He stated this in an exclusive interview with the Golden Pen Newspaper print and online in his office at the Bayelsa State Secretariat in Yenagoa.
Biriyai Dambo who is the Chief Law Officer of Bayelsa State, spoke on a wide range of issues concerning the boundary disputes and court cases between the two sister states Rivers and Bayelsa 24 years after biforcation.
FULL TEXT OF THE INTERVIEW
Excerpts:
Intro. My name is Otonye Evans Tubonah, Publisher/Editor-in- Chief Golden Pen Newspaper print and online based in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.
Interestingly Bayelsa was created out of Rivers State 24 yeara ago, and the National Boundary Commission within these lengthy years had not been able to delineate the boundary between the two sister states, which has caused disaffection, crisis and litigations, What can you tell Bayelsans and the world, about this boundary matter between Rivers and Bayelsa States?i
AG/CJ: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to inform you of what has actually transpired, I am Biriyai Dambo (SAN) the Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice Bayelsa State.
On the boundary issue, if you could recall sometime in 2012 or 2009 precisely, Rivers State took Bayelsa State to the Supreme Court where they invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and sued Bayelsa State in respect of the boundary, on the premise that the boundary between Rivers and Bayelsa States is Santa Barbara, while Bayelsa State claims that the boundary is St. Bartholomew.
But I can recall that there had been areas administrative maps, the then current administrative map was the 11th administrative map, which gave the boundary or which delineated the boundary between Rivers and Bayelsa States at St. Bartholomew.
And there are a lot of records to show.that that is the right position of the boundary.
It would be recalled again, while the Rivers people call it "Soku" the Bayelsa people call it "Oluasiri". And if you look at the Oil Wells we are talking about, they are in Oluasiri and not even in Soku.
From Oluasiri Nembe of Bayelsa State to the Oil Wells is just a stone throw, but from Soku of Kalabari to the same Oil Wells takes about an hour so, on what basis are they now claiming that the Oil Wells belong to them.?
Let me go back to the case filed by the Rivers State Government on the 10th of July 2012.
I could remember, I was even in thàt team.
Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) represent Bayelsa and Fagbemi (SAN) represented Rivers State in that case. You see, at the end of the day, what the Supreme Court said was that the action was premature and strucked out the case and pronounced that the National Boundary Commission which has the responsibility to delineate boundaries within the entire country should go back and delineate the appropriate boundary for the two sister states. "...the Supreme Court cannot now relocate to that place, so they had to rely on whatever the boundary Commission comes up with as the result or position by the National Boundary Commission."
And that was what transpired, so the status-quo was maintained, St Bartholomew was still recognized as the actual boundary, and the funds.were still being paid to Bayelsa State from 2012, up until the 16th of September, 2019 when surreptitiously Rivers State went to Federal High Court and obtained a judgement by sueing the National Boundary Commission without joining Bayelsa State who is the party actually affected by any decision that would have come up from that.
They sued Bayelsa State, they got judgement against the National Boundary Commission and now wanted to enforce that judgement against Bayelsa State Government.
"You cannot save a man's face at his back" that is what Abiola said, you see!
So, let me say, what was the purport of the judgement? It was quite funny, and a surprise, that the Federal High Court to come up with that kind of judgement, what was it, that there was a letter written by National Boundary Commission on the 3rd of July, 2002 allegedly admitting that they made a mistake in the 11th adminstrative map which gave the boundary between both States at St. Batholomew.
So, they said that letter stipulated that there was a mistake in the 11th adminstrative map, and as a result of that seeming mistake alleged mistake, that the boundary between Rivers and Bayelsa is now St. Batholomew, that was what the judge said.
He deemed that mistake now in favour of Rivers State, because if you look at it, even that letter came up before the supreme Court, it came up, it was in the judgement but there was no pronouncement, they just said there was a mistake, and that alleged mistake does not presuppose that if the Boundary Adjustment Commission goes back, it will now move the boundary from St. Bartholomew to Santa Babara which Rivers State is now alleging.
That seeming admission they were talking about, I mean the judge was talking about, was not in it's true sense an admission to say that the boundary has been moved from St. Batholomew to Santa Barbara there was no prouncement like that.
Ques: You said when Rivers State sued Bayelsa State at the Supreme Court in 2009, 2012 'the Supreme Court made a declaration on the boundary matter that the status quo should be maintained', is it in the legal system that a lower court such as a Federal High Court has tha power to retry a case concluded by the Supreme Court?
Ans: You see, it's not it's not done. It's like an anatema, it's not trite in law, but Rivers did. They wanted to be smarter by that, but what they did was because they knew that if they had joined Bayelsa State, in that suit, the Federal High Court wouldn't have had jurisdiction, it would have been a matter between the two states, the matter would have gone back to the supreme Court, and you know what the Supreme Court would have done?
The supreme Court would have lambasted them, and said that well, we had told you to go and do something, have you done it?
So, what Rivers State did, was that they did not join Bayelsa, they now went to the Federal High Court and got that judgement.
Ques: They went to the court with the boundary Commission isn't it?
Ans: Yes!, they went to the Federal High Court with the Boundary Commission, which of origin had a court judgement premissed on the letter of 3rd of July 2002, the court now pronounced that since, the National Boundary Commission had said there was a mistake on the administrative map they are now deeming that letter as the basis to now say the boundary is Santa Barbara, that the boundary between Rivers and Bayelsa is now Santa Barbara and that the National Boundary Commission should go and correct it in the 12th administrative map, is that done?
When they had not gone to the field, so like I said, you cannot save a man's head at his back.
This thing came to the knowledge of Bayelsa after the judgement was delivered, Bayelsa did not know anything. So Bayelsa immediately went to Court, filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal if initially we brought our application at the Federal High Court as to join as an interested party, and a motion was filed for stay, but you know the thing was delayed for a very long time, so we now went to the Court of Appeal to file similar application. Even after filing this application on the face of the law, and looking at the high position of the law, when an application of stay is before a Court whether the application has been granted or not, there is victorious authority to show that parties must maintain status quo, but instead of that, we don't know what happened, whether it was pressure or whatever the Revenue mobilization Commission was insistent on executing that judgement on behalf of Rivers State Government on paying the funds, derived from the federation account to Rivers State.
So, the Bayelsa State Government said No! It was on that basis, we even wrote to the Federal Revenue mobilization Commission, giving them the legal position that look, something like this cannot be done. This matter is Lispendis, is in court and there is a motion for stay, so there is no basis for you to pay .
When we saw that all these efforts were not yielding fruits, we now had to invoke the original jurisdiction by approaching the supreme Court by sueing the Federation which is represented by the Attorney General of the Federation, we sued both the Attorney General and the Rivers State, that was how that matter came about.
So, it was because of the pressure, and it paid up because what now happened, the Revenue Allocation Commission could not make the payment to Rivers State, so they now sat back and instead, what they did was that the they escrowed the source, which was not good enough, because they are still infracting the law, but good enough they didn't pay the money to Rivers State, but it's not good enough for us.
So, when we went to the supreme Court, this is where I want people to know, that the fact that we went to the Supreme Court does not mean that the procedures we took was totally out of place, the procedure is yielding result, because the funds were not paid to Rivers State, but escrowed. So, I want people to get it clear that the Supreme Court did not say that it does not have jurisdiction to try that matter, but what the Supreme Court said was that look, "..there was already a matter pending at the Court of Appeal, now you have asked for some reliefs that have some bearing to that initial judgement which the Federal High Court granted, for which you have filed for a stay, now if we grant your reliefs in the Supreme Court, what happens to that matter which is pending at the Court of Appeal, then we will be overreaching the Court of Appeal."
And now even at the end of the day, if the Court of Appeal comes up with any other judgement contrary to what the Supreme Court will give it all means that the judgement will become an academic exercise, and more so the subject matter of both cases still bother on that Federal High Court judgement.'
But, you see, the way we look at it was that we are now sueing the Federation and the Attorney General of the Federation, all the agencies of goverment under the Federation.
So, what we wanted to do is that the Federation now be restrained, so when we restrained the Federation, we are restraining all the other agencies including the Revenue mobilization allocation Commission from doing anything, because they were insisting on doing what is not trite in law.
Ques: Are you saying, Rivers State was trying to pass through the back door?
Ans: Yes! through the back door, exactly what I wanted to tell you today is that this is an issue that if Rivers State had co-operated, from the unset by complying with the directives of the National Boundary Commission in 2012 that both parties should come to a round table so that all the parties can go and then abide by the directives of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, by going back there to properly delineate so that the 12th administrative map, the proper position could have come out.
But you know, Rivers State knew that it wouldn't have favoured them so they avoided it, because the position is clear that the documents and everything are in favour of Bayelsa State.
Ques: You mean you have the relevant documents, to win the case?
Ans: Yes! we have pletora of documents, Nembe has pletora of documents. Rivers and Bayelsa are sister states and we shouldn't wash our dirty linings in public. What we are doing right now is showing the whole world, that two states which are sister states, are now having issues, issues that can be resolved amicably.
So, that is the position if you look at it, if the National Boundary Commission had done it's job there wouldn't be any need for all this imbroglio. All these things are happening to us, because we are taking ourselves to Court.
Ques: This is 24 years since Bayelsa was created out of Rivers State, but the National Boundary Commission is yet to demarcate or delineate the boundary between the two sister states, is the delay not politically motivated?
Ans: I wouldn't want to hold forth for them, but to be fair, the National Boundary Commission as an agency of government, when the Supreme Court came up with that pronouncement on the 10th of July 2012, they were willing to work.
They went to both States, that we should come, that was 2013, they said, both States should come so that they will do the needful and determine the true position of the boundary, but Rivers State refused, Rivers State frustrated the process.
Ques: Wasn't that the regime of Rotimi Amaechi as Governor and Tele Ikuru as deputy Governor and deputy Governor of Rivers State?
Ans: Yes! it was Amaechi's regime, they frustrated everything. So we are surprised that Rivers State being a sister state surreptitiously went behind us
and got such a judgement and wanted to execute the judgement against Bayelsa State, is not proper, we.are brothers, we are sister states.
Que: Hon. Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, it had been widely orchestrated that some Oil Wells and boundary communities of Oluasiri in Bayelsa State were being attributed or transferred to Rivers State in judgement by a Federal High Court. What is your reaction to that?
Ans: The Oluasiri people have been where they are from time immemorial.
These Oil Wells if you look at it as I have already said, are in Oluasiri. Even if you look at the demography, you will see that the disputed Oil Wells are in Oluasiri. There is no pronouncement today, that's why I want even the common man and those that actually understand the intricacies or the legal implications of all these Court matters to understand that "OLUASIRI" as Bayelsa calls it, and "SOKU" as Rivers people calls it, had not ceded to Rivers State; emphasis had not ceded a drop of Oil from the Oluasiri Oil Wells or an inch of the land of Nembe in Bayelsa State to Rivers State on account of the boundary Court cases between the two sister states.
Monies are not being paid to Rivers State.
This matter is still lispendi (still in Court) so we should be patient and they should be patient.
At the end of the day this miracle goverment, a government that is all about God and the people, the beneficiaries of these Oil Wells which is Oluasiri in Bayelsa State will smile at the end of the day.
We are not pertubed at all, we are not worried about all these legal 'gragra' or jargons, but we will get to the nitty gritty of the matter, and by the time we get to the nitty gritty of the matter things will begin unfolding that we have documents, we have evidence, undisputable evidence, historic facts to establish our case, and we shall so establish.
One thing I will tell Bayelsans is that the Governor of the State, the miracle Governor is very much in this whole affair. He has put his heart and soul into it, because he knows that the disputed boundary area belongs to Bayelsa State and that is why he said he is going to do everything possible within his powers to ensure that this matter is not handled with kid gloves.
So, we are putting everything in place to ensure that at the end of the day we sustain our land, it's our land, because if we don't sustain it, our forefathers will never forgive us.
For this boundary matter, the Governor of Bayelsa State, Senator Douye Diri has shown desirable sincere commitment, and as a listening and open minded Governor, he wants the boundary matter resolved.
So, Bayelsans shouldn't be scared because the matter is under control.
Golden Pen: On that note, we want to thank you sincerely for having time with us on this special interview.
AG/CJ Thank you!
No comments:
Post a Comment