In this interview with PATRICK ANDREW, the surveyor general of Kogi state, Abolarin Michael Biodun, says the contention over the ownership of the oil wells along the Kogi and Anambra boundary is largely due to political interference and the failure of the National Boundary Commission to adopt the right procedures to determine the boundary between both states.
How soon will the contention over oil wells between Kogi and Anambra be resolved?
The issue of the Kogi and Anambra interstate boundary has lingered for a long time. We have been going back and forth and there seem to be no end in sight basically because of the presence of the natural resource- crude oil- found in the area where both states share boundaries. The area has become a major contention among the stakeholders.
The problem actually is that Anambra wanted to define what is below the ground or what is below the surface of the soil and claim it to be boundary. Anywhere oil is around the corridor of Aguleri they claimed that it is their land whereas oil is like a flow of river, you cannot say that the river flows and in this case oil flows in one particular place within your corridor. That has been a major contention between Kogi and Anambra state.
The National Boundary Commission (NBC) has insisted that they will use the legal instrument of 1954 as the instrument by which they would delimit the boundary between Kogi and Anambra state. But we have objected to that because a ground-to-paper instrument would have been the best approach.And the result of the ethnographic survey that was conducted in 2017 would have been the best because even NBC has agreed that the legal instrument of 1954 is flawed with a lot of irregularities and inadequacies.
So we ask why are you going ahead to use an instrument that is flawed: an instrument that is full of inadequacies, one that cannot stand the test of any mathematical proof?
So we have appealed against it. However, the major contention of the NBC is that they cannot be using the legal instrument of 1954 from Cross River coming North only to jettison it when it gets to Kogi and start with the legal notice of 1936.
What are the major differences between the legal notice of 1936 and the legal instrument of 1954?
The major differences are basically the tripartite points. For example, the legal notice of 1936 ceded Odeke and Lekitolu to Kogi state but if you know Odeke very well Lekitolo is just beside Odeke and the Odeke people have been the one exercising authority over Lekitolo and everyone knows that it is their fishing lake, they fish there. It is Odeke pond, but the legal notice of 1954 unfortunately ceded Itolo to Anambra state and that is the contention.It is contentious because the distance between them is insignificant and, in fact, Odeke has even encircled Lekitolo itself. It would, therefore, mean that if you cede Itolo to Anambra state part of Odeke will be in Anambra state, yet the people have one king, one chief, one house of assembly, have one local government council chairman, I mean the Ibaji Local Government Area end of Kogi state. That is the contention and the reason the ownership of the oil found there has remained unresolved.
What then is the solution particularly as it affects ownership of crude oil found in the area in contention?
We have conducted ground to paper work and the Anambra people have not done so. In fact, those indigenous people around Agulere have not claimed any portion of land that belongs to Odeke, which is in Kogi state. They have not the land that belongs to Ochohor or Odeke, which are in Kogi state. The people there intermarry because they are neighbouring communities yet no conflict between them over parcels of land.
Besides, we have conducted an ethnographic survey- which is a kind of survey where people are interviewed and they show you their boundaries, tell you about how they inter-married and other social scenes between them.The survey was such that people from Agulere showed us their boundary, natural and physical features and we marked those points, and we made many other specific observations. That is what is called from a ground- to- paper survey. This is significant because when you plot the marked points the boundary will clearly come out.
This has been our position but the NBC have said they are sticking to the 1954 legal instrument inherited from the colonial administration and they have also agreed contains a lot of errors, inadequate delineation points.
In view of this what is Kogi state actually canvasing as the most likely proactive approach to resolve the contention?
Our position has always been for us to adopt and work with the ground- to- paper approach. Let the authorities conduct the ethnographic survey, yes interview the indigenous people of the area whereby the people will be called upon to point out both the natural and physical features of the boundary lines between them.
Ordinarily, were the government not involved, especially if the elite and politicians were not for politics with the issue, the indigenous people around the area don’t have problems with each other, they share same source of water, socialize easily and readily, cross over to celebrate marriages and unreservedly inter-marry without hesitation.
So basically the reason why there is conflict over ownership of the place is both elitist and political. Had the elites and politicians not showed undue interests as well as brought in political interpretations to a simple boundary issue between ordinary people who normally go about their businesses without giving consideration to political prance, there won’t have been any contention in the first place.
So, talking about resolution of the contention over real ownership of the portion of land where crude oil has been discovered, there is no end in sight yet. Unless, the NBC adopts the proactive method which invariably would be the resort to the use of a ground-to-paper method of delimiting the boundaries between the affected communities, the issue will continue to linger.Besides, there is a need for both the federal government and agencies involved in boundary determination and delimitation to have the political will to do the basic things needed to determine boundaries without political connotations.
Some have called for the composition of a special task force to conduct demarcation of boundaries in contentious areas in order to reduce vested political interests, what is the position of Kogi in this regard?
Usually, when delimiting boundaries between two states, the surveyors-general of both states will be observers to take care of the interests of their respective states. For instance, during demarcations I, as the Surveyor General of Kogi, takes care of the interest of Kogi ditto my counterpart from Anambra while the Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation is supposed to be neutral in order to interpret what is on the paper to the ground. Our role as observers is to ensure that interpretation is accurate and in line with what is on the paper. But it seems there are issues with the neutrality of the supervising authority.
Is Kogi then in support of the special task force?
Well, the special task force will enjoy the support of Kogi state to the extent that the ground- to- paper and ethnographic surveys conducted in 2017 are used as the basis for determining and delimiting the boundaries between Kogi and Anambra state.
What are the other issues you feel Kogi state has not been fairly treated?
We have other unsettled issues Kwara state and painfully Ondo state. Take for example the people of Ayere in Kogi state and Ayowa in Ondo state have lived together for ages, they know their respective boundaries and are recognized even by the legal instrument of 1954, which the NBC is using to define the boundary. Unfortunately, when it was finally plotted there was a gap. Under normal circumstances when there is such a gap, you go back to the field and confirm from the people who owns what, what are the natural and physical features which demarcate them and then the gap is closed appropriately. Sadly, the Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation never did that, instead they ceded that gap to Ayowa in Ondo state. Consequently, the people who hitherto had been living peaceably together are now sworn enemies. Those are the kind of issues Kogi state is grappling with.
What impact will the ongoing interactive session among North-central states boundaries committees have on the rising conflicts within the region?
Kogi state is bounded by nine states including the FCT making it 10, so the programme brings to the fore and arouses the awareness of neighbours around our corridor the need for cooperation and understanding. It helps to highlight the predicament of Kogi state and the position of the state in respect of needed boundary adjustment issues with our neighbours.The interactive session is important because it does not only generate friendship among the officials, experts and participants from all the states but creates room for understanding and appreciation of the problems we all face as well as all to work together. Therefore, unity of purpose and common resolve to cooperate and live in peace with ourselves won’t be far-fetched.
