Feature/OPED
13% Derivation, DESOPADEC and Oil and Gas Host Communities
By Jerome-Mario Chijioke Utomi
A cursory look at the oil and gas host communities in Delta State reveals an area tensed up with a lot of issues, intrigues and hiccups. Their anger in the present moment, going by media reports, is precipitated by the alleged opaque manner the former governor of the state, Ifeanyi Okowa, managed the 13% oil derivation fund that accrued to the state.
Correspondingly, it will not be characterized as hasty to conclude that there is presently in Delta State no agency or commission that is troubled as the Delta State Oil Producing Area Development Commission (DESOPADEC), an agency created by the enabling Act in Delta State to secure 50% of the 13% oil derivation fund accruing to the Delta State government and the received sum used for rehabilitation and development of oil-producing areas of the state as well as carry out other development projects as may be determined from time to time.
Supporting the above assertions is a recent statement by Edwin Clark, convener of the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), where he alleged that Ifeanyi Okowa misappropriated the state’s derivation fund amounting to N1.760 trillion.
Pa Edwin’s bombshell was followed in quick succession by a protest staged in Abuja by representatives of the Delta State oil and gas host communities, calling on the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) to investigate the immediate past Governor for allegedly misappropriating over N1 trillion oil derivation fund belonging to the state during his tenure.
While the coastal dwellers, in their statement, insisted that the former governor unlawfully diverted the aforementioned sum, the former Governor’s men are at work, thwarting every attempt to rubbish the reputation of their former boss.
For instance, the immediate-past Commissioner for Information in Delta State, Ehiedu Charles Aniagwu, recently told the world that all the money Okowa’s administration got from Federation Account Allocation Committee, including derivation for the whole period in office amounted to N2.1 trillion and therefore described as wild goose chase HOSTCOM’s narrative on N1 trillion.
But in all this, what this piece observed could be safely categorized into three parts; first, Senator Okowa’s led government brought to the oil and gas host communities flashes of streets/internal roads.
Beyond this acknowledgement, there also exists in the state a deeply neglected coastal area which doubles as oil and gas host communities where poverty, disease and illiteracy walked their creeks, rivers and estuaries and, as a resultant effect, forced many children out of school, not because of their unwillingness to learn, but occasioned by non-availability/provision of schools in the area by the government. These are verifiable facts!
A movement by boat from Egbema Kingdom in Warri North Local Government Council to Gbaramatu Kingdom in Warri South, from Ogulaha Kingdom in Burutu Local Government to Kabowe in Patani Local Government Area, down to Bomadi Local Government Local Councils, among others, reveals a seemingly similar experience. They are all oil and gas-bearing kingdoms and communities and play host to major crude oil platforms operated by International Oil Companies (IOCs) but they have nothing to show for it.
Secondly, without going into a critical analysis of claims by Okowa that DESOPADEC got what was due to it according to the law establishing it, this piece believes that such declaration on DESOPADEC receiving a total of N208 billion in the eight years of his administration, as its rightful statutory funds appear inaccurate and, therefore, cannot hold water when faced with embarrassing arguments.
DESOPADEC, as noted in the first paragraph, is to secure 50% of the 13% oil derivation fund accruing to the Delta State government. With this in mind, is the former Governor saying that it was only N416 billion that accrued as 13% derivation to the state in the past 8 years, which summed DESOPADEC’s statutory 50% to N208 billion? Again, instead of giving a cumulative amount received from the Federation Account Allocation Committee, what stops the former Governor and his supporters from specifying the exact amount received as a 13% derivation?
While answer(s) to the above questions raised is awaited, the third and most dramatic point is DESOPADEC-specific. The non-satisfactory development of the area within this period under review, in my view, remains an emblematic sign that the affairs of the coastal areas of the state were handed over to a bunch of politicians masquerading as leaders but lacking public leadership acumen and orientation. To use the words of a public affairs commentator, they were people that ‘spend more time with wines than with books’.
Aside from turning the coastal part of the state into an endangered species via human capital neglect and infrastructural abandonment, these ‘leaders’, in turn, neglected community relations and communication. And because of this non-participatory leadership style and engagement, each time communities ask for bread, the agency makes ‘stones’ available and when the communities ask for fish, DESOPADEC provides a ‘snake’.
This piece will highlight two recent separate but related examples to support the above claims.
In October 2022, it was in the news that in the face of grave developmental challenges confronting the coastal dwellers in the state crying for attention, DESOPADEC leadership, against all known logic, opted for the donation of 50 grass-cutting machines to the people of Okerenkoko community in Gbaramatu Kingdom, Warri South-Local Government Area of Delta state. Presenting the machines, the DESOPADEC commissioner noted that the donation of grass-cutting machines to the community was statutorily captured in the commission’s 2021 budget, adding that the project was principally influenced by him”.
Those who are not conversant with the Okerenkoko community and may be tempted to believe that the donation was a right step taken in the right direction may see nothing wrong with the donation. But for someone that is familiar with the aforementioned community, the decision to donate these machines qualifies as a misguided priority.
In fact, there is everything wrong with the development. For instance, there is evidence which points to the fact that the community was neither consulted nor carried along before the decision was made. In the opinion of this piece, the grass-cutting machine donation failed the NEEDS assessment stipulations.
The words of the youth leader from the community support this assertion.
Reacting to the development, the youth leader who spoke on behalf of the community, among other things, said, “We heard about the ongoing skill acquisition. We are appealing to the Commissioner to at least create some avenue for those skill acquisitions for our ladies, for the youth in this community so that they can go out there and learn skills to back themselves, put themselves in order.”
From the above comment, one thing stands out: if given the opportunity, these knowledge-hungry youths in the community, who will provide the future leadership needs of the country, would have opted for skill acquisition. Instead of grass-cutting machines, the youths in the community would have preferred access to good schools where they would learn and compete with their peers across the globe. They were not just asking for more; rather, they asked for something new, different and more beneficial to their future.
Similarly, in November 2022, barely one month after, It was again reported that DESOPADEC leadership invited the Local Government Chairmen of Burutu, Bomadi, Patani and Warri South West Local Government Areas of the state, to a shop in Warri City, Delta State, where it handed over relief materials purchased for the victims of the flood that ravaged almost all the communities/villages in the aforementioned local government councils.
The items distributed to the affected local governments were bags of garri, bags of rice, bags of onions, bags of beans, noodles, vegetable oil, palm oil, toiletries, and foams, among others.
While the donation to flood victims is understandable, commendable and appreciated, some questions immediately come to mind as to why DESOPADEC management decided to be compassionate by proxy. What prevented DESOPADEC management from visiting the real victims of the flood to empathize with them personally? Is DESOPADEC management unaware that, in the applied sense of the word, the real empathy lies more in the visit and emotional consolation of the flood victims than the so-called relief material sent through a proxy? What will it cost DESOPADEC to pay a visit to these villages/communities in creeks?
What is the distance from Warri to Patani, Burutu and Bomadi that DESOPADEC management cannot send a delegation? How will DESPODEC management ensure/ascertain that the relief materials get to the targeted beneficiaries without getting lost in transit or misdirected? If DESOPADEC management cannot visit the creeks in this crisis period, what time will be more/most suitable to visit these people?
Even as this ugly leadership situation ‘blossoms’ in the coastal communities of Delta State, the truth remains that if we look hard enough at the moment, we shall, as a people, discover that the challenge confronting the region is not too difficult to grasp. Rather, the challenge flourishes because agencies such as DESOPADEC and their administrators have routinely become reputed for taking decisions that breed poverty.
For me, While DESOPADEC’s new leadership must commit to mind the above admonition, this piece holds the opinion that to sustainably solve the problem of the coastal dwellers in the state, a compelling point the state government must not fail to remember is the present call by stakeholders on DESOPADEC management to emulate the Chevron Nigeria Limited template in community engagement. A template that deals directly with the host community and an approach the communities claimed has worked perfectly in the area of infrastructural provision.
On his part, Governor Sheriff Oborevwori of Delta State should, within this period, execute the oil and gas host communities’ legacy projects that will stand the test of time. It will not be out of place if a bridge is constructed to link and open these oil-bearing communities.
Utomi Jerome-Mario is the Programme Coordinator (Media and Public Policy) at Social and Economic Justice Advocacy (SEJA), a Lagos-based Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO). He can be reached via [email protected]/
By Nafisat Damisa
Introduction
The proliferation of generative AI has transformed Nigeria’s cybercrime landscape, enabling deepfake fraud, automated social engineering, and AI-enhanced phishing at scale. In early 2024, scammers using AI-generated deepfake videos impersonating a company’s CFO defrauded a Hong Kong finance worker of $25.6 million. As similar threats emerge in Nigeria’s fintech sector, this article examines whether the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (as amended 2024) is legally adequate, or whether Nigeria’s evidentiary and accountability frameworks are too weak to support effective prosecution of AI-driven cybercrime
Current Legal Landscape
Nigeria’s primary legal framework on preventing cybercrime is the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, amended in 2024 to address cryptocurrency transactions, cyberbullying and various forms of digital misconduct. Complementary frameworks include the National Information Technology Development Agency Act 2007, the Nigerian Data Protection Act 2023, and sectoral regulations such as the CBN’s Risk-Based Cybersecurity Framework. However, the majority of these frameworks were issued far before now, and emerging risks like AI-driven threats are not really being addressed. The Act nowhere mentions “artificial intelligence,” “algorithm,” or “autonomous system.” Notably, the National Artificial Intelligence Commission (Establishment) Bill, 2025, is currently pending before the Senate. If passed, it would establish a dedicated commission to coordinate AI strategy, research, and ethical deployment. However, the Bill in its present form focuses primarily on development and innovation promotion, with limited provisions on criminal liability, evidence handling, or enforcement against AI-facilitated cybercrime, leaving the core accountability and evidentiary gaps largely unaddressed.
AI as a Double-Edged Sword
AI paradoxically enables both defence and attack. Nigerian financial institutions deploy AI for real-time fraud detection and pattern recognition. Conversely, cybercriminals exploit generative AI for deepfake creation, automated credential stuffing, and convincing phishing tailored to Nigerian English and Pidgin. The same technology that powers fraud detection systems can be weaponised to evade them. Take justice delivery as an example, the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023) admits computer-generated evidence under Section 84, but remains silent on AI’s capacity to seamlessly generate or alter electronic records, creating “doctored AI-generated evidence”. These and many more issues await Nigeria’s digital space in the coming years.
The Legal Gaps
There are multiple critical gaps that undermine AI governance. For this article, three are considered. First, no framework attributes criminal liability when an autonomous AI commits an offence. The question of whether the developer, user, or owner should bear criminal responsibility for the acts of an autonomous system remains entirely unanswered under Nigerian law, leaving prosecutors without a clear legal theory of culpability.
Second, Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 governs computer-generated evidence but does not address AI-generated outputs. The Act’s definition of “computer” excludes AI’s cognitive processing capabilities, creating a statutory blind spot where evidence produced by generative or autonomous systems falls outside the existing admissibility framework.
Third, Nigeria lacks any framework for mandatory AI-generated content labelling, impeding deepfake traceability. Computer-generated evidence under Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 remains admissible if unchallenged at trial, a dangerous precedent for AI evidence, as opposing parties may lack the technical capacity to mount any challenge at all.
Comparative Jurisdictions: Rich Laws, Tangible Results
Jurisdictions with advanced AI laws demonstrate clear outcomes. The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) mandates transparency obligations, requiring synthetic content labelling and informing individuals when interacting with AI systems; non-compliance triggers significant penalties. The US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 is a proposed Act that will require impact assessments for high-risk AI systems in housing, credit, and employment, with FTC enforcement and a public repository. China implemented mandatory measures for the Identification of AI-generated (Synthetic) content. These rules, mandated by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and others, require explicit (visible labels) and implicit (watermarks/metadata) identification for all AI-generated text, images, audio, video, and virtual scenes to ensure transparency, traceability, and combat disinformation. These laws contribute to measurable results: forensic traceability, expedited prosecution of deepfake fraud, and clear liability chains. Nigeria has none of these.
Hope or Illusion?
Without legislative intervention, AI’s promise against cybercrime remains an illusion. Nigeria requires the following to boost its hope:
- Amendment of the Cybercrimes Act to include AI-specific offences and mandatory content provenance standards;
- Revision of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to address AI-generated evidence credibility, not merely admissibility;
- Investment in digital forensic capabilities is currently hampered by inadequate enforcement, weak forensic capabilities, and a lack of specialised personnel; and
- A risk-based framework drawing from EU and US models.
- Review of both secondary and tertiary education curricula to address the knowledge gap in AI and prepare the next generation for the AI-driven future.
Conclusion
AI can help curb cybercrime in Nigeria, but only if legal capacity catches up with technical capability. The Cybercrimes Act 2024 amendments were a step forward, but they did not address AI accountability, algorithmic transparency, or evidentiary credibility. The pending National Artificial Intelligence Commission Bill, 2025, signals legislative awareness, but without substantive provisions on liability, evidence, and enforcement, it cannot fill the existing gaps. The effectiveness of existing frameworks remains a question. An optimistic but cautious path exists, but until Nigeria enacts AI-specific legislation, whether through amending the Cybercrimes Act, revising the Evidence Act, or strengthening the pending Bill, weak laws will remain unable to support strong technology.
Nafisat Damisa is a Legal Research Associate in Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Nafisat via: [email protected] or [email protected]
By Isah Kamisu Madachi
As of April 30, 2026, the crude price is said to have reached $125 in the global market. The all-time high price per barrel was recorded in 2008, when it surged to $147. It is obvious that the price is heading in that direction or even towards what experts have predicted — crude reaching a new all-time high of $150 in the near future if crude passages remain closed in the Middle East, which would ultimately come with several disproportionate challenges for businesses and households.
In Nigeria, what began as a mild adjustment in the price of gasoline and other refined crude products has not stopped anywhere until it reached N1,400 per litre of petrol at filling stations. When the price was surging, experts in energy, economics, marketing, business and other relevant fields tried to come up with explanations for how Nigeria, despite housing the largest petrochemicals refinery in Africa and being one of the largest oil-exporting countries on the continent, would continue to absorb this shock.
Despite our advantages, Nigeria recorded the world’s second-highest surge in petrol prices following the escalating geopolitical tension in the Middle East. In Africa, Nigeria has the highest spike, with many sources citing it at 39.5% and above. Even non-oil-producing countries in Africa, and countries that do not refine a drop of oil, did not experience this surge. Also, African countries like South Africa at 1%, Morocco at 2.1%, and Tanzania at 2.7% experienced far smaller increases that are nowhere near Nigeria’s.
To put it in context, South Korea, Japan, and China are among the foremost dependents on the Strait of Hormuz, whose closure escalated the crude price, but none of these countries has recorded even a 20% increase in their petrol prices. Nigeria does not import its crude through the Strait of Hormuz. Yet, as an oil-exporting nation, we have suffered some of the sharpest petrol price increases in Africa.
What went wrong in Nigeria to warrant this surge is not the primary focus of this piece. What lies ahead is. As a result of the increase in petrol prices, Nigerians have been disproportionately affected. Life has become unbearably difficult, with sharp increases in transportation costs, rising food prices, and higher costs of goods and services. Even charging points that used to collect N150 for charging a phone or battery now charge N300 or more.
As it stands, the gap between the current crude price and the predicted new all-time high is about $25. This means that if the passages continue to remain closed, we are not far from another historic price peak. It is even said that reopening the passages may not immediately stabilise prices, as crude tankers would still take time to reach their destinations.
What this means for Nigeria is another sharp increase in refined petroleum product prices, which could trigger another wave of stagflation. Already struggling, Nigerians do not deserve this. They are only just adapting to the post-subsidy era, yet are being hit again by another round of global geopolitical tensions. Many are already in deep energy poverty, with businesses struggling due to unstable electricity supply.
Therefore, as crude oil prices hover above $125 per barrel and threaten to reach the predicted $150 if disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz persist, Nigeria must act decisively to shield its citizens. The Dangote Refinery exists. Nigeria refines oil. What the federal government owes Nigerians at this point is a deliberate policy decision to make that the refinery serve domestic needs first, with pricing that does not mirror whatever is happening in the global market. That is not complicated; other oil-producing countries do exactly this.
The NMDPRA has the authority to act on this. The question is whether there is a political will to act before another price wave hits and Nigerians are once again left to absorb what their counterparts elsewhere never have to.
Sub-national governments also have something to do. Commercial motorcyclists and small business owners are the people who feel every petrol price increase the hardest and the fastest. Pushing CNG and LPG adoption among this group beyond the FCT and Lagos, with genuine support, would cushion a significant part of the next shock. Expanding solar access in underserved communities would do the same. A shop owner running on solar is not at the mercy of the next diesel price spike.
These solutions are quite feasible. Nigeria has attempted versions of them before. Where we often seem to get it wrong is in execution, and Nigeria has to treat this with the same urgency and seriousness as given to elections, for the well-being of its citizens. The only thing that has never matched the problem is the seriousness of the response.
Isah Kamisu Madachi is a policy analyst and development practitioner. He writes via [email protected]
By Gbolahan Oluyemi
In 2025, the National Pension Commission (PenCom) directed all Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) to demand a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) from service providers before engaging their services. This new policy typically affects various types of entities, including small and medium-scale enterprises, most of which are not usually compliance-driven. Following this directive, the PCC has become an essential compliance document for both large, medium and small-scale firms. This article provides a guide on what a PCC is, why it matters, and how it can be obtained.
What is a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC)?
A Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) is an official document issued by PenCom confirming that an organisation has complied with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act. It is an annual document that must be renewed every year at no cost. The yearly renewal is intended to ensure that organisations treat compliance as a continuous activity rather than a one-off act.
Why is a PCC Important?
The PCC is important because it demonstrates that an organisation is compliant with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, especially as it relates to employee pension contributions under Section 4 (1) of the Pension Reform Act and subscription to group life insurance under Section 4 (5) of the Pension Reform Act. It is also required for certain transactions, such as government contracts and engagements with compliance-sensitive partners. In essence, a PCC assures investors, partners, and clients that your business is properly structured and compliant with regulatory requirements.
Who Needs a Pension Clearance Certificate?
Under Nigerian law, companies with three or more employees are required to participate in the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). If your organisation employs at least three staff members and provides or intends to provide services to Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) or other regulated entities, you are expected to obtain a PCC annually.
How Do I Obtain a PCC?
PenCom issues the PCC electronically and at no cost through its web portal: https://pcc.pencom.gov.ng/. Please note that Applicants who are just beginning compliance and remitting employees’ pensions are required to first obtain an employer code from a Pension Fund Administrator (PFA). This code is necessary to initiate the PCC application on the PenCom portal.
Upon logging into the portal, you will be required to complete your company profile by providing your date of incorporation, contact details, and website (if applicable), as well as uploading your CAC documents.
Next, you will upload an Excel schedule (using the template provided on the website) containing your employee list. After this, you will be required to upload Excel sheets detailing pension contributions. You will also need to upload your organisation’s group life insurance documentation and payment instrument.
Finally, you will review your application and submit it for further processing by PenCom. Before commencing an application, ensure you have the following:
- Certificate of Incorporation (CAC documents)
- Group Life Insurance Policy for employees
- Evidence of Pension Fund Administrator (PFA) registration for employees
- Three years’ proof of monthly pension remittances, including penalties for any defaults (where applicable). For companies less than three years old, provide proof of remittances from the date of incorporation
- A valid Tax Identification Number (TIN)
- An employee schedule showing staff details and contributions (usually in Excel format) Templates are available on the PenCom portal
Also note that for the portal to accept employee details and remittance records, employees must have completed their data capture with their respective Pension Fund Administrator and updated their records to reflect their current employer.
Conclusion
Obtaining a Pension Clearance Certificate in Nigeria may seem technical at first, but once proper processes are established, it becomes routine. The key is consistency in remittance, maintenance of accurate records and prioritisation of compliance in overall operations.
For many Nigerian businesses, the PCC is more than a regulatory requirement; it is a mark of credibility. In a competitive environment, that credibility can make all the difference.
Gbolahan Oluyemi is a Legal Practitioner and currently leads Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Gbolahan via: [email protected] or [email protected]
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn