- If Nigeria loses billions yearly for not passing the Water Resources bill, how much more does it gain by federalising its waters?
In the surface, the Water Resources Bill is about maximising national gains from Nigeria’s inland waters. That is a legitimate and sensible goal that should appeal to everyone.
But at the root, of the contending views on the bill, is the federal question; and the perpetual bleeding inherent, when unitary ideas are imposed on resources that should bloom along federal lines. As Nigeria currently bleeds from over-centralisation, so might its water resources too, if subjected to a bill — which if passed into law — will impose unitary principles on Nigeria’s inland waters.
That is the crux of the matter. If non-passage of the bill makes Nigeria to lose between N6 billion and N9 billion yearly, what much more might it gain by federalising the waters?
Until both figures are rigorously compared and contrasted, flashing an alleged loss is no more than using stats as scare tactics. The motive, to say the least, is suspect, if not outright ignoble.
Suleiman Adamu, Minister of Water Resources, speaking through Magashi Bashir, executive director, National Integrated Water Resources Management Commission, spoke the Federal Government’s clear displeasure on the matter.
“Nigeria is losing about N6 billion to N9 billion yearly to the non-passage of the bill, which would have given legal teeth to the water sub-sector for optimal performance like other sectors,” he told the media, advising opposers of the bill to “advance beyond ethnicity and ethnic politics to better regulate the water sector.”
Regulating the water sector has a lot of merit, to be sure. Over-playing ethnic politics too, often at the expense of sound pan-Nigeria policies, is a fair charge, given the current common penchant to view things from extreme and narrow ethnic lens.
Still, this legitimate charge also stems from equally legitimate fears; of folks worried at the progressive over-regulation from Abuja, that has turned Nigeria’s official federalism into a glorified unitary system, with the all-mighty Federal Government assuming the role of the Leviathan, with disastrous consequences, in Nigerian daily lives.
True, the clamour to re-federalise has thrown up some ethnic extremists and jingoists, which is quite unfortunate. But the impasse on the bill’s passage wouldn’t be broken by ministerial name-calling, which by the way could morph into mutual, arid pastime, with precious time wasted to the bargain.
At this juncture, therefore, what is needed is the exchange of useful information to push the mutual benefits of the bill and build trust; not the trading of insults, to fuel further dissonance.
So, maximising the benefits of Nigerian inland waters and giving locals the leeway to develop their water resources, without Abuja breathing down their necks, cannot be mutually exclusive. Indeed, both can — and should — be complementary. That is the challenge before the framers of the bill; and before those opposed to it.
The contending issues include the management and control of surface water (particularly, major rivers like the Niger and the Benue, that run through many states), control of aquifers and allied underground water (which throws up several questions, including licences for boreholes and drilling permits), water resource planning and management, control of lakes within states, dredging for safe marine transport, and acquisition of land under water, particularly for land reclamation purposes.
All of these cut across marine commerce, fishing, engineering, transport, tourism and even erection of bridges, which could add value to the economies of everyone involved. For the bill to pass, therefore, there must be a consensus ab initio, that neither side would be short-changed.
If the Federal Government has its way with “pan-Nigeria” rivers like the Niger and the Benue, then surely states must have their way with water bodies embedded in their respective spaces, in the spirit of global best federalism practices — subject, of course, to a mutually beneficial, if stringent, national policy, embraced by all.
Dialogue without inhibitions is the option left to pass the bill. So, let the contending blocs get to it. With properly federalised waterways, Nigeria might yet gain much more than the N6 billion to N9 billion the minister has calculated it is losing now.
