Introduction
Before anything, let me remind us that Rivers State was the (Plaintiff) one that went to the Supreme Court. Let me also remind us that Rivers State Government earlier took Bayelsa State Government to the Federal High Court on this same issue and lost. And instead of following the normal appellate process via the Appeal Court, the Rivers State Government instead invoked constitutional provisions and filed a suit in the Supreme Court in 2011 and this year, precisely on Tuesday, the 10th day of July, 2012, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment and struck out her case for lack of evidence.
I know this might not appear fair to some, but I am sure we all know that law is not about emotions and plenty talks, but providing evidence to prove your case beyond all reasonable doubts. This is because the Government of Rivers State who claims that Soku is hers must have to prove that. As the court puts it, “a party who asserts must prove same. This is extant from the provision of section 135 of the Evidence Act.”
RELIEVES SOUGHT BY THE PLAINTIFF (RIVERS STATE)
In Plaintiff’s amended Statement of Claim in paragraph 77 thereof the reliefs sought against the defendants are as follows:
“1. DECLARATION that the purported boundary between the Plaintiff State and the 1st Defendant State as shown in the 11th Edition of the Administrative Map of Nigeria does not represent the correct boundary between the Plaintiff State and the 1st Defendant State.
2. DECLARATION that the correct boundary between the Plaintiff state and the 1st Defendant is River Santa Barbara.
3. DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant’s claim to Soku Oil fields in the Plaintiff’s territorial jurisdiction is false, wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, vexatious, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. DECLARATION that the Soku Oil Fields/Oil Wells are situated within the territorial boundaries of Rivers State of Nigeria.
5. DECLARATION that the Plaintiff State is entitled to all the revenue that has accrued and is accruing to the Federation Account from the said Soku Oil Fields/Oil Wells from July, 2005, by reason of the derivation principle stipulated in Section 162(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
6. DECLARATION that all accrued revenues from the Soku Oil Fields/Oil Wells however arisen and either being kept in the account known as “Rivers State/Bayelsa States Excrow account” or in any other account be released forthwith to the Plaintiff, with all accrued interest thereon.
7. AN ORDER against the 2nd Defendant for account of revenue that has accrued to the federation account from “Soku” Oil field/wells on the basis of the derivative principle, from July, 2005 which Rivers State should have received but for the wrongful payment of same by the 2nd Defendant to the 1st Defendant.
8. AN ORDER for payment by the 2nd Defendant to the Plaintiff of any sums due from the Federation Account to Rivers State upon the taking of such account.
9. OR IN THE EVENT THAT all sums found due upon the taking of such account have been paid to the 1st Defendant, then AN ORDER directing the 1st Defendant to pay and/or refund to the Plaintiff all the revenue wrongly paid to the 1st Defendant from the Federation Account in respect of the Soku Oil Fields/Wells from July, 2005.
10. FURTHER to relief (i) AN ORDER directing the 2nd defendant to cause to be deducted from the statutory allocation of the 1st defendant and paid over to the plaintiff any sums due from the Federation Account to the plaintiff state upon the taking of such account.
11. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Federal Government of Nigeria by itself, its servants agents or privies and all its agencies or departments and functionaries howsoever called or described from allotting or continuing to allot the Soku Oil Fields/Oil Wells or all revenues derived from the Oil Fields/Oil Wells to the 1st Defendant.
12. AN ORDER directing the Federal Government of Nigeria by itself its servants, agent’s or privies and all its agencies or departments and functionaries howsoever called or described to continue to pay to Plaintiff State all revenues and/or proceeds accrued and/or derived from Soku Oil Fields/Oil Wells.”
THE JUDGMENT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C: (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
“Now to the merit of the Plaintiff’s claim in this Suit. The plaintiff, by the institution of this suit, challenges the allocation of revenue to the 1st Defendant by the 2nd Defendant from oil proceeds to the Federation Account from Soku Oil Wells/Fields. In other words his contention is that Soku Oil Wells/Fields are located in Rivers State. This contention is based on the premise that the boundary between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant States is the Santa Barbara River. On the other hand, the 1st Defendant asserts that the same Soku Oil Wells/Fields which he (1st Defendant) refers to as Oluasiri Oil Wells/Fields are located in Bayelsa State because the boundary between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff is the San Bartholomew River.
We do not require copious formulation of issues by the parties to resolve this case. The Sole issue is the actual location of Soku Oil Wells/Fields (as called by the Plaintiff) or Oluasiri Oil Wells/Fields (as called by the 1st Defendant).The determination of the issue is dependent on what the correct boundary of the plaintiff and 1st Defendant States is. Is it Santa Barbara River as claimed by the Plaintiff or San Bartholomew River as claimed by the 1st Defendant? That is the question.
From the averments in paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 21, the official performances of the agencies were not satisfactory and acceptable to the Plaintiff and are vehemently criticized and reproached thus:
“14. Prior to 2006, derivative funds/proceeds from Soku Oil fields/wells had always been paid to Rivers State and on the basis that Soku Oil fields/wells are located in Rivers State.
15. From 2006, the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission single handedly and unilaterally changed the existing order and have since been giving derivative funds/money accruing from Soku oil fields/wells to Bayelsa State to the detriment of Rivers State where Soku oil fields/wells are situated.
16. The Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission based its decision on the 11th Edition of the Administrative Map of Nigeria which put the boundary between Rivers State and Bayelsa State as or at St. Bartholomew River.
19. The National Boundary Commission (NBC) admitted its mistake of changing the natural, administrative and political boundary between the Plaintiff State and 1st Defendant State from River Santa Barbara to River St. Bartholomew in the letter dated 3rd July, 2002 and undertook to amend it in the publication of its 12th Edition of Administrative map. The letter is hereby pleaded.
20. The National Boundary Commission’s (NBC) admission of error/fault was in reaction to the Plaintiff State’s protest letters dated 28th March 2002 and 20th June 2002.
21. In the letter of 15th September, 2008 addressed to the Surveyor General of the Federation and copied the National Boundary Commission, National Boundary Commission was reminded of the need to revise the 11th Edition of the Administrative map as promised its letter of 3rd July, 2002.”
The Plaintiff claims that the 11th Edition of the Administrative Map of Nigeria is fraught with irregularities and errors and even that the map changed the natural boundary from River Santa Barbara to St. Bartholomew.
The Plaintiff has contended that upon the discovery of the error in the 11th Edition of the Administrative Map that “surreptitiously” changed the natural boundary, it promptly protested in writing to the National Boundary Commission on 25/03/2002 and on 20/06/2002, and by its letter of 31/7/2002 the NBC admitted that the change in the boundary from River Santa Barbara, to River St. Bartholomew was an error and it was to be corrected in the next Edition of the Map.
It is on account of the foregoing and because of the technical nature of the dispute and the claims of the parties this Court finds that the NBC as an authority vested with authorities and expertise know-how in dealing with this matter should have once and for all conducted an exhaustive exercise of delineating the disputed boundary. Hence the long-awaited 12th Edition of the Administrative Map when completed soonest would have been of tremendous assistance in settling this lingering dispute. In the light of the observations I have clearly expressed above I do not feel comfortable to grant the declarations sought until the NBC concludes its exercise of delineation of disputed boundary to finality. It will be futile and premature to determine the boundary of the two parties States in the present circumstances. However, the appropriate order to be made in the prevailing circumstance is that of striking out the Plaintiff’s suit, and I so order accordingly. Each party to bear its costs.
DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, C.J.N: I have read before now the judgment of my Lord Galadima, JSC just delivered with which I entirely agree. In the aforesaid judgment, his lordship has adequately set out not only the facts but also the issues submitted for the determination of this matter, an Originating Summons invoking the original jurisdiction of this action. I entirely agree with the reasoning’s of my lord, which I respectfully adopt as mine and consequently I too, find the suit of the plaintiff premature, this Court cannot arrive at any decision in this matter unless and until the Boundary Commission has determined the boundary between the Rivers State and Bayelsa State.
By section 3 of the Boundary Commission Act, it is the duty of the Commission to “determine and intervene” in the boundary dispute between the parties. The proper placement of the Soku Oil wells can only be determined by a Map by the Commission. In the absence of such a Map, the claims of the plaintiff in this matter are also in my view immature, I accordingly strike out the claims of the plaintiff, I also make no order as to costs.
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C: I have been privileged before today of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Galadima, JSC in this action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this court under Section 232 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. I entirely agree with my learned brother in the manner he tackled and resolved the preliminary objection raised by the 1st Defendant to the hearing of the action. I also dismiss the preliminary objection for lacking in merit.
J. A. FABIYI, J.S.C: I only wish to chip in a few words of my own. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are mainly declaratory in form and contents. The orders claimed by the plaintiff are dependent on the success or otherwise of the declaratory reliefs sought.
It is basic that in claims relating to declaratory reliefs, as herein, it is for the plaintiff to establish his claim on the strength of its claim and should not rely on the weakness of the defence; if any.See: Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181) 362, Dantata v. Mohammed (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 664) 176; Ekundayo v. Baruwa (1965) 2 NLR 211; Ali Ucha v. Martins Elechi (2012) MRSCJ Vol. 179 at 104; and Dumez Nig Ltd. v. Nwokhoba (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 361 at 373-374 where it is pronounced pungently that the burden of proof on the plaintiff in establishing declaratory reliefs to the satisfaction of the court is quite heavy. Such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant where the plaintiff fails to establish his entitlements to the declarations by his own evidence.
F.G.A: What the above is saying is that even if Bayelsa State (1st Defendant) and the Federal Government (2nd Defendant) are to agree today that there was a mistake in the 11th Edition of the Administrative map and Soku actually belong to Rivers State, it is still inconsequential. This is because Rivers State still has to prove its case by providing evidence to corroborate that. Bayelsa state have argued that “The River Santa Barbara does not run the full length of both states and it branches into numerous tributaries thereby making resolving the issue of boundary between both states difficult and impossible.” And that fact has not be countered by the Plaintiff.
“Let me go further and mention the obvious. A party who asserts must prove same. This is extant from the provision of section 135 of the Evidence Act.See also the cases of Okubule v. Oyagbola (1990) 4 NWLR (pt. 144) 72; Osawaru v. Ezeiruka (1978) 6-7 SC 135 at 145; and Odukwe v. Ogunbiyi (1998) 8 NWLR (pt. 561) 339 at 352. From the facts on ground as depicted by the parties herein, can it be said with certainty that the boundary between the two States in respect of the area in dispute has been established by the plaintiff? As at today, the answer is in the negative. It is capital No!.The maps produced by the plaintiff and 1st defendant sing discordant tunes. The 2nd defendant whose official is charged with the responsibility of making Administrative Maps of Nigeria maintained that same is in the making and the 12th Edition would come out in the near future.”
“In short, it occurs to me that the plaintiff s claims appear hasty. Hitherto, the plaintiff failed to establish the real boundary between it and the 1st defendant. So, their claims have no firm stand to support them.”
F.G.A: The learned JSC is in the above paragraph referring to the failure of Rivers State Government to prove its case in the lower court.
I have read the judgment of my learned brother. Galadima, JSC. I am at one with the treatment of the preliminary objection raised by the 1st defendant. I agree with the conclusion arrived at in respect of same and accordingly adopt it.
For the above reasons and those clearly adumbrated in the lead judgment, I too feel that the plaintiff has not substantiated its claim and the declarations sought cannot be granted. Parties should tarry awhile. I agree that the appropriate order in the prevailing circumstance is one striking out the plaintiff’s suit. I order accordingly. Each party should bear its own costs.
OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.S.C:
The error committed by the 2nd defendant in placing the new boundary between Bayelsa State and Rivers State at River St. Bartholomew also erroneously took Soku oil fields from the plaintiff and put it in the 1st defendant State. The sum of N23,424,970.30 have in the interval become due and payable to the plaintiff being 13% derivative funds from Soku oil field from June 1999 April 2010. The 1st defendant; Bayelsa State responded that the plaintiffs case ought to fail because it is well settled that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence. In this circumstance, the plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence to show that River Santa Barbara is the territorial boundary between Rivers and Bayelsa States and that the oil wells in dispute are physically located in the territory of Rivers State.There is nothing on record to compel this court to go against the statutory presumption of correctness and regularity which the 11th edition of the administrative map of Nigeria enjoys. Finally the plaintiff has also failed to adduce material evidence in support of the monetary sum it claims from the defendants.
I also agree with the reasoning and conclusion of my learned brother, S. Galadima JSC in the lead judgment that this suit be struck out. I abide with the consequential orders including the order as to costs.
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C: I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusions of my learned brother, Galadima, JSC.
While we await the 12th edition of the Administrative Map of Nigeria the plaintiff’s suit is hereby struck out with no order on costs.
F. G. A Conclusion:
The foregoing is the unanimous decision of all 5 setting Justices and they all agreed to strike out the case instituted by Rivers state for lack of evidence. My question now, is it that all those protesting now are not aware of this? Okay, if they are aware of this decision of the highest court in the land, then why are they blaming the Bayelsa State Government and the Presidency for the failure of the Government of Rivers state to provide material evidence to back its own claims?
More so, if those placard caring Traditional ‘rulers’ were aware that they will not obey the decisions of our courts, why did they not advice their government to look for other peaceful means of solving whatever problems they perceived?
The reality on ground is that, no amount of such kinds of protests will help them attain their objectives. Once you submit yourself to the legal process, you must abide by the outcomes (decisions of the courts) Pacta Sunt Servanda.
I implore our brothers and sisters, including our elders and traditional rulers to seek alternative conflict resolution mechanisms. Let’s solve our differences in-house instead of calling each other names and engaging in needless futile infightings.
Fortune God’sSon Alfred
Credit: http://www.godssonism.wordpress.com
Sayelba Times 