If there is any event in recent times that amply demonstrates that nations succeed or fail and define their essential character by the way they challenge the unknown and cope with fears, it is the Senate’s recent rejection of the controversial National Water Resources Bill, 2023 after it was listed for concurrence on the order paper for consideration and passage.
Quite newsy is the awareness that despite wide condemnation, criticism and description by stakeholders as a code that is out of harmony with moral laws, the bill which was first introduced in 2018 spanned both the 8th and 9th National Assemblies.
Adding context to this discourse, the Bill as introduced in August 2018 emanated from the Executive arm and, among other things seeks: to establish a regulatory framework for the water resources sector in Nigeria, provide for equitable and sustainable development management, use and conservation of Nigeria’s surface water, groundwater resources and for related matters.’
Going by the content of the bill, it was easy for Nigerians to situate without labour that the greatest ill associated with it lies in its tendency to disenfranchise and separate Nigerians from ancestral ownership of their water rights and handover same to a set of federal technocrats by confusing Nigerians with the fallacy that ‘’ownership rights to water is the same as water use rights.’’
Also working against the bill at that time is the accompanying belief by Nigerians with critical interest that the urge to have the bill passed is driven not by love for having the nation’s water resources judiciously managed or for the nation to develop agriculturally as claimed by the lawmakers, but by sectional and parochial interests.
A typical example in support of the above claim is the fact that some of the pro-bill senators in the 8th Assembly used barefaced inaccuracies to mislead the Senate and drum up support for the bill. For example, it was claimed on the floor of the Senate that the World Bank was waiting on the passage of the bill into law to “grant” trillions of naira to develop Nigeria’s irrigation infrastructure. This cannot be further from the truth.
After a long and sustained outcry by Nigerians, the Bill was step-down.
But before the dust raised by the introduction of such an obnoxious bill could settle, it was re-introduced in the 9th Assembly. Like the reactions by Nigerians when it was first introduced, the Ijaw Youths Council threatened that if the government reintroduce what they referred to as an inimical and controversial water Resources Bill which was formally stepped down by the 8th Assembly after much public outcry, the Southern Nigeria people would do everything lawful to resist the passage of the bill.
What caused serious concern going by what Nigerians were saying is that the bill viewed from a wider spectrum stands as telling proof of the Federal Government’s insensitivity to the people of the Niger Delta and other water areas. These fears expressed by the coastal dwellers cannot be described as unfounded as it was a similar Decree 101 of 1992 which is now incongruously dressed up as an act of the National Assembly (Water Resource Act Cap W2 LFN 2OO4) that robbed every Nigerian of their water rights as it was hurriedly signed into law by the then military Ibrahim Babangida as his parting gift to Nigerians.
After some moments of debate, protracted accusations and counter-accusations, the re-introduced bill went underground. ties on the part of former President Muhammadu Buhari-led Federal Government to promptly respond to the socioeconomic need of Nigerians adversely turned public affair commentators, development professionals and public policy watchers into a bunch that keep repeating one topic.
For me, aside from ushering in an unjust law and setting the table to truncate the nascent peace currently enjoyed in the country while ushering in another round of hostility as the people are committed to peace by any means necessary if the bill was passed and signed to law, it would have turned to be what future historians will certainly describe as a disastrous decision on the part of both the 8th and 9th National Assemblies.
To succeed in this assignment, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu-led Federal Government must be holistic in its approach and practice deliberative democracy.
Even if such or a similar bill is going to be introduced in the future, the NASS must pave the way for other stakeholders such as civil society groups and water experts to fully make their inputs, submit memoranda and possibly be given the opportunity to make a presentation as it relates to this bill.
As noted in a recent but similar intervention, the Federal Government must desist from the current non-participatory approach to development in the Niger Delta and other coastal areas and embrace a broad-based consultative approach that will give the people of the region some sense of ownership over their own issues. Instead of taking away their resources, it is an auspicious time for the Federal Government to come up with steps that will allocate more power and resources to the state and those at the grassroots.
Most importantly, it will equally be rewarding if the Federal Government aggressively addresses the issues of youth unemployment in the region, weak regulation on the part of its ministries and agencies, tackles the oil companies’ lackadaisical handling of the environment, and ensure compliance with the implementation of the Global Memorandum of Understanding with the host communities.
