RESOURCE CONTROL IN NIGERIA

Resource control can be broadly defined as the way and manner the government revenue are share among the various tiers of government. In another way round, how the resources available are harnessed and determined. It has been actually argued that the extent of independent decision making by various tiers of government as to the provision of social and economic services is a function of the portion of the total revenue allocated to them. In a clear time, the greater the portion of total revenue allocated to both state and local governments the greater the degree of autonomy of these governments in carrying out various economic tasks.

1.2 DEFINITON OF RESOUCE CONTROL
According the Ifedayo (2010), resource control involves the access of communities and state governments to natural resources located within their boundaries and the freedom to develop and utilize these resources without inference from the federal government. Douglas (2005) observes that it is an “actual control of resortuces by the people who live in communities with these resources for the support of life.
According to Ikporukpo (2002), a common thread linking all the protests is the feeling of the people in spite of their oil resources and the governmental deterioration consequent on the resources exploitation. Ofeimum (2005) captured the concepts of resource control as the principle that every federating unit must be empowered to be self governing. To him, the resource control amounts to an expression of self determination by the zone which places a collaborative daty on other parts of the country to assist the zone realizing their objective. Ofin-Esin {2005} posited that “the demands for resource control clearly demonstrate that {fiscal federalism} is still an inserted issue. Yet it is an issue we must find a way to resolve if we are to continue as a federation”. Ikelegbe {2001}, asserted that “the tempo, activity, cohesion and commitment of the civil groups indicate that, the state-resource authority and the state regional resource distribution world have to be negotiated, redefined and reconstituted if national stability and unity is to be sustained.
According to Afoyemi (2013: 11), resource control is the way and manner the government revenue is shared among the various tiers of government - the Federal, State and Local Governments, as well as how resources available are harnessed and determined.

1.3 Resource Control In Time Perspective
Colonial Era: Crude oil exploration in Nigeria saw its first debut in the year 1956, in a local community known as Oloibiri, within which time Britain was totally in control of the Nigerian politics. The discovery of oil in Nigeria was sort of a mark of success which followed years of successive efforts to pull out oil from the soils of West Africa, engaged by some oil companies charged with that task. The entire activities of colonial Britain within the Niger Delta axis were centred on certain economic interests dating back to 1854, Alameiyesiah (2005). They were more interested in making economic benefits from exploiting the resources of the land than in state administration. And because of low level of education and low level of exposure of the African people, they were more or less left to operate very easily within the region. Legality and use of laws for resource control was introduced by the colonial regime. For instance, the 1914 Colonial Mineral Oil Ordinance, the 1916 Mineral Ordinance and the 1946 Mineral Act reposed the ownership and control of all the mineral substances to the Crown in London.
The 1916 Mineral Ordinance states as follows:
The entire property in and control of the minerals, and mineral oils, in under or upon any land in Nigeria, and of all Rivers, streams and water courses, throughout Nigeria, is and shall be vested in the Crown, save in so far as such rights may in any case have been limited by the express grant made before the commencement of this ordinance (National Archive Enugu, NAE, 422/1916). For the time the colonial Britain was controlling resources in the Niger Delta, there was more of resource exploration than political administration. Even, the little gains made from Rubber and Palm fruits were majorly diverted to Britain and only very little attention was placed on the areas from where the resources were gotten. So, the colonial regime in Nigeria left a theatre of all odds for the Nigerian resource control system as constituent units and regions were placed in serious combat between themselves in order to obtain what they deserved. Not only that, the minorities were prominently obscured and not recognised during the colonial regime in resource allocation.
The colonial era witnessed the gradual proliferation of resource control protests and agitation. In reaction, the regime set up committees to look into the up-surging conflicts which trailed resource control without providing a strong and lasting solution to them. For instance, according to (Ejobowah, 2000) the Raisman Commission Report of 1958 provided the sharing order which gave up to 50% of the oil resource to the Niger Delta region; while 30% went to the federal government, the remaining 20% went to the regional governments. We will discover here that although there were plenty regulations regarding resource control, they were more theoretical than practical. The laws which indicated how resources should be shared was never obeyed neither were such laws truly in favour of the people in the land.
Summarily, during the colonial Nigeria, we could discover the silent existence of the three critical issues of conflict, politics and law bordering the issue of resource control. The complications arising from resource control were proliferated during the colonial but never went with the regime.
Post-Colonial Era: Having gained a little bit of control of its own resource, following Independence, Nigerian political leaders were moved to make adjustments to the sharing order of the oil resource. Emphasis at that time was less on oil as there were reasonable successes recorded in other sectors, particularly agriculture.
As time went by, crude oil exploration turned out to be the most profiting venture, and seemingly the easier way of making huge income; attention was switched over to crude oil at the detriment of other sectors because of its
huge benefits. But, to make the resource beneficial to other sectors, the government adopted the federal character principle which by implication guaranteed every part of the country a fair share from the oil resource. In that case, resource control was aimed at making sure that no single region or tribe takes advantage of it land’s wealth to jeopardise the unity of the country.
Military intervention of 1966 posed a minor challenge to resource control in Nigeria “namely, the suspension of the people’s rights and control over the entire land, the cancellation of the 50 percent revenue allocation to the Delta area, and neglect of the environment” (Raji, 2013). The Federal Military Decree no, 23 of 1966 vestedresource control powers to the Supreme Military Council and the Federal Executive Council, downplaying the right of people to protest against government’s decisions which appear unpleasant to them.
The unstable power structure of the Nigerian State in the early post-independent era was equally a major challenge to resource control as government system was practically unpredictable. There were coups; there were
counter coups. The military subverted democratic processes at will and the people of the Niger delta were left at the mercy of oil entrepreneurs who were barrelling the interests of the corrupt politicians.
The federal Government’s Decree No. 9 of 1971 and the Land Use Act of 1978 were all tailored to managing the resource control crisis which proliferated in the post-independence era. But before then, the ills had long been done as negligence was still on the high side against the people of the Niger delta area.
Subsequently, the democratic structure of the Nigerian state was getting more established and moored on the bedrock of constitutional development. This was somehow influenced by the state creation which intensified the
concern of states and regions for development and democratic responsibility.

                   CHAPTER TWO

2.1The Origin of Resource Control: Agitation and Innovation
The history of the area now known as Nigeria is characterized by agitation for resource control. First, after the abolition of slave trade in 1807, local traders engaged in resource control struggles to participate actively in the trade of palm oil (Ako and Okonmah, 2009). Similarly, resource control was one of the highlights of the Ijaws’ representation to the Willink Commission. Thus, it should be emphasized from the outset that in Nigeria, States, majority as well as minority groups have on one occasion or the other in history agitated for resource control. However, the demand for resource control reached its crescendo as soon as the Military Government of General Yakubu Gowon created a twelve-State federal structure on May 27, 1967 from the former four regions. On the one hand, some of the States that were created e.g., the oil-rich Rivers and Eastern States as well as Lagos immediately demanded for the control of the natural resources located and extracted from their areas. On the other hand, major areas that were not granted statehood but were economically viable equally demanded for resource control out of frustration (Ekwuruke, 2005). Before this time, however, the struggles for the control of the nation’s resources have also, to some extent, been based on the regional cleavages. This, entwined with political conflict, has sometimes led to political manipulations and delineations with the aim of influencing wealth allocation. Therefore, agitation by these regions, States as well as ethnic groups in the country had been recurrent events. Eminue (2005:165) clarify the above viewpoint thus:
Resource control became a prominent issue in Federal-State relations in Obasanjo’s Nigeria, with the littoral states (Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Ogun, Ondo and Rivers) claiming that the natural resources located offshore ought to be treated or regarded as located within their respective states. The claim by the littoral states was more so accentuated by Decree No. 106(1992) which abrogated the onshore/offshore dichotomy for the purpose of calculating the amount of revenue accruing directly from any natural resources derived from any state pursuant to Section 162(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
It is also important to observe that Section 162(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) states that: (a) the natural resources located within the boundaries of any State are deemed to be derived from that State; (b) the seaward boundary of each of the littoral States is the low water mark of the land surface thereof or inland waters within the States; (c) the natural resources located within the territorial waters of Nigeria and the Federal Capital Territory are deemed to be derived from the federation and not from any State; and that (d) the natural resources located within the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf of Nigeria are subject to the provisions of any treaty or other written agreement between Nigeria and any neighbouring littoral foreign State, derived from the federal and not from the State.
Flowing from the above, it could be argued that the agitations for resource control by both the Federal and State governments must have been pursuant to the proviso to the sections of the constitution highlighted above. In recent times, States and some sections of the Nigerian State have on one occasion or the other agitated for resource control for a number of reasons. For instance, the continued agitation for resource control by the Niger Delta region is, perceived as one of the manifestations of the struggles to redress perceived injustices and inequalities in fiscal relations among ethnic nationalities, regions and political units within the Nigerian federation. It is also perceived as a necessary fall-out of the degradation of their environment and the neglect of their conditions by the central government, which is seen as advancing the interests of the ethnic majorities to the detriment of the minorities.
2.2 RESOURCE CONTROL AND NIGERIA FEDERALISM
The issue of resource control in Nigeria has posed different challenges to the nation as a whole. It has been harmoniously challenge by civil society groups and communities in the Niger Delta over the control of oil and distribution of its benefits among the constituents unit of the federation. Their activities have been characterized by popular mobilization, social protest opposition, advocacy and criticism in favour of reform, change and accountability in the exploration, exploitation, management of the oil resources found in their territory. The climax point of their grievances, agitation and protests are that they want a fair share of the past neglect, marginalization, injustice and inequity they had suffered in the hands of both the state and the multinational oil companies in the exploitation of the oil resources. Over the years, the federal government have tried to address the problems of the region through administrative agencies such as NDDS, OMPADEC and NDDC. As a result of corruption and lack of commitment on the part of the government multinational companies these efforts amounted to nothing [Frynas, 2000; Akpan,2004}. Thus, the civil society has made a concerted effort by transforming the Niger Delta grievances from a mere demand for development from the multinational oil companies and the state into a political and comprehensive agitation that challenges the authority and legitimacy of the state, over the control and allocation of the national resources. The failure of the state to find a political solution to the problem has led to a very plausible demand for resource control and self determination within the federation {Ikelegbe 2001}. Specifically, it is impotent to note that, in all federations, the degree to which the central government allows the constituent units jurisdictional power over a particular resources depend on the importance of the resources to fiscal outlay as a percentage of the gross national product. In addition, the inability of the central government to meet its statutory obligation: defences, foreign policy, education, health; industrial development etc. For instance, in the united states, oil producing states enjoy certain jurisdictional powers over the oil found in their locality, because oil is not a crucial national resource. Unlike Nigeria, the country possesses huge resources but tack leadership to harness these resources for the development of the country. The federal government relies on the oil resources to perform its civil obligations as contained in the exclusive legislative list; defence, education, roads, electricity, health, foreign policy, power and steel among others. Nigeria, being a major player today in most international, regional and sub-regional organizations such as the United Nations [UN} The Africa Union {AU} and The Economic Community Of West African States {ECOWAS} is due to combination of factors, the most prominent being her financial capacity. There are very many instances where the Nigeria government have used her financial strength to swing and influence many international and regional decisions in favour of her national interest and that of the African continent in general. Thus, an agitation for the federal government to surrender, her jurisdictional power over the oil resources to the oil producing states may be disastrous for the federation.
2.3 LEGALITY IN RESOURCE CONTROL
Laws have manifested significantly in the resource control system of Nigeria, from the colonial to the postcolonial eras. We observed the place of laws in the ownership, exploitation and allocation of resources in Nigeria in our literature review. Such is still the case till now because the absence of laws brews a high hue of misunderstanding and catastrophe. So, to put things right in the understanding of people, law is needed. Now, the issue of legality points straight to the question of ‘who owns the resources? We shall lay greater emphasis on answering this question from the perspective of what the law says rather than what individual
volitions hold. This is an important question because from our previous analysis, we noted that resources are ‘territorial’; in other words, it will be an elusive effort to struggle for resources which are out of the bounds of
the one’s territorial arena. Thus, in order to control, one has to own.
Now, who owns Nigeria’s resource?
The Petroleum Industrial Law of 2012 evidently states:
“The entire property and control of all petroleum in, under or upon any lands within Nigeria, its territorial waters or which forms part of its continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone, is vested in the government of the federation” (Petroleum Industrial Law, 2012, Section 2) That implies, that in the first place, the Niger Delta people are making illegal agitations as their request for
control of petroleum resources do not have a legal background rather they are occasioned by presumptions. Its enoted that the Ijaws and Ogonis in the Niger Delta like DappaBiriye, NnimmoBassey and Ken-SaroWiwa, AsariDokubo are requesting to be made stakeholders in the petroleum sector, to play a role in the production and distribution of oil revenue (Itse, 1995). That is contrary to legality. They champion illegal agitations on individual and group basis

CHPTER THREE
3.1 POLITICS IN RESOURCE CONTROL
In every political relationship, the state is the convention point. The state hosts a relationship between itself, groups and individuals in the system. This is politics.
From the Niger Delta resource control system, there is the domination of lands and resources and there is oppression. There is also the utility of state’s power by the political office holders against the people, all in the bid to control the abundant resources in the region, amerce wealth at the expense of the people who are the
owners of the land. This view was supported by Watts (2003), who noted that Nigerian politics became a vital and ‘massive state-making machine’ to bring about ‘divide and rule’, on one part is the Ijaw, Ogoni and Delta at the expense of the others. The political administration of resource control in Nigeria involves the Federal government (the state), the Niger Delta fraternities (the groups) and the Niger delta people (individuals). The government is divided into the Federal State and the Local Government. The community people have representations in the three tiers of government. The people do not have direct benefit from the oil resource expect that which the government allocates to them, though not individually but by provision of public goods through their political representatives and local councils. In 2010, the Federal Government established Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC). It is a parastatal under the Presidency which should serve as a hub for negotiation on Niger Delta resource conflicts and also help to make recommendations to the federal government on new policy channels to take in the interest of Niger Delta people. The President Umaru Musa Yar’adua regime’s most outstanding effort was the Presidential Amnesty program which gave training opportunities for Niger Delta indigenes. Not only that, the FG has launched series of programs such as the YOUWIN Niger Delta program to enhance the living standard of the community people in Niger Delta. But all these political events are not satisfying the people. The Niger Delta people criticize influences of the ruling party agents who make benefits from the oil sales and oil business. They criticize the way in which excess crude oil fund is used, and the embezzlement of fund by individual politicians. Because of this, the interests of the community people and Derivation principle are swept under the carpet. Also, the steady influence of political office holders, the precedence is a problem. This is experienced in the constant dissolution of NNPC boards, the NDDC boards among others. There are indications that the reason behind these political actions is to ensure that a set of ‘loyal’ members will be appointed into the board who will bring oil rents and benefits to their masters, illegally and against the interest of the people. On another end, the people form groups and fraternities to make agitations to the government count real. But the government most times truncate the groups’ effort by either buying-up the leadership of these groups or arresting and prosecuting them; this is often the case when bribery and incentives don’t work.

3.2 Conflicts in Resource Control
. We realised that the human society is prone to conflict, according the RGT. Also, that radicalism and conflicts can be linked with the deprivation of rights and privileges, according to the RDT. First, conflict is rooted in the naturalness of man and conflict in resource control is sometimes occasioned by the rascality and arrogance of man. At the state of nature man can possess a crude mind-set and be highly conformed to his raw demeanour. Man, at this state has excessive crave for violence and most of his actions are guided by that. He settles for nothing less than violence in every social engagement. This is evident in the kidnap of people, destruction of properties and murder which take place in the oil communities and carried out by the militants. Often, it has been recorded that the victims of these militants have no individual issues with the militants who oppress them rather they fell victims to the insurgence of man’s cruelty.
The lives that were being destroyed most times have no direct involvement with the resource control system of the country. A lot of scholars attribute economic depravity and uncool living standard as the major reason for the conflict in the region. But very few have identified the reasonability of thought with relative to RGCT which argues that man has a natural instinct to always engage in hostility regardless of his social giving.
3.3CONCLUSION
From the foregoing, we have realised that the resource control system in Nigeria is not having a positive impact on the lives of the people and that forms the basis for most resource conflicts in the country. There is a strong indication that things have gone absolutely wrong with the way resources are being controlled in Nigeria. But
there can be a turnaround when there is an integrative action toward achieving democratic goals for the local communities. The problem is not bearing from the revenue generated from oil sales neither is it bearing from the dearth of resources. The problem is hinged on the negligence of the people by the government, mal-administration, waste of resources, exploitation of the common purse, looting of the revenue by public officials, corruption etc.

REFERENCES

Aluko, S. (2001). Aluko advises States to demand more revenue not resources control. The Comet. May 2

Atoyebi, K. O. (2013). “The Implications of Resources Control in Nigeria”. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 2(2): 53.

. Bassey, C. O. 2002, “Local Governance, Resource Control and Development in the Niger Delta in Okon Edet Uya et al (eds) Local Government Administration and Grassroots Democracy in Nigeria, University of Calabar Press, Calaba
Djebah, O. & Aderibigbe, Y. (2001). Resources Control Not cause of Civil War, Leaders reply Obasanjo. The Guardian, April 6.