Connect with us

Feature/OPED

Oil is Owned by Niger Delta, not Nigeria

Published

on

Michael Owhoko

By Michael Owhoko, PhD

For the record and for posterity, it is imperative to state that oil found in the Niger Delta region belongs to the people of the area. It is not owned by Nigeria. God provided every habitat with natural resources, including agricultural crops for subsistence. Oil, among others, is one of the natural deposits God provided for the Niger Delta people for existence.

The region had existed before Nigeria was created, and the oil was never part of sovereignty it ceded to bring about the country. This explains why other regions in the country have control over natural resources in their domain.

Therefore, it is morally wrong for the government to single out the most valuable resource of a particular region for confiscation while leaving other regions to enjoy their resources exclusively. That the Federal Government has oppressively expropriated the oil in the Niger Delta region by transferring ownership to itself and using the law to legitimize the process, does not make it morally right.

The obnoxious Petroleum Act of 1966 which now forms part of Section 44(3) of the 1999 Constitution was used to legitimize this illegality. It confers on the Federal Government, ownership and control of all petroleum resources found in, under or upon all land or waters in the country.

However, this is at variance with practices in advanced democracies where host communities, states or regions own the resources and pay taxes and royalties to the government.

In law, whoever owns the land, owns the resources therein, and this principle is supported by the Ad Coelum Doctrine. Why single out petroleum resources in a particular region for acquisition? If the intention of the government was sincere, the law should have been extended to cover all natural resources, including food and cash crops across the country.

The Niger Delta people believe strongly in their soul, spirit and body, that the oil belongs to them but that the federal government has unjustly used its might to seize it because of their helpless polyethnic minority condition. It is most likely this could not have happened in a monolithic majority group in the country for fear of resistance.

Depriving the Niger Delta region of its oil while leaving other regions or communities to exploit natural resources found in their areas, amounts to injustice.

Zamfara and Osun States, for example, are currently enjoying the benefits of gold mining, just as other states or regions in the country are reaping from their agricultural crops.

Yet, the Niger Delta people are not only deprived of their oil resources, but they also bear the brunt of oil exploration, including the destruction of their ecosystem. Fish, crops, weather, water and other organisms in the region suffer pollution and contamination. Oil has brought misery to the people to the extent that even basic agricultural and fishery activities which provide succour for the people are no longer generative, due to environmental degradation.

When you complain, those whose only contribution to the economy is their population are quick to remind you that the region is already enjoying 13 per cent derivation proceeds, in addition to input from intervention agencies like the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs, thus, does not deserve further support. This is population-induced arrogance.

When groundnut, cocoa and palm produce were Nigeria’s economic mainstay, the parts of the country where these produces were derived, namely, the North, West and East separately received 50 per cent of the revenue in line with the derivation principle as contained in the 1963 Constitution.

Why then is the government reluctant to raise the derivation revenue that should accrue to the Niger Delta region to 50 per cent when the 1999 Constitution has given a window for upward review. The 13 per cent derivation principles as contained in Section 162, Sub-section 2 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is intended to adequately compensate the people of the region for confiscation and damages arising from oil exploration and production.

While the region is still contending for an upward review of the 13 per cent, about 59 Northern lawmakers in the House of Representatives lately had vexatiously pushed for a bill to expunge the derivation principle under the 1999 Constitution.

Obviously, the intention of the 59 legislators is to deny the Niger Delta region of the 13 per cent derivation revenue to enable redistribution of the proceeds to shore up revenues in their region. This motive is not only thoughtless and heartless, it smacks of parliamentary hypocrisy and insincerity, capable of plunging the region into a pointless crisis that could worsen the country’s economic woes.

Are these lawmakers bereft of ideas that can shore up revenue pots in the northern states or they are just being mischievous?

Rather than channel and expend energy on how natural resources that are spread across the northern states can be explored and harnessed for the growth of the region, they are ridiculing the legislature and exposing the limit of their intellectual capacity for good governance.

It was these same northern legislators that contributed to the delay in the passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) over their insistence that allocation to host communities from oil companies operating expenditure must be reduced from 10 to 3 per cent. They had opposed the initial 10 per cent as recommended in the original draft. The PIB was eventually passed into law on August 16, 2021.

Now, they have not only succeeded in this overbearing trajectory; they have introduced a 30 per cent frontier exploration fund in the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) despite previous records of unsuccessful geophysical exploration efforts, including seismic surveying, by international oil companies (IOCs) in the region.

Is there any exploration magic they expect the Nigerian Petroleum Development Company (NPDC), a subsidiary of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to perform in a place where the IOCs could not find oil in commercial quantity?

It is a clear demonstration of the pursuit of sectional interests aimed at commuting the exploration fund into an advantage for the North.

In what way has the Niger Delta region offended the Nigerian state and their leaders? Why the show of zero tolerance for development and comfort in the region? Projects meant for development in the area are not only sometimes diverted and moved to other regions, even statutory privileges are occasionally aborted.

For example, former President Olusegun Obasanjo relocated the West Niger Delta LNG, Escravos to Olokola in Ogun State and changed the name to OK LNG.  Protest by the Delta State House of Assembly that the LNG be returned to Escravos, Delta State, was rebuffed by the government.

Former late President Musa Yar’Adua attempted to relocate the Federal University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun to Kaduna until he was pressured to halt the plan by Niger Delta governors.  Rather than establish one in Kaduna, he preferred to strip the region of the university.

The proposed Oil and Gas Industrial Park designed for fertilizer, methanol, petrochemicals, and aluminium plants earmarked for Ogidigben, Delta State, has been abandoned by the Federal Government.  It is hoped there are no plans to move it outside the region.

The Petroleum Equalisation Fund (PEF) which was established to administer uniform fuel prices across the country has consistently failed to extend coverage to the riverine oil communities in Niger Delta in their network, causing fuel to sell above pump price in these areas.

The unending construction of the East-West Road stretching from Effurun, Delta State to Calabar, Cross River State has lasted over 16 years with no hope in sight on a completion date.

It is imperative to calm frayed nerves in the Niger Delta by sincerely compensating the people through measures earnestly designed to develop the area for their oil that has been commandeered by the Federal Government

The template used in developing Abuja can be adopted.  Direct the IOCs and the indigenous oil companies to relocate their headquarters to Niger Delta, just as ministries, departments and agencies of government (MDAs) moved to Abuja. This will accelerate the development of the region.

Also, just as NNPC has directed oil companies to make annual budget provisions for funding of rehabilitation of schools, houses, roads, hospitals and other infrastructure destroyed by terrorists in Borno State and other parts of the North East Region, similar measures can be extended to oil communities whose properties have been impacted by seismic blasting and corrosion arising from activities of oil exploration.

This way, enduring peace can be achieved in the Niger Delta region, rather than see it as a conquered territory whose oil has been taken over as spoils of persecution.

Dr Mike Owhoko, journalist and author, is the publisher of Media Issues, an online newspaper based in Lagos.

Feature/OPED

Guide to Employee Training That Reinforces Workplace Safety Standards

Published

on

Workplace Safety Standards

Workplace safety is not sustained by policies alone. It is built through consistent training that shapes daily behaviour, decision-making, and accountability across every level of an organisation. When employees understand not only what safety rules exist but why they matter, they are far more likely to follow them and intervene when risks arise. Effective safety-focused training protects workers, strengthens operations, and reduces costly incidents that disrupt productivity and morale.

As industries evolve and workplaces become more complex, employee training must go beyond basic orientation sessions. Reinforcing safety standards requires an ongoing, structured approach that adapts to new risks, changing regulations, and real-world job demands. A thoughtful training strategy helps create a culture where safety is a shared responsibility rather than a checklist item.

Establishing a Foundation of Safety Awareness

The first purpose of workplace safety training is awareness. Employees cannot avoid hazards they do not understand. Comprehensive training introduces common workplace risks, clarifies acceptable behaviour, and sets expectations for personal responsibility. This foundational knowledge empowers employees to recognise unsafe conditions before incidents occur.

Safety awareness training should be tailored to the specific environment in which employees work. Office settings require education on ergonomics, electrical safety, and emergency evacuation procedures, while industrial workplaces demand detailed instruction on machinery risks, protective equipment, and material handling. When training reflects actual job conditions, employees are more engaged and better equipped to apply what they learn.

Clear communication is essential during this stage. Using plain language and real examples helps employees connect training concepts to daily tasks. When safety awareness becomes part of how employees think and talk about their work, it begins to shape behaviour consistently across the organisation.

Integrating Safety Training into Daily Operations

Safety training is most effective when it is integrated into everyday work rather than treated as a one-time event. Ongoing reinforcement ensures that safety standards remain top of mind as tasks, equipment, and responsibilities change. Regular training sessions create opportunities to refresh knowledge, address new risks, and correct unsafe habits before they lead to injury.

Incorporating short safety discussions into team meetings helps normalise these conversations. Supervisors play a critical role by modelling safe behaviour and reinforcing expectations during routine interactions. When employees see safety emphasised alongside productivity goals, it reinforces the message that both are equally important.

Hands-on training also strengthens retention. Demonstrations, practice scenarios, and real-time feedback allow employees to apply safety principles in controlled settings. This experiential approach builds confidence and reduces hesitation when employees encounter hazards in real situations.

Aligning Training with Regulatory Requirements

Workplace safety training must align with applicable regulations and industry standards to ensure legal compliance and worker protection. Laws and regulations change frequently, making it essential for organisations to keep training materials updated. Failure to do so can expose employees to unnecessary risk and organisations to legal consequences.

Training programs should clearly explain relevant safety regulations and how they apply to specific roles. Employees are more likely to comply when rules are presented as practical safeguards rather than abstract mandates. Documenting training completion and maintaining accurate records also demonstrates organisational commitment to compliance.

Many organisations rely on support from compliance training companies to navigate complex regulatory landscapes and design programs that meet both legal and operational needs. These partnerships can help ensure training remains accurate, consistent, and aligned with evolving requirements without overwhelming internal resources.

Encouraging Participation and Accountability

Effective safety training depends on active participation rather than passive attendance. Employees should be encouraged to ask questions, share concerns, and contribute insights based on their experiences. When workers feel heard, they become more invested in maintaining a safe environment.

Creating accountability is equally important. Training should clarify individual responsibilities and outline the consequences of ignoring safety standards. Employees need to understand that safety is not optional or secondary to performance goals. Reinforcement from leadership ensures that unsafe behaviour is addressed consistently and constructively.

Peer accountability also strengthens safety culture. When training emphasises teamwork and shared responsibility, employees are more likely to watch out for one another and intervene when they see risky behaviour. This collective approach reduces reliance on supervision alone and builds resilience across the workforce.

Adapting Training for Long-Term Effectiveness

Workplace safety training must evolve alongside organisational growth and workforce changes. New hires, role transitions, and technological updates introduce risks that require refreshed instruction. Periodic assessments help identify gaps in knowledge and opportunities for improvement.

Data from incident reports, near misses, and employee feedback provides valuable insight into training effectiveness. Adjusting content based on real outcomes ensures that training remains relevant and impactful. Organisations that treat training as a dynamic process are better equipped to respond to emerging risks.

Long-term effectiveness also depends on reinforcement beyond formal sessions. Visual reminders, updated procedures, and accessible reporting tools help sustain awareness. When safety standards are supported through multiple channels, employees receive consistent cues that reinforce training messages daily.

Conclusion

Reinforcing workplace safety standards through employee training requires intention, consistency, and adaptability. Training that builds awareness, integrates into daily operations, aligns with regulations, and encourages accountability creates a safer environment for everyone involved. When employees understand their role in maintaining safety, they are more confident, engaged, and prepared to prevent harm.

A strong training program is not simply a compliance exercise. It is an investment in people and performance. Organisations that prioritise meaningful safety training protect their workforce while fostering trust, stability, and long-term success.

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Debt is Dragging Nigeria’s Future Down

Published

on

more concessional debt

By Abba Dukawa 

A quiet fear is spreading across the hearts of Nigerians—one that grows heavier with every new headline about rising debt. It is no longer just numbers on paper; it feels like a shadow stretching over the nation’s future. The reality is stark and unsettling: nearly 50% of Nigeria’s revenue is now used to service debt. That is not just unsustainable—it is suffocating.

Behind these figures lies a deeper tragedy. Millions of Nigerians are trapped in what experts call “Multidimensional Poverty,” struggling daily for dignity and survival, while a privileged few continue to live in comfort, untouched by the hardship tightening around the nation. The contrast is painful, and the silence around it is even louder.

Since assuming office, Bola Ahmed Tinubu has embarked on an aggressive borrowing path, presenting it as a necessary step to revive the economy, rebuild infrastructure, and stabilise key sectors.

Between 2023 and 2026, billions of dollars have been secured or proposed in foreign loans. On paper, it is a strategy of hope. But in the hearts of many Nigerians, it feels like a gamble with consequences yet to unfold.

The numbers are staggering. A borrowing plan exceeding $21 billion, backed by the National Assembly, alongside additional billions in loans and grants, signals a government determined to keep spending and building. Another $6.9 billion facility follows closely behind. These are not just financial decisions; they are commitments that will echo into generations yet unborn.

And so, the questions refuse to go away. Who will bear this burden? Who will repay these debts when the time comes? Will it not fall on ordinary Nigerians already stretched thin to carry the weight of decisions they never made?

There is a growing fear that the nation may be walking into a future where its people become strangers in their own land, bound by obligations to distant creditors.

Even more troubling is the sense that something is not adding up. The removal of fuel subsidy was meant to free up resources, to create breathing room for meaningful development.

But where are the results? Why does it feel like sacrifice has not translated into relief? The silence surrounding these questions breeds suspicion, and suspicion slowly erodes trust.  As of December 31, 2025, Nigeria’s public debt has risen to N159.28 trillion, according to the Debt Management Office.

The numbers keep climbing, but for many citizens, life keeps declining. This disconnect is what hurts the most. Borrowing, in itself, is not the enemy. Nations borrow to grow, to build, to invest in their future. But borrowing without visible progress, without accountability, without compassion for the people, it begins to feel less like strategy and more like a slow descent.

If these borrowed funds are truly building roads, schools, hospitals, and opportunities, then Nigerians deserve to see it, to feel it, to live it. But if they are funding excess, waste, or luxury, then this path is not just dangerous—it is devastating.

Nigeria’s growing loan profile is a double-edged sword. It can either accelerate development or deepen economic challenges. The key issue is not just borrowing, but what the country does with the money. Strong governance, transparency, and investment in productive sectors will determine whether these loans become a foundation for growth or a long-term liability. Because in the end, debt is not just an economic issue. It is a moral one. And if care is not taken, the price Nigeria will pay may not just be financial—it may be the future of its people.

Dukawa writes from Kano and can be reached at [email protected]

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Nigeria’s Power Illusion: Why 6,000MW Is Not An Achievement

Published

on

Nigeria Electricity Act 2023

By Isah Kamisu Madachi

For decades, Nigeria has been called the Giant of Africa. The question no one in government wants to answer is why a giant cannot keep the lights on.

Nigeria sits on the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, holds the continent’s most populous nation at over 220 million people, and commands the fourth largest GDP on the continent at roughly $252 billion. It possesses vast deposits of solid minerals, a fintech ecosystem that accounts for 28% of all fintech companies on the African continent, and a diaspora that remits billions of dollars annually.

If potential were electricity, Nigeria would have been powering half the world. Instead, an immediate former minister is boasting about 6,000 megawatts.

Adebayo Adelabu resigned as Minister of Power on April 22, 2026, citing his ambition to contest the Oyo State governorship election. In his resignation letter, he listed among his achievements that peak generation had increased to over 6,000 megawatts during his tenure, supported by the integration of the Zungeru Hydropower Plant. It was presented as a great crowning legacy. The claim deserves scrutiny, and the numbers deserve context.

To begin with, the context. Ghana, Nigeria’s neighbour in West Africa, has a national electricity access rate of 85.9%, with 74% access in rural areas and 94% in urban areas. Kenya, with a 71.4% national electricity access rate, including 62.7% in rural areas, leads East Africa. Nigeria, by contrast, recorded an electricity access rate of just 61.2 per cent as of 2023, according to the World Bank. This is not a distant or poorer country outperforming Nigeria. Ghana’s GDP stands at approximately $113 billion, less than half of Nigeria’s. Kenya’s economy is around $141 billion. Ethiopia, which has invested massively in the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and is already exporting electricity to neighbouring countries, has a GDP of roughly $126 billion. All three are doing more with far less.

Now to examine the 6,000-megawatt, Daily Trust obtained electricity generation data from the Association of Power Generation Companies and the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, covering quarterly performance from 2023 to 2025 and monthly data from January to March 2026. The data shows that in 2023, peak generation was approximately 5,000 megawatts; in 2024, it reached approximately 5,528 megawatts; in 2025, it ranged between 5,300 and 5,801 megawatts; and by March 2026, available capacity had declined to approximately 4,089 megawatts. The grid never recorded a verified peak of 6,000 megawatts or higher. Adelabu had, in fact, set the 6,000-megawatt target publicly on at least three separate occasions, missing each deadline, and later admitted the target was not achieved, attributing the failure to vandalism of key transmission infrastructure.

In February 2026, Nigeria’s national grid produced an average available capacity of 4,384 megawatts, the lowest monthly average since June 2024. For a country with over 220 million people, this means electricity supply remains far below national demand, with the grid delivering only about 32 per cent of its theoretical installed capacity of approximately 13,000 megawatts. To put that in sharper comparison: in 2018, 48 sub-Saharan African countries, home to nearly one billion people, produced about the same amount of electricity as Spain, a country of 45 million. Nigeria, the continent’s most resource-rich large economy, is a significant part of that embarrassing equation.

The tragedy here is not just technical. It is a governance failure with compounding human costs. An economy that cannot provide reliable electricity cannot competitively manufacture goods, cannot industrialise at scale, cannot attract the volume of foreign direct investment its endowments warrant, and cannot build the digital infrastructure that would allow it to lead on artificial intelligence, data governance, and the emerging critical minerals economy where Africa’s next great opportunity lies. Countries with a fraction of Nigeria’s mineral wealth and human capital are already debating those frontiers. Nigeria is still campaigning on megawatts.

What a departing minister should be able to say, given Nigeria’s endowments, is not that peak generation touched 6,000 megawatts at some unverified moment. He should be saying that Nigeria now generates reliably above 15,000 megawatts, that rural electrification has crossed 70 per cent, and that the country is on a credible trajectory toward the kind of energy sufficiency that unlocks industrial growth. That is the standard Nigeria’s size and resources demand. Anything below it is not an achievement. It is an apology dressed in a press release.

The power sector has received billions of dollars in investment across multiple administrations. The 2013 privatisation exercise, the Presidential Power Initiative, the Electricity Act of 2023, and successive reform promises have produced a sector that still, in 2026, cannot guarantee eight hours of reliable supply to the average Nigerian household. That a minister exits that ministry citing a megawatt figure that fact-checkers have shown was never actually reached, and that even if reached would be unworthy of celebration given Nigeria’s potential, captures the full depth of the problem. The ambition is too small. The accountability is too thin. And the country deserves better from those who are privileged to manage its extraordinary, squandered potential.

Isah Kamisu Madachi is a policy analyst and development practitioner. He writes via [email protected]

Continue Reading

Trending