The recent calls by a few people in the northern part of our country for the re-introduction of onshore/offshore oil dichotomy in revenue sharing should be worrisome to most Nigerians.

This call is particularly distressing (even unpatriotic) given the fact that it is coming on the heels of a wave of terrorism and insecurity, which  claimed the lives of several innocent Nigerians in the North, and has threatened our corperate existence as a nation.

Finding a solution to this bloodletting should preoccupy the minds of all patriotic Nigerians – not delving into other areas, which could exacerbate the already tense situation.

One believes that such talk could further stoke the fire of insecurity and endanger the virtues of “freedom, peace and unity” canvassed in our national anthem. The dichotomy law was not only so detrimental to our nationhood that it was given the appellation “obnoxious”; it was also one of the evil vestiges of military dictatorship. The military itself tried lamely to excuse it, given its unjust nature, on the exigencies of the civil war, and the reconstructive efforts after the war.

In abrogating the obnoxious onshore/offshore dichotomy law in 2004, the National Assembly took patriotic interest and met the demands of democracy and justice. They also took this action in the spirit of truth and reconciliation, and consigned to the dustbin of history, one of the most painful relics of a bitter civil war and a constant nagging reminder of the evils of military dictatorship.

However, the National Assembly struck a compromise in abrogating this law by maintaining that states should only recieve thirteen per cent revenue on resources located within 200 metres isobars of their continental shelves.

This meant that resources located beyond this distance belonged to the Federal Government. Though this was not apparently fair to the littoral states, given the fact that the effects of gas flaring in the high seas lead to air pollution on land and the intermittent oil spillages (as it occurred recently off the coast of Akwa Ibom), destroy aquatic life and endanger the health of the people; it was accepted by the states concerned in the interest of peace and unity.

The claim by the antagonists that the North has been impoverished because of the abrogation of this unjust law is utterly strange. For example, in July, 2012, one of the states in the Niger Delta had an allocation of N12 billion, whereas Kano State had an allocation of N10 billion – not much of a difference! Hypothetically speaking, if the onshore/offshore dichotomy were to be reintroduced, the Federal Government would still take a lion’s share and the rest shared to 36 states. Kano would not have more than N100 million added to its kitty.

Is Kano impoverished because N100 million has not been added to what it currently receives?  What a fallacy!

It should also be stated that a state governor in one of the northern States, upon leaving office, gleefully announced that he was leaving behind the sum of N64 billion in the state’s coffers. In spite of the sea of needs in the state, he could not think of what to do with so much money! He announced his failings as if it were a major success. Truly, some persons can turn a desert into a palace, and some can turn a palace into a desert! It is a matter of visionary and purposeful leadership.

Regrettably, the Niger Delta is impoverished by the activities of oil companies on the high seas. It should be noted that health concerns have forced several advanced countries to stop oil drilling on the high seas. But in Nigeria wherever oil is found, it is drilled irrespective of health hazards to coastal dwellers. It would, therefore, amount to “treason” to deprive those whose lives we put at risk and who die everyday of just 13 per cent revenue.

This ill-treatment of the littoral states was what fanned the Niger Delta anger from the days of Isaac Borro, through the days of  Ken Saro-Wiwa (who paid the supreme sacrifice for this cause) and to the days of militancy during the reign of  President Olusegun Obasanjo. The Niger Delta militancy caused oil production in Nigeria to drop to a worrisome 30 per cent. Abrogating the obnoxious law was, therefore, a call to redress this injustice and fully integrate the Niger Delta into the Nigerian equation. The militants fought because the Niger Delta people were not only impoverished but were dying (their creeks and waterways were gone, the fishes dead and sickness prevalent), while the nation shared “blood money,” made at their expense. Justice was done and peace reigned again in our beloved country. Those who were behind these abrogation were true patriots, and those who were against it have no interest in justice.

All states have acquired their rightful status in revenue sharing, and our political development, after the dark days of military rule, has been at the wisest pace. It has been thorough (it took two years for the National Assembly to abrogate this evil law) and we now stand built on firm foundations. Anyone who seeks to shake or destroy those foundations seek to destroy Nigeria.

Anietie John, a public policy analyst, works with the Institute of Communication and Leadership Studies, Uyo.