The director of internal boundaries in the Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation, Dr Adebomehin Adeyemi, says sustained boundary conflicts are caused by mischievous surveyors who selfishly ignored and blurred natural and other well-defined boundary demarcation objects and scenes.
He spoke with Patrick Andrew.
There have been interactive sessions across the regions on boundary issues. What is your thought on these?
It is a welcome development. The National Boundary Commission (NBC) as the custodian of the instrument relating to boundary has the prerogative to, at any time, determine boundaries regarding two or more states bordering each other and proffering last solutions concerning such boundary issues. In essence, the commission is in charge of advocacy and they look at the instrument behind boundary lines and try to define or find that line. Of course, it is not a visible line but imaginary which though is what determines the limit between one state and its neighbor.
There have been conflicts which seem to have defied all solutions, for instance, the Taraba-Benue, Kogi- Anambra, FCT-Nasarawa etc? Why is NBC having difficulty in resolving these conflicts?
Well, one may say that NBC is not doing enough but it has been able to do more than was expected of them. I think some states are neither willing nor serious about resolving its boundary conflicts while others are willing. If a particular state is willing to define its boundary, the neighbouring state may not be willing to do so. And I have said this wherever I have had to speak on this that we (officials of NBC and Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation) need to be fair, just and be ready to allow equity to prevail whenever we carry out the job of demarcating boundaries. But it is the responsibility of the states to accept the boundary lines as presented by officials entrusted with the responsibility of delineating the boundaries. We have observed that problems usually arose where there are natural resources straddling the boundary lines. That is where you will see a particular state expressing willingness to and insisting on defining the boundary lines. In such a situation, one state will be gunning to have boundary lines demarcated by saying ‘I want this boundary line defined’. But the other state, having noticed that the adjusted line does not favour them would resort to playing hanky-panky in defining the boundary. Though the NBC doesn’t have to call on any state before they defined the boundary because it has the powers to demarcate and define boundaries, however, because people within the boundary corridors are going to co-habit as brothers and sisters, we don’t usually want to adopt that approach. If the commission adopts that approach, it could be disastrous; it might find itself losing some of its officials. Some of those opposed to the demarcation would lay siege and attack our men. So we need to find an environment conducive or platform for all to cohabit and come together as brothers and sisters in oneness of spirit to define the boundary.
In the light of this, what is responsible for the delay in resolving the Kogi-Anambra boundary hiccup?
The Kogi- Anambra tussle has not been resolved uptil now for some reasons. You know it is not ethical for the office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation to make comments on it because if you do, one of the states would take the statement as coming from the authority. Besides, there will be speculations that the Office of the Surveyor – Generation of the Federation has made a proclamation or taken side. However, there is a need, therefore, for us to define the boundary lines. But the truth is that we have not been able to lay down the boundary lines. Pin it down in the sense that we have not been able to place beacons on the ground to define where the boundary lines are.
What really is the Kogi-Anambra problem?
The problem is that one state is willing but the other state is unwilling. I would rather not say more.
But what is the Office of the Surveyor- General of the Federation doing to enhance the work of the NBC in this regard, particularly to get the problem resolved soonest?
Well, as regards the boundary commission assignment, we have been together. The NBC used to be a department in the Office of the Surveyor – Generation of the Federation before 1987 but due to the enormous work of boundary demarcation, the Office of the Surveyor -Generation puts up a brief excising the commission to make it a full-fledged agency of the government so that it would have ample time to look into boundary issues in Nigeria. But not necessarily about disputes in boundary cases but holistically look at the history of boundaries and to be able to define them appropriately.
With regards to cooperation between the two, it has been very cordial. In fact, in the past three months, we have been together in the interactive sessions held in Gombe, Enugu. Recently, we completed the demarcation of some parts of Taraba, Gombe boundary demarcations together, I was in fact there as well.
At the moment, there are at least 10 officials of the Surveyor – General’s office working with officials of the NBC. Regarding the Kogi-Anambra conflict and what we are doing, I will say both states need to be fair, just and equitable in whatever they demand between themselves. This is because if I know that this is what the instrument says about the boundary line and I try to interpret that same instrument improperly even though we are all surveyors, it is unethical and unjust.
Where there is a pillar, I don’t have to deliberately misinterpret the position for selfish reasons because every object in boundary lines has its own position and a space which which determines points and positions that cannot be short-changed. In geo-spatial engineering, every object has a specified position; it is unethical. Since the XYZ of A cannot be equal to XYZ of B prime, when you now want to interpret if the system says starting from a pillar but one mischievously interprets it by saying the pillar has moved its position, one may not arrive at the correct interpretation. Again, where the system says a river curve but somebody now says the curve has changed, something is wrong.
In essence, we just have to be fair and just in our interpretation of boundary scenes and other features which are essential for proper and appropriate demarcation of boundary lines. The enormous money the federal government pumps into boundary delineation would amount to a waste if at the end of the day states reject the carefully carried out boundary demarcations and insist that it was not properly defined. Though one may say it is nobody’s problem, but be mindful of the fact that your money as a taxpayer and taxes of many other individuals are what the government has devoted into something you have deliberately rejected for reasons other than truth and good sense.
It is, therefore, fair and just for both Kogi-Anambra to accept whatever decisions those entrusted with the responsibility of defining, delineating and passing judgement on boundary lines have so carefully taken. We must be fair in our dealings with one because if we co-habitate as brothers and sisters and we inter-marry why would we allow boundary lines which are just for the purpose of administration to now divide us? The bottom line is let us be fair in our dealings with one another.
