The dust raised by the 3% Host Communities Fund approved by both chambers of the National Assembly (NASS), in the recently passed Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), remains unsettled. TAIYE ODEWALE reports.
Meaning and purpose of PIB
The Petroleum Industry Bill, which has been a recurring decimal as far as legislative proposals are concerned since the 5th NASS, basically seeks for liberalisation of the petroleum sector, in paving way for investors both local and foreign, to drive it along with government on competitive template.
Failed attempts in the past
As necessary as the legislation is, several attempts made by different sessions of NASS, to get it passed and signed into law, from 2008 till date, have not been successful due to some salient aspects of the proposal like percentage to be given to the host communities from profits made or operational costs by affected oil companies.
Specifically, four different attempts have been made on the bill without success. It was either passed by the NASS but refused assents by the presidency as was the case in the 7th and 8th NASS or failed passage at NASS as an executive bill, as was the case during the 6th NASS.
Determination to break the jinx
Being one of the legislative agenda of the 9th NASS, the determination to get the bill passed anytime forwarded to it by the Executive was there since 2019 as exhibited when received in September 2020 from President Muhammadu Buhari.
Host communities fund as albatross
However, as against the earlier proposal made in such an executive bill, specifically during the late President Umaru Musa Yar’ Adua as regards the host communities fund which was 10%, President Buhari in the executive bill forwarded to both chambers of NASS last year, proposed 2.5% for Host Communities Development Trust Fund.
The President in the letter said: “Pursuant to section 58 of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, I formally request the consideration and passage into law by the Senate the Petroleum Industry Bill 2020.
“In particular, the Senate may wish to note that this bill combines in a single tone, aspects of significant reforms to the laws governing the Nigerian Petroleum Industry, that were previously set out in two distinct draft legislation namely the Petroleum Industry Bill 2020 and the Petroleum Industry Fiscal Bill, 2020. “While I trust that the senate will in their usual expeditious manner favourably consider the passage of this bill into law, please accept Mr Senate President, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Specifically, in clause 240 of the bill which deals with Host Communities Development Fund, the President in the letter of request, proposed 2.5%, which became bone of contention during public hearing on the bill at both chambers in February this year between the Minister of State for Petroleum, Timipre Sylva and leaders of the host communities.
While the President of the Host Communities of Nigeria Producing Oil and Gas (HOSTCOM), High Chief Benjamin Tamaranebi, said the 10% equity share must be given as earlier proposed by the first executive bill to that effect, the Minister said the 2.5% operational cost from oil companies proposed in the bill as host community share was the best.
The 3% controversy
Though after the public hearings at both chambers in and outside Abuja, the various committees saddled with the legislative touch on the executive proposals, came up with 5% Host Communities Development Trust Fund proposal which when the report was presented on July 1, 2021 to the Senate, received commendations from many Senators from the oil producing state but controversy later set in when the earlier prosed 5% was reduced to 3% at the stage of final passage.
Even the window of revisiting the 5% share opened by the House of Representatives in its own consideration and final passage of the bill few days after, was shut by the 3% arrived at by harmonization committee later set up by both chambers and approved accordingly.
Anger after passage
Apparently not satisfied with the numerical strength used by federal lawmakers from non – Oil Producing States, at both chambers in forcing the 3% Host Communities Fund down the throats of those from oil producing areas through adoption of the harmonization report penultimate week, Senator Seriake Dickson (PDP Bayelsa West), addressed the press last week.
He urged President Muhammadu Buhari not to give assent to the bill for the issue of host communities fund to be revisited at both Chambers, by at least, jerking up the 3% to 5% as earlier recommended in the report presented by their joint committees.
The former governor of Bayelsa state specifically declared at the press briefing held at the Senate wing of NASS, Thursday, last week that PIB passed with 3% for Host Communities Fund, will not in anyway, help Nigeria and investors in the oil and gas sectors and may trigger crisis in the area.
According to him, the 5% earlier recommended by both Committees of the National Assembly which is even lower to the 10% being demanded for by stakeholders across the various oil producing communities, was supposed to have been retained in the interest of fairness, justice and equity.
He said: “When PIB was first introduced and forwarded to the National Assembly by the late President Umaru Yar’ adua, 10% was proposed for Host Communities fund and Frontier Basins for exploration of oil as against the bill recently passed, given 3% to Host Communities and 30% to Frontier Basins.
“These, as far as the people of Niger Delta or oil producing states are concerned, are unjustifiable and look like opening another chapter for unrest in the area which will not benefit anybody .
“Imagine the problem the country has been facing with Boko Haram insurgency in the North East for the past ten years, the Armed banditry and kidnapping also being faced in the North West within the last three to four years as well as agitations being faced in South West and South East, to now be added up with avoidable crisis in the South South.
“Those of us from the area did our best to prevail on our colleagues to listen to us and buy into our demands but number or majority position was used, which in actual fact do not build a nation with diversities like Nigeria.
“Might and majority do not build a diversified nation like Nigeria but presence of justice, fairness. Mere reliance on numbers without fairness, equity and justice is inimical to nation building”, he said.
He disclosed that he along with other Senators from the zone staged a walk out from the dinner night President Muhamnadu Buhari had with the 109 senators and 360 members of the House of Representatives, held before the adoption of the harmonisation report of both chambers on the bill when they discovered that the 3% earlier passed by the senate was retained.
His words: “It was a terrible evening for us on account of the 3% proposal, which as a politician of conviction and not that of convenience, led to my walk out from the dinner along with some other senators.
“We put up the required moves on the floor of the senate to push it up to 5% as recommended by the joint committees of both chambers but those who rely solely on numbers, have their way.
“Nigerians should ask the Minister of State for Petroleum why Yar’Adua proposed 10 per cent, Buhari proposed 5% but he came to the National Assembly to propose 2.5 per cent.
“As a way forward, we believe that there should be a review of the legislation first. There shouldn’t be a signature yet. Buhari shouldn’t assent to it it yet. He should be delayed for a more consultative and inclusive work so that while trying to solve problems you don’t create more problems.
“If the President has not guaranteed security in the North East, South East, South West and North West, it will be against the national interest to open another frontier of conflicts perhaps in the only region that is enjoying relative stability because of the policies that President Yar’Adua initiated that are still working. That is how to build a country, standing in for the weak and not relying on power”.
Attack on Dickson from fellow Senator from Bayelsa state
But barely 24 hours after Dickson’s press briefing, another Senator from Bayelsa state, Biobarakuma Wangagha Degi-Eremienyo (APC Bayelsa East), slammed Dickson for his outburst and accused him of instigating crisis in the Niger Delta particularly against the Minister of State for Petroleum.
Degi-Eremienyo in a statement issued on Friday entitled: “PIB and 3% for host communities: Stop instigating violence in Niger Delta” , said: “The true story was that the PIB as an Executive Bill was represented to the National Assembly proposing 2.5% of the total operational cost as host communities development trust funds.
“During the public hearing at various centres, host communities canvassed same postion. After rigorous and painstaking process from plenary to conference committee, the National Assembly put the host communities funds at 3%•
“This was the decision of the National Assembly and not that of the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Chief Timipre Sylva.
“One wonders how and why Dickson would drag Sylva into this. Observers would be tempted to ask what efforts Dickson made to achieve the utmost desired as the bill was presented to the National Assembly when he was still governor.
“Other governors from the Niger Delta region rallied round their people and even lobbied lawmakers from other regions to support increase in the host communities development funds.
“Ex-Governor Dickson did nothing as he was contented with spending 13% derivation on aggressive development of his own villages which are not host communities, leaving the oil and gas producing, host communities to suffer their fate.
“It’s ridiculous to see him fighting pretentiously for host communities. Dickson lacks moral grounds to criticize or attack Sylva’s innocence.
“I can see that Dickson is just been envious, mischievous and intimidated by the astronomically rising profile of Sylva.”
Though Senator Dickson as expected in such scenarios, countered Senator Degi – Eremienyo in a followed up statement by accusing him of personalising, a national issue, but the question is, amidst controversy trailing the already passed bill, will the President assent to it?
