiness of Nigeria’s oil sector. The attempt
by the sixth National Assembly (2007-11) to pass the Petroleum Industry Bill
was allegedly cut short due to movements by international oil companies.
In 2010, for instance, leaked United States diplomatic
cables quoted Ann Pickard, then Vice-President of Shell for Africa, boasting
about how Shell encouraged employees to infiltrate all relevant government
agencies.
Secondly, while some sections of Nigerians suggest that the
expected reforms would convert NNC into a profit centre, this may perhaps
amount to being overly optimistic because as long as the NNPC remains an
appendage of the executive government and an epicentre of patronage, this
change may not be plausible.
While baring his mind on the bill, Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Petroleum (Downstream), Senator Magnus Abe, said it should not be
a surprise that a revolutionary piece of legislation like the PIB is attracting
this kind of resistance in the legislature.
According to him, “There is no way you will make such a revolutionary
reorganisation of the oil industry in this country without going through
challenges. I think it will be naïve of any Nigerian to think so. I know for a
fact that there are a lot of interests: economic interests, political interests
and social interests that are tied to the oil sector.
“In dealing with a subject like the petroleum industry bill,
which seeks to reshape the industry, recreate it and remake it on a commercial
basis, we will take out a lot of the waste and the unnecessary patronage that
is currently associated with the industry, and I don’t think that we can
achieve that without some level of turbulence and challenges.”
One way out of the mess in the oil sector, he continued, is
for the National Assembly to “put the interest of Nigeria first, finding a
common ground and passing a law that would enable the petroleum industry to
develop for the benefit of the people.
“I know that oil industry players would have their own
interest, which they would like to see written into the law; but we are
Nigerians, the resources belong to us and it is the interest of our people that
we should promote over and everything else.
“We also have to remember that in promoting the interest of
our people, we must make sure that those who participate in the industry can
get fair returns for their investments because if they don’t get it, then even
trying to get something for your own people will be useless.
“It is not rocket science. There are existing models in
other societies that they have used and it is working and has worked very well.
You can even take the case of Malaysia, we have Petronas; in Brazil, you have
Petrolbraz and the Libyan Oil Company.
“All these are reformed oil sectors that have resulted in
the national oil companies themselves becoming major economic and big time
players in the industry. They are even investing in other societies outside and
bringing home profits from their investments.
“But instead, our own NNPC is a source of debt, a source of
patronage, is a source of waste; it is a source of mismanagement of the oil
industry. So the PIB is supposed to take care of all that and any time you want
to change something that people are benefiting from, there is bound to be
challenges. You know that that is always the case, people don’t give away their
benefits,” Abe said.
President of the Senate, David Mark, has also promised that
the bill would be given due attention once it comes before the Senate, noting
that “the problem with the PIB was that when it showed up, there were so many
versions. As many as three or four versions were in the hands of senators and
members of the House of Representatives.”
He however said, “If we are to build the sector, we have to
get the bill off the ground and this is why it is necessary for cooperation
between the legislative and the executive.”
If the Chambers are so determined, then, an end to this long
journey seems near. One certainty is that whatever the bill looks like at the
end of the day, passing it would at least end the uncertainty that had
prevented Nigeria from holding an oil licensing round for over five years.
Again, if it is passed with the sole interest of the
Nigerian populace at heart, it will not only attract investment into natural
gas in the country, but also be the beginning of an end to chronic power
shortages. This is obviously the kind of legacy President Jonathan would want
to bequeath to future generations of this great country.
Politics
FG’s Economic Policies Not Working – APC Chieftain
A senator who represented Taraba Central, Mr Abubakar Yusuf, has declared that the economic policies of President Bola Tinubu are not yielding the expected results.
His comment is one of the strongest internal critiques yet from within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
The comment underscores the growing dissatisfaction within sections of the ruling party over the direction and impact of the administration’s economic reforms amid rising living costs and fiscal pressures across the country.
Mr Yusuf, who served in the Senate between 2015 and 2023 under the platform of the APC, made the remarks during an appearance on national television.
Responding to a question on whether the administration’s economic direction, often referred to as Tinubunomics, was working, Mr Yusuf answered in the contrary.
“For me, it is not working. I am a member of the APC. I would be the last person to hide the facts”, he said.
He said while the government might be operating diligently within its policy structure, the framework itself is ill-suited to Nigeria’s current realities
“Within the policy framework, yes, they are doing their best, but it is not the framework that is suitable for Nigeria at the point in time that President Asiwaju came into power,” he said.
Mr Yusuf criticised the immediate removal of fuel subsidy on the day the president was sworn in, arguing that the decision lacked sufficient consultation and planning.
“I am one of those who say President Asiwaju ought to have waited. Not on the day he was sworn in to say subsidy is gone. On what basis?”, he asked.
He urged broader engagement before major fiscal decisions are taken.
“Sit down with your cabinet, sit down with your ministers, sit down with your advisers,” he said, dismissing the argument that subsidy removal was justified solely on grounds of corruption.
The former lawmaker identified “structural flaws” in the country’s budgeting system, particularly the envelope budgeting model.
“One of the basic problems is that before you budget, you should have a plan. The envelope system we have been operating has been you budget before you plan. That has been a major issue”, he said.
He argued that allocating spending ceilings without aligning them to concrete development strategies inevitably weakens implementation and delivery.
“If you give me an envelope which is contrary to my plan, whether it is plus or minus, there is no way I am going to implement my plan. It is bound to fail,” he said.
Mr Yusuf called for the scrapping of the envelope budgeting system, noting that he had consistently opposed it even during his years in the National Assembly.
“It is not good for us. It is not going to work well for us,” he said.
He further blamed poor capital releases and persistent deficit financing for undermining budget performance over the years.
“We could not meet 60 percent of our capital budget in all these years. No releases. If you make a budget and the release is very poor, there is no way the budget will be executed”, he stated.
According to him, weak fund disbursement mechanisms and reliance on deficit financing have entrenched a cycle of underperformance.
“Our budget ought to have been a surplus budget, but all our budgets have always been deficit financing budgets,” Mr Yusuf added.
Politics
Reps To Meet,’Morrow Over INEC’s 2027 Election Timetable
The Nigerian House of Representatives has resolved to reconvene for an emergency session tomorrow February 17, 2026, to deliberate on issues arising from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) release of the timetable for the 2027 general elections.
The decision was disclosed in a statement issued by the House Spokesman, Rep. Akin Rotimi, who described the electoral body’s announcement as one of “constitutional and national significance.”
INEC had fixed February 20, 2027, for the Presidential and National Assembly elections.
According to the statement, members of the Green Chamber were notified of the emergency sitting through an internal memorandum from the Speaker’s office.
The session is expected to focus on legislative matters connected to the newly released timetable, reflecting the House’s resolve to act promptly on issues affecting the nation’s democratic process.
Rep. Rotimi noted that all related businesses would be treated with urgency and urged lawmakers to prioritise attendance in view of the importance of the deliberations.
INEC had on Friday formally unveiled the comprehensive schedule for the 2027 polls, including timelines for party primaries slated for July to September 2026, as well as the commencement of Continuous Voter Registration in April 2026.
The development comes amid ongoing consultations and proposed amendments to the Electoral Act ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Politics
Group Continues Push For Real Time Election Results Transmission
As the controversy over the transmission of election results continues across the country, the Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), a pro democracy organisation in the country, has criticised the National Assembly for not giving express approval to real time transmission of elections results.
To this end, the group is calling on all civil society organisations in the country to mobilise and push for a better Electoral Reform in the country.
This was contained in a press statement titled, “Defence For Human Rights and Democracy Demands Real Time Election Transmission of Result”, a copy of which was made available to newsmen in Port Harcourt.
The group described the refusal of compulsory real time transmission of result results by the Senate as undemocratic, adding that the situation will give room for election manipulation, rigging and voters apathy.
It said that the provision of mandatory real time transmission of election results would have significant improvement on the nation’s democracy.
According to the statement, “Since the return of democracy in 1999 to date, it is 27 years, so our Democracy has metamorphosed from being nascent and as such significant improvement should have been recorded.
“Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is really disappointed at the National Assembly, especially the upper chamber (Senate) for not approving ‘Real Time Electronic Transmission of Election Result’.
“This undemocratic act of theirs, if not tamed, will give room for election manipulation and rigging’”.
Signed by Comrade Clifford Christopher Solomon on behalf of the organisation, the statement further said, “The Defence For Human Rights and Democracy unequivocally supports real time transmission of election result”, stressing that his group will resist any act by the National Assembly to undermine the nation’s democracy.
“DHRD,unequivocally supports ‘True Democracy’, which is Government of the people, by the people and for the people.
“Therefore, anything that will crash the hope of Nigerians to Freely, Fairly and Transparently elect candidates of their choice in any given election should and will be vehemently resisted because good governance begins with leaders elected through credible process. By so doing, leaders have entered a social contract with the citizens to equitably manage their affairs and abundant resources”, the statement added.
It urged the National Assembly to revisit the issue in order to avoid civil unrest.
According to the DHRD, “To avoid civil unrest,voters apathy, election rigging and manipulation, rather to promote citizens participation, advancing our Democracy and entrenching free, fair, credible and acceptable electoral outcome, the National Assembly should amend the electoral act in a manner that will deepen our democracy and boost citizens confidence.
“On this note, The Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is calling on all other civil society organisations (CSOs) to mobilise, organise and push for a better electoral act amendment by the National Assembly”.
By: John Bibor
-
Sports3 days ago2026 WC: Nigeria, DR Congo Awaits FIFA Verdict Today
-
Environment3 days agoOxfam, partners celebrate 5 years of climate governance programmes in Nigeria
-
Politics3 days ago
ADC, PDP, LP Missing As INEC Set For By- Elections In Rivers
-
Politics3 days ago
FG’s Economic Policies Not Working – APC Chieftain
-
Politics3 days ago2027: Diri Unveils RHA LG Coordinators, APC Congress Panel
-
Politics3 days agoReps To Meet,’Morrow Over INEC’s 2027 Election Timetable
-
Politics3 days agoGroup Continues Push For Real Time Election Results Transmission
-
Sports3 days ago
Sunderland Overcome Oxford Challenge
