Connect with us

Featured

Niger Delta community demands payment of outstanding N6.9bn from SPDC

Published

on

Niger Delta community demands payment of outstanding N6.9bn from SPDC

The indigenes of Opolo community of Bayelsa are demanding the payment of outstanding N6,938,899,900 from Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) being amount of unpaid rentals, expired leases and re-acquisition fees.

The indigenes, who staged a protest in Abuja on Thursday, were demanding payment of the amount, saying they were being cheated by the multinational company.

Mr Hezekiah Odede, Chief of Opolo Community, Bayelsa, who spoke on behalf of the community, also called on President Muhammadu Buhari to intervene to avoid crisis in the region.

According to him, shell is paying Port Harcourt and other region N600,000 per hectares of land used but refused to pay Bayelsa, rather they are paying us N200,000 per hectares of our land used by them.

“We produce oil in manifold surplus and they are still paying us N200,000 per hectares.

“So, we are saying enough is enough, if the SPDC can help us to sack the MD of Shell, Mr Osagie Okunbor and the head of lands because they take our money to do other things.

“In Niger Delta, particularly in Opolo community, we didn’t stop any work any day but we just want the government to know that the rig is in Opolo community land where they are drilling.

“We went there to stop their operations, except they refuse to pay us our balance, if not we will go there to stop them with our youth.

“We just want Nigerians and the government to know that we are not violent but Shell always make us to be violent.

“When we leave here without any resolution, we will go there and stop the operation.

“In 2017, we went to the National Assembly, they even pass a verdict that they should pay.

“They don’t respect any Nigerian man because we don’t know what we are doing. The National Assembly passed a resolution for them to pay this money, till now they refused,” he said.

Also, Mr Shedrack Ayiba, an indigene of Azagbene community, Bayelsa, said that the Shell Company had never respected the laws by the Nigerian government.

Ayiba said on their part, the leaders of the communities had visited Shell, adding that they had refused to obey despite all pleas.

He, therefore, appealed to President Buhari to look at their demand to prevent the people of Niger Delta region from taking actions to stop the oil company from working.

The National Assembly in March passed a resolution for SDPC to pay a uniform rate of N600,000 per hectare of land as rent per annum for all loss of used surface rights from 2014.

Some of the inscriptions on the placards during the protest reads: SPDC obey court judgement; Shell stop operations in the Niger Delta Now; Shell stop cheating land owners in Niger Delta, among others.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Business

Tax Reform Bills: The Verdict of Nigerians

Published

on

Ismaila Ahmad Abdullahi Ph.D

The public hearings conducted recently by the two Chambers of the National Assembly have elicited positive responses from a broad spectrum of Nigerians, cutting across regional interest groups, government agencies, civil society groups, concerned individuals, the academia, and Labour Unions, among diverse others. Contrary to a few dissensions hitherto expressed in the media, almost all the stakeholders who spoke during the week-long sessions were unanimous in their declaration that the hallowed Chambers should pass the tax reform bills after a clean-up of the grey areas.

The public hearings were auspicious for all Nigerians desirous of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. They were also a watershed moment for the Federal Inland Revenue Service, which had been upbeat about the tax reforms. Indeed, the public hearings had rekindled hope in the tenets of democracy that guarantee freedom of expression and equitable space for cross-fertilisation of ideas. Without gainsaying the fact, the tax reform bills have been unarguably about the most thought-provoking issues in Nigeria today, drawing variegated perspectives and commentaries from even unlikely quarters such as the faith-based leaders, student bodies, and trade unions, which speaks much about the importance of the bills.

In the build-up to the public hearings, not many people believed that the bills would make it to the second reading, much less the public hearings. Even the Northern stakeholders who seemed unlikely to support the passage of the bills have softened their stance and have given valuable suggestions that would enrich the substance of the bills. The Arewa Consultative Forum came to the public hearings well-prepared with a printed booklet that addressed their concerns. It concluded with an advisory that the bills should be “Well planned, properly communicated, strategically implemented and ample dialogue and political consensus allowed for the reforms to be accepted.”

The concerns of ACF ranged from the composition of the proposed Nigeria Revenue Service Board as contained in Part 111, Section 7 of the bill, the unlimited Presidential power to exempt/wave tax payment as proposed in Section 75(1) of the bill, the family income or inheritance tax as contained in Part 1, Section 4(3) of the bill, to the issues around development levy and VAT. On the development levy, the ACF stated that unless the Federal Government is considering budgetary funding for TETFUND, NASENI and NITDA, it does not see the “wisdom behind the plan to replace (them) with NELFUND”.

The position of the North was equally reinforced by the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria, Northern Elders Forum, Kano State Government, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, and the FCT Imams. Like the ACF, these stakeholders lent their respective voices to the Section on the Inheritance Tax in Part 1 of the bill and the use of the term ‘ecclesiastical’, which, in their views, undermines certain religious rights and beliefs. The Kano State Government, represented by Mahmud Sagagi, affirmed that “we support tax modernisation” but cautioned that “we must ensure that this process does not come at the expense of states’ constitutional rights and economic stability”. Professor Auwalu Yadudu, a constitutional law professor, drew attention to the use of the ‘supremacy clause’ and cautioned that the repeated use of “notwithstanding” in the bills would undermine the supremacy of the Nigerian constitution if passed as such.

Other stakeholders that made contributions at the sessions included the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas, Fiscal Responsibility Commission, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria, Nigeria Customs Service, and a host of others. While most of their concerns bordered on technical issues requiring fine-tuning, they were unanimous in their support for the bills. They aligned with the position of the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Zacch Adedeji, Ph.D. and the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Mr Taiwo Oyedele, which is that the extant tax laws and fiscal regulations are obsolete necessitating reforms aimed at creating a fair and equitable tax and fiscal space to grow Nigeria’s economy.

In one of the sessions, Dr Zaach Adedeji expounded on the criss-cross of trade activities in the Free Trade Zone whereby companies misuse tax waivers as exporters to sell their goods or services in the Customs Area at an amount usually less than the price the operators in the Customs Area who pay VAT and other taxes sell theirs thereby disrupting business transactions. This way, the operators in the Free Trade Zone shortchange the government in paying their due taxes by circumventing extant regulations, which are inimical to the economy’s growth.

Overall, the presentations were forthright, foresighted, and helpful in elucidating the issues contained in the bills. According to the statistics read out at the end of the hearings at the Senate, 75 stakeholders were invited, 65 made submissions, and 61 made presentations. At the House of Representatives 53 stakeholders made presentations. By all means, this is a fair representation. Given the presentations, it is evident that the National Assembly has gathered enough materials to guide its deliberations on the bills. As we look forward to the passage of the bills, we commend the leadership of the National Assembly for their unwavering commitment to making the bills see the light of the day.

Abdullahi is the Director of the Communications and Liaison Department, FIRS.

Continue Reading

Trending

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)