Control de inventario

Following an Act of Parliament of Great Britain, Nigeria became an independent country

within the Commonwealth on October 1 1960. The roots and character of the modern

Nigerian State were planted in the colonial state, which characterised the indigenous peoples as natives, subjects and a conquered people to be “civilised”. “Civilising the natives” often included exploiting them and treating them with contempt, revulsion and mistrust; in short, considering them as inferiors. Trade at independence was not left in the hands of Nigerians. Exploitation of Nigeria’s oil was in the hands of two oil monopolies: British Petroleum and the Royal Dutch Shell Company, enabled through the 1914 Petroleum Act. The complete monopoly exercised by these oil giants rested on an agreement with the colonial state to share oil proceeds at a ratio of fifty- fifty (Osoba 1987).

According to Osoba, the formula was designed to make cheap petroleum available to the industrial societies in Europe and America, while keeping the petroleum producing countries in a state of relative poverty and underdevelopment. Osoba further argued that there was a complete lack of control by the Nigerian government over the operations of these firms. The oil companies were free to invest their resources in Nigeria, with the sole

purpose of maximizing their profits and generally without any consideration for the real

interests and development needs of the country (Osoba 1987). This lack of oversight led the

transnational corporations to resort to wanton exploitation of the people and the environment.

It is important to add here that the history of the oil industry is embedded in the colonial oil and mineral laws of 1887, 1907 and 1914 (amended in 1925, 1950, and 1958 respectively), which vested ownership of oil in the colonial state and handed over control of oil exploration in Nigeria to British or British-allied firms (Omeje 2006: 35–36). However, by 1959, the oil exploration duopoly held by Shell-BP over the country was broken, and other Western oil companies were granted oil concessions. In the period immediately after

independence, (Obi 2005) the first and main oil-related statute in post-colonial Nigeria was

the Petroleum Act of 1969, which repealed the Mineral Act of 1914. Thus, for nine years after independence, Shell BP continued to operate freely under favourable colonial legislation. According to Frynas, even the 1969 Ordinance was largely a confirmation of its

colonial equivalent (Frynas 2000).  

However, an important change in the 1969 law was the introduction of the joint venture arrangement with the oil companies, which consolidated the relationship between these companies and the State. Nigeria proceeded to enact statutes such as the Anti-Sabotage Decree No. 35 that offered security to oil companies and undermined the autonomy of local communities (Adebayo and Falola 1987). Likewise, in 1978, the government enacted the Land Use Decree, which vested ownership rights over all land within a state in the state governors. Through this unprecedented act, local communities were denied communal rights over land and any compensation for land acquired by oil companies. In fact, land confiscation by oil companies, aided by state agents, became the order of day, and communities could not even question the entrance into, or use of, any land by oil companies.

The independence of Nigeria heralded economic stagnation, with attendant neglect of the Niger Delta (Michael 1962). This assertion was further buttressed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), who described the region as suffering from “administrative neglect, crumbling social infrastructure and services, high unemployment, social deprivation, abject poverty, filth and squalor and endemic conflict” (UNDP 2006 P74). The majority of the people of the Niger Delta do not have adequate access to clean water or health-care.

The post-colonial history of Nigeria has been marked by massive instability, including a number of military coup d’états, as a result of conflict between the three major ethnic groups. The smaller ethnic groups in the Niger Delta have been systematically excluded from positions of power. Crowder (1962) labelled the Niger Delta struggle a story of a

people who have been afraid of ethnic domination and discrimination in development.

Indeed, the past/contemporary history of the Niger Delta, as highlighted above, is fraught with stories and accusations of neglect, oppression, domination, exploitation, victimization,

discrimination, marginalisation, nepotism and bigotry (World Bank 1995).

The Human Rights Watch, in its Report (1999), captured the current state of the Niger Delta region as follows: “The evidence suggests that companies benefit from non-enforcement of laws regulating the oil industry, in ways directly prejudicial to the resident population. Oil companies benefit from federal laws that deprive local communities of rights in relation to the land they treat as theirs. Grievances … center on the appropriation or unremunerated use of community or family resources, health problems or damage to fishing, hunting or cultivation attributed to oil spills or gas flares and other operations leading to a loss of livelihood; as well as oil company failure to employ sufficient local people ... or to generate benefits for local communities from the profits that they make” p 160.

The wanton disregard and exploitative tendencies arose from some assumptions, which include the following:

 Oil is a national resource that belonged to the Nigerian State, rather than the Nigerian people in general, or oil producing communities.

 Agitations for resource control or change in the derivation (see principle of

derivation below) formula are either politically motivated, lack merit or are

orchestrated by troublemakers and criminals (militants).

 Force or military soldiers rather than a political or an economic solution is what is

needed to deal with or silence the demands of the Niger Delta communities.

 The Nigerian indigenous ruling class, the Nigerian state, and the Nigerian people

cannot develop Nigeria; instead the ruling classes, states, peoples and agencies of advanced (former colonial) countries can.

 Nothing must be done by the Nigerian indigenous ruling class, the Nigerian State

and the Nigerian people to oppose, contradict, criticise or fight against the development strategies, efforts, ideas and processes advanced by the ruling classes, States, peoples as well as agencies of former colonial masters to develop Nigeria. Hence, independence actually paved the way for the former colonial masters as well as their agents, to whom they handed over power to exploit loot and dominate their former colonies (Akpobibibo 2001). Julius Nyerere (former President of Tanzania), decrying Tanzania’s situation at independence corroborates the above assertion thus: “It seems that independence of the former colonies has suited the interests of the industrial world for bigger profits at less cost. Independence made it cheaper for them to exploit us, we became neo-colonies” (Nyerere 1999; interview by Bunting 1999 p 4).

Further, Mukagbo (2004) compares the Niger Delta region to a place where time seems to have stood still and where people live the most meagre of existences, similar to what you

find in a refugee camp, leaving them bitter and angry at not having benefited from black gold, in spite of Nigeria being Africa’s largest producer.

Due to a long history of neglect, the Niger Delta people experienced problems such as poverty, deprivation, non-availability of essential social amenities including services like electricity, hospitals, pipe borne water, and quality education and environmental degradation. Meanwhile billions of dollars generated on their door step went to the State and Multinational Oil Corporation (MNOCs).