Federal Allocation Crisis and Constitutional Rights of Rivers State: Legal Basis for Self-determination - Fedtis Igweche
By Wisdom Tide
October 31, 2024
Federalism and State Rights: Constitutional Foundations
The Nigerian Constitution is rooted in a federal system, where powers are distributed between the central government and its constituent states. This system is established under Chapter 1, Section 2(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which states, "Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory." The federal framework is built on mutual cooperation and equitable resource allocation among states, ensuring each has a say in national governance and shares in the country's economic benefits.
Festus Ogwuche argues that withholding Rivers State’s allocation undermines this foundational principle. “In federal systems, it is the states that come together to form a unified forum; they donate their powers to the center, no matter how flawed our own system may be," he notes. This quote reflects the voluntary nature of Nigeria’s federal arrangement and implies that states have retained certain inherent rights. The Nigerian federal structure is thus an agreement rather than a domination of states by the center. Withholding allocations, Ogwuche asserts, is a breach of this agreement and undermines the trust and cooperation that uphold the federal union.
The Right to Economic Resources: Constitutionally Guaranteed
The Nigerian Constitution guarantees states a right to a fair share of the country’s resources. Chapter II, Section 16(1)(b) mandates the government to “control the national economy in such a manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom, and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of status and opportunity.” Denying federal allocations to a state like Rivers, which significantly contributes to the national economy, violates this principle of social justice and equality.
Additionally, Section 162(2) of the Constitution provides that revenue from the Federation Account must be distributed to the federal government, states, and local government councils in a fair and just manner. Any unilateral deprivation of Rivers State’s allocation would, therefore, be inconsistent with constitutional requirements. Ogwuche argues that the denial of allocation disrupts the equitable distribution of resources and hinders Rivers State’s ability to serve its citizens effectively. As a state with a significant economic contribution, Rivers has a right to expect proportionate benefits from the federation.
Potential for Secession: A Legal Consideration
Ogwuche suggests that continued deprivation of Rivers State's resources may lead the state to consider self-governance. While the Nigerian Constitution does not explicitly allow for secession, it is structured to protect the rights of states within the federation. Ogwuche argues, “If you deny a state its entitlement by way of its allocation, they can opt out of the federation, which is a possibility.” Although the constitution emphasizes national unity, it also upholds principles of justice and equity, both of which are jeopardized when a state’s resources are arbitrarily withheld.
From an international perspective, self-determination is recognized as a fundamental human right under Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, which states that “all peoples have the right to self-determination.” If the Nigerian federal government continues to undermine Rivers State’s constitutional rights, the state may argue its case for independence based on international law principles. Although this would be a complex and contentious process, it remains a legally viable option should federal relations deteriorate further.
Resource Control: Rivers State’s Economic Leverage
Rivers State’s contribution to Nigeria’s oil and gas revenue positions it as a vital player in the country’s economy. Ogwuche emphasizes that the state retains authority over its resources and should not be forced to surrender them to a federal structure that does not equitably reciprocate. Section 44(3) of the Constitution grants the federal government control over natural resources, but this must be balanced with the right to fair distribution as stipulated in Section 162(2). The principle of resource control has been a long-standing issue in the Niger Delta, with states advocating for increased autonomy over the resources within their territories.
The denial of allocation intensifies the resource control debate, leading some to argue that Rivers State, in partnership with other Niger Delta states, could legally seek greater autonomy. Ogwuche’s interpretation is that continued deprivation could drive states like Rivers to manage their resources independently, thereby securing their economic stability. This stance aligns with calls from Niger Delta advocates for resource sovereignty and offers Rivers State a constitutional basis for exploring alternative governance structures.
The Implications of Denied Allocation on Federal Unity
The federal government’s decision to withhold Rivers State’s allocation challenges the spirit of unity and cooperation that Nigeria’s federalism is supposed to embody. Denying Rivers State its statutory allocation disregards the principle of fairness and threatens to destabilize the fragile balance between the central and state governments. This action risks fostering regional resentment, further aggravating the tensions that have historically affected the Niger Delta.
Ogwuche’s argument underscores the potentially divisive impact of such federal actions. “If the Federal Government denies them of their statutory allocation, they can reconsider their continued union with the federation,” he cautions. The state’s loyalty to the federation depends on mutual respect and adherence to constitutional principles, not unilateral actions that infringe on its rights. This warning serves as a reminder of the risks involved in undermining a federal structure built on cooperation and reciprocity.
Conclusion: Upholding Constitutional Integrity and Equity
The Federal High Court’s decision to bar Rivers State from receiving federal allocations has sparked a national debate on state rights, resource control, and the role of the federal government in a federal system. Festus Ogwuche’s legal perspective presents a strong case for Rivers State’s right to autonomy if its constitutional entitlements continue to be ignored. Drawing on various sections of the Nigerian Constitution, he contends that the federal government’s actions contradict the principles of federalism, social justice, and equity enshrined in the nation’s highest law.
Rivers State's potential move toward independence, though extreme, underscores the significance of respecting constitutional mandates and the importance of federal integrity in Nigeria. The government must uphold the provisions of the constitution, including fair resource distribution, to avoid further destabilizing the federation. Only by adhering to these constitutional principles can Nigeria maintain the unity and cooperation that define its federal structure, ensuring all states feel valued and fairly treated within the union
0 Comments