Rivers, Imo To Retain 50/50 Sharing On Akiri, Mbede Oil Wells, Says Appeal Court

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has ordered the Rivers and Imo governments to retain the 50/50 percent sharing formula on the revenue from the disputed Akiri and Mbede oil wells.

It is pending the final resolution of the existing boundary dispute between both states by the National Boundary Commission (NBC).

In a unanimous decision, a three-member panel of the court set aside most of the reliefs earlier granted in favour of the Rivers State Government by Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja in a February 26, 2020 judgment.

The Court of Appeal, in the judgment read by Justice Stephen Adah, set aside reliefs one, two, three and four, granted in favour of Rivers State in February 26 judgment of the Federal High Court, holding that the lower court acted without jurisdiction.

The appellate court sustained only the fifth relief, that restrained the Finance Minister from denying Rivers State its entitlement from the 13 percent derivation accruing from the disputed wells as shared based on the existing 50/50 percent sharing agreement.

The judgment, delivered on Thursday, was on the appeal marked: CA/ABJ/CV/350/2020 filed in the name of the Attorney General of Imo State against the February 26 judgment.

“The issues generated in the instant case are not directly on the resolution of the problem of the boundary dispute or problem of boundary dispute between the Rivers and Imo states governments.

“The boundary disputes, from the affidavit and the counter-affidavit before the court, are pending before the National Boundary Commission (NBC). It was not that matter that was brought to the court.

“The parties have also agreed that there is an interim decision for the revenue derived from Akiri and Mbede oil wells to be shared in the ratio of 50/50 between the two states that are in contention.

“The first respondent (the Attorney General of Rivers State) went to court because it said pressure was being mounted on the authorities to abandon the sharing ratio of 50/50, to grant full benefit at 100 percent to the second respondent (the government of Imo State) and then, agencies of the Federal Government that are directly connected with this cause of action are the third, fourth and fifth respondents.

“From the provisions of the Constitution and the law dealing with the jurisdictions of the courts, it is only the Federal High Court that has the vires to decide issues or disputes relating to or borders of the agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria or any of its agencies.

“Having come to this fact, the court below has no jurisdiction to entertain disputes between the federation and states or state against state over any matter.

“This is why declarations made cannot all be sustained, because of the jurisdiction content revolving around the issues.

“Issue four particularly, is a dispute between Rivers and Imo state governments, that can never be a subject of claim before the Federal High Court. So, that relief granted by the Federal High Court is unlawful, null and void. And, it is struck out.

“Issues one, two and three deal with issues relating to decisions to be taken by the Federal Government and some of its agencies.

“Though there is jurisdiction in the Federal High Court, there is no dispute in that respect that requires the intervention of the court. So, those ones are also struck out.

“When it comes to relief five, the parties in this suit agreed, at the court bellow, that the dispute is pending before the National Boundary Commission, and that that dispute is in respect of the Akiri and Mbede oil wells.

“It was also the agreement of the authorities that before they come to the resolution of that dispute, the two states that are involved should be entitled to derivation of 13 per cent, to be shared on the ratio of 50/50; that is, 50 percent to state A, 50 percent to state B.

“So, if that is the agreement, and everybody says it is the agreement, then relief five, which accords with the agreement of the parties, which is the one brought before this court, cannot be faulted because it was granted in line with the jurisdiction of the lower court.

“This appeal is allowed in part. Reliefs one, two, three and four, granted by the lower court, are hereby set aside, while relief five, to the effect that until the conflicting claims over the Akiri and Mbede oil wells by Rivers and Imo states are resolved by the National Boundary Commission, the fourth defendant cannot deny the Rivers State its due share of the revenue under the Constitution and in that manner after.. so, the 50/50percent sharing ratio, granted earlier on, is sustained,” Justice Adah said.

Rivers State had sued, claiming among others, that sacked Imo Governor, Emeka Ihedioha wrote President Muhammadu Buhari, demanding the payment of all the derivation funds from the oil wells solely to Imo State.

Listed as defendants in the suit were the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Attorney General of Imo State, the Accountant General of the Federation; Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission, and the Minister of Finance.

In the February 26 judgment, Justice Taiwo, among others, declared that Rivers State is entitled to continue to receive and retain revenue from the Federation Account and other accounts maintained for the purpose in respect of revenue derived from oil wells within the territory of Rivers State based on the 13percent derivation formula currently applied by the 4th defendant.

The judge also declared that the Rivers State Government (represented by the Plaintiff on record) is entitled to receive and retain revenue from the Federal Account as provided for under the Constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) in respect of revenue drive from the oil wells generally referred to as Akiri and Mbede Oil Wells located within the Rivers State territory.

He further held: “The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, are not entitled to give directives with regard to distribution of public revenue from the distributable pool account, including the Federal Account and that they are not entitled to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the distribution of public revenue from the distributable pool account, including the Federation Account.”

Justice Taiwo held that the Government of Imo State is not entitled to alter or cause to be altered , to deny or cause to be denied, whether through the instrumentality of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any manner howsoever the revenue due to the Rivers State Government in accordance with the principle and formula for distributing public revenue for the time being under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

He added that until the conflicting claims over Akiri and Mbede Oil Wells by Rivers State and Imo State are resolved by the National Boundary Commission, the FG cannot deny the Rivers State its due share of public revenue under the Constitution (as it is currently being distributed), or in any manner after the sharing formula or reduce the share of public revenue due to Rivers State on account of the claim of Imo State to the said Akiri and Mbede oil wells.