…asks NGF to sue NNPCL over non-remittance of $23.1bn NLNG dividends into Federation Account
In this interview by LASISI OLAGUNJU, human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, speaks on the state of the nation, the erosion of democratic values and the future of democracy in Nigeria.
Sir, you’ve been around for a long time. At what point did you decide to read Law and what was the motivation? How fulfilled are you today as a lawyer?
I entered the university of Ife in September 1977 to study English language with a view to becoming a journalist. I thought that journalism would arm me with the vital tools to expose injustice in the society. But in my first year in the university, we had a student protest against the commercialisation of education by the Olusegun Obasanjo military regime. It was a popular protest. The regime reacted violently by unleashing violence on unarmed protesters. Student leaders were dismissed. Radical lecturers were sacked. Even the lawyer of the National Union of Nigerian Students (NUNS), Chief Gani Fawehinmi, was arrested and charged with stealing his own camera. Fortunately, Comrade Alao Aka-Bashorun was the chairman of the Lagos Bar Association at the material time. In that capacity, he mobilised the entirety of Lagos lawyers to defend Chief Fawehinmi. The military regime was disgraced as the frivolous charge was struck out while the defendant was discharged. I was impressed by the public-spirited roles of both Aka-Bashorun and Gani. In my study of Marxism, I also discovered that Vladimir Lenin, Leonard Boudin, Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo were radical lawyers. I made up my mind that I was going to join the tribe of revolutionary lawyers.
I have collaborated with progressive colleagues to use the law to defend the rights of the victims of injustice in Nigeria and other African countries. We have ensured that Nigerians are no longer detained without trial. From time to time, we challenge the illegal arrest and detention of citizens. We secure freedom for them. We have made representations to the appropriate authorities in Africa to grant pardon to over 320 convicts. We have saved the lives of scores of people who were convicted and sentenced to death. No doubt, our law firm has upheld the rights of oppressed people to access the courts to secure their political and civil rights. Based on our legal submissions, the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights in Arusha, Tanzania has upheld the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination. Even though the court was established in 2006, I am the only Nigerian lawyer who appears there. When I was the president of the West African Bar Association, we successfully campaigned for the expansion of the mandate of the Ecowas Court to empower it to hear human rights abuse that occurs in any of the member state of Ecowas. I am however pained to note that Nigerian citizens who are victims of violent attacks in African countries have been denied access to the African court. It is common knowledge that Nigerians are attacked and even killed in South Africa without any legal challenge. Because the Federal Government has failed to recognise the African Court, we are inhibited in challenging the failure of the Cyril Ramaphosa administration to stop the xenophobic attacks unleashed on African migrants, including Nigerians. No doubt, we have won some socio-economic rights of the people but the judgments have not been fully complied with. To that extent, I am not fulfilled as we have not succeeded in using the law to change the society to substantially improve the lives of the African people. Apart from allowing the IMF and World Bank to impose anti-people economic policies on African governments, the resources of Africa are being mined and expropriated by Western and Chinese companies at give-away prices.
There is an ongoing back and forth between Oyo State governor and the Federal Government on NLNG dividends to the Federation Account. You raised a similar issue three years ago. Why do you think the matter has remained unresolved sir?
With profound respect, the positions of Governor Seyi Makinde and the Presidency have not settled the crisis of federalism involved in the illegal diversion of the dividends payable to the Federation Account. While Governor Seyi Makinde’s claim that every state is entitled to N250 billion is rather misleading, the claim of the Presidency that NLNG has paid roughly $21.5 billion in total cumulative dividends over its history, with less than $3 billion received under the Tinubu administration is not correct. It is however good that the governor decided to draw public attention to the unresolved political and economic crisis arising from the decision to pocket the dividends from the NLNG destined for the Federation Account.
According to the NLNG, it has remitted $10.8 billion in taxes to the Federal Government of Nigeria since it became tax-compliant in 2009. The NLNG has also generated about $149.6 billion in revenue and distributed $47.2 billion in total dividends across all four shareholders. Out of the said sum, the NNPCL received and diverted the $23.1 billion dividend based on the 49 percent stake of Nigeria in the NLNG. In other words, the NNPCL which represents the government on the board of the NLNG has refused to remit the dividends to the Federation Account in total violation of section 162(1) of the Constitution of Nigeria. The National Assembly, National Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission have repeatedly called on the NNPCL to remit the dividends to the Federation Account. Those calls have fallen on deaf ears since 1999. We had advised state governors to sue the NNPCL for the recovery of their share from the dividends but the Nigeria Governors Forum has been reluctant to confront the NNPCL. Apart from directing the NNPCL to refund the dividends of $23.1 billion for distribution by the three tiers of government in line with section 162 of the Constitution, it is high time the NLNG was made to remit the dividends earned by Nigeria to the Federation Account without going through the NNPCL.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has called for the return of fuel subsidy while the Federal Government has insisted that fuel subsidy would not be brought back. What is your view on fuel subsidy?
With respect to the management of the economy, the APC, ADC and NDC are birds of a feather. The leaders of these political parties campaigned for removal of fuel subsidy. And when President Tinubu announced that fuel subsidy was gone, Messrs Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi commended him. Apart from Omoyele Sowore, Donald Duke, Adebayo, the other presidential candidates have swallowed hook, line and sinker the policy of the APC on the removal of fuel subsidies. The question that is not being asked by political leaders is how Nigeria got to this mess. For about two decades, the Federal Government spent between $18 and $25 billion on the turnaround maintenance of the four publicly owned refineries. In 2021, the Buhari administration approved $2.9 billion for the rehabilitation of the four refineries. Thereafter, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited was directed by the government to invest $2.6 billion to acquire 20 percent in the Dangote Refinery. Mr. Aliko Dangote has said that the Federal Government has only 7 percent shares because the NNPCL invested only $1 billion. The NNPCL has not explained how Nigeria was shortchanged in the acquisition of the shares. In his inauguration address of May 29, 2023, President Tinubu administration announced that subsidy was gone. At the same time, it merged the dual foreign exchange policy and embarked on massive devaluation of the national currency. Under these IMF and World Bank approved programmes, the price of fuel jumped from N97 to N1,400 per litre. Owing to the impact of PMS in the running of the Nigerian economy, the prices of other goods and services increased. At the same time, the government stopped subsidising social services while new taxes were introduced. In implementing these dangerous neoliberal policies, the number of multi-dimensionally poor people increased phenomenally. The national minimum wage of N70,000 per month and the poverty alleviation policies of the government were destroyed by devaluation and inflation.
It is true that the government was spending about $10 billion per annum to fund the fuel subsidy scam. The defunct Directorate of Petroleum Resources said that Nigerians were consuming 38 million litres of petrol. The NNPCL was collecting funds for 102 million litres per day. The Nigerian Customs Service publicly challenged the NNPCL to prove that 900 tankers were smuggling fuel out of Nigeria daily. That challenge was never taken up by the NNPCL. Instead of announcing that fuel subsidy was gone, President Bola Tinubu ought to have caused the fraud to be investigated. It is still not late to probe the monumental fraud. In the past, the government allocated 450,000 barrels of crude oil per day for domestic consumption. When the production figure was barely 1 million per day, the allocation was said to have been committed elsewhere. The finance minister has just confirmed that Nigeria currently produces 1.8 million barrels of crude oil per day. What stops the government from allocating 350,000 barrels per day for domestic consumption? That will give the NNPCL not less than 55 million litres of petrol per day in addition to derivatives like jet fuel, diesel and kerosene. The daily consumption of PMS is less than 50 million litres. The 350 barrels will be refined locally and sold to Nigerians instead of asking them to pay landing costs for fuel imported from other countries. The government had once announced plans to refund crude oil locally but the World Bank insisted on fuel import. Since then, the government has not explained why fuel consumed in Nigeria cannot be refined locally. This is the crux of the matter.
At the recent ITV and Radio Pre-Independence Lecture, you defined the Nigerian dream as one of dignity, opportunity, justice and accountable government. Looking at the cost of living, unemployment, insecurity and declining public services today, is that dream still attainable under the present political order, or does Nigeria require a fundamental restructuring?
The Nigerian dream, as I have defined it, is a dream of dignity, opportunity, justice and accountable government. Unfortunately, that dream has been shattered by the failure of successive governments to discharge their fundamental responsibilities to the Nigerian people. Today, millions of Nigerians are struggling to feed, educate and provide shelter for their families. Unemployment is widespread, insecurity has become a serious threat to life and property, and access to essential public services is increasingly beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. These conditions are incompatible with the promise of independence and the aspirations of a democratic society.
However, I do not believe that the Nigerian dream is unattainable. It is possible to realiseit, but certainly not through the continuation of the same policies, economic arrangements and political practices that have brought the country to its present predicament. The realisation of that dream requires the mobilisation of Nigerians, particularly workers, students, farmers, artisans and other oppressed people to challenge the structures that perpetuate poverty, inequality and underdevelopment. Such mobilisation must be directed against both external forces of economic domination and their local lackeys who facilitate the exploitation of the country’s resources at the expense of its people. The fundamental objectives of government must cease to be mere constitutional declarations. They must become practical realities in the lives of citizens. These objectives include popular democracy, the security and welfare of the people, access to quality and affordable education, accessible healthcare, decent housing, employment opportunities and the protection of human dignity. A country cannot meaningfully claim to be democratic when its citizens possess the right to vote but are denied the material conditions necessary to live decent lives.
Fundamentally, the problem is not simply a shortage of resources; it is also the absence of the political will to deploy those resources for the common good. The ruling class has demonstrated a disturbing lack of vision in addressing the structural causes of poverty, insecurity and inequality. Where a political order consistently fails to meet the basic needs of the majority, a fundamental transformation becomes imperative. What Nigeria requires, therefore, is not merely a change of personalities in government but a transformation of the political and economic order. Nigerians must be mobilised to demand a genuinely popular democracy founded on social justice, economic sovereignty, accountability and equitable distribution of national wealth. In that sense, a revolution is certainly called for—not necessarily a violent upheaval, but a profound, people-driven transformation of the institutions, policies and power relations that have frustrated the aspirations of the Nigerian people. The Nigerian dream can still be realised, but it will not be delivered as a gift by the ruling class. It must be secured through organised popular struggle, democratic participation and the determination of Nigerians to insist that the country belongs to all its citizens, not merely to those who occupy positions of political and economic power.
With the 2027 general election approaching, what must INEC do differently to convince Nigerians that votes will be counted, results will be transparently transmitted and the declared winners will truly reflect the choices made at the polling units?
INEC is not alone in bearing responsibility for credible elections. Political parties must respect electoral rules; security agencies must remain impartial; the courts must resolve disputes consistently and expeditiously; and citizens must be able to participate without fear or inducement. Vote-buying, voter intimidation, electoral violence and the use of public resources to secure partisan advantage can undermine the freedom of the voter even where the figures are accurately collated. The Osun experience therefore demonstrates both the importance of transparent result management and the need for more effective enforcement against vote-buying and voter inducement. Security agencies must protect voters without becoming instruments of political coercion, while prosecuting authorities must take credible allegations of electoral offences seriously. The Commission must strengthen its accountability mechanisms. Political parties, candidates, accredited observers and the public should have meaningful access to relevant electoral information, subject to lawful safeguards. Any discrepancy in election results must be capable of independent verification, and complaints of electoral misconduct must be investigated promptly. Electoral officers who deliberately compromise the process should face appropriate disciplinary and criminal consequences. INEC must address recurring problems of inadequate preparation, technological failures, logistical difficulties and the late deployment of electoral materials. These are not minor administrative inconveniences. They can disenfranchise voters, create opportunities for malpractice and undermine the legitimacy of the entire exercise. The Commission must test its technological infrastructure well in advance, publish clear operational guidelines, train electoral personnel and establish transparent procedures for dealing with technical failures. Results recorded at polling units must remain the primary reference point for verifying what eventually emerges at collation centres. Where electronic transmission is required by law, the Commission must establish reliable systems and clear procedures that prevent manipulation, unauthorised alteration or unexplained discrepancies between polling-unit results and declared outcomes INEC should build on the positive aspects of the Osun experience as it prepares for the 2027 general election. The Commission must demonstrate institutional independence, professional competence and a willingness to hold all political parties and candidates to the requirements of the law, irrespective of their political influence.
You warned that conflicting judgments by courts of coordinate jurisdiction on INEC’s powers could sabotage the 2027 elections. With some courts apparently disregarding binding precedents, how much faith do you still have in the judiciary as the final guardian of electoral justice, and who should be held accountable when judges deliver irreconcilable decisions on substantially identical questions.
The judiciary occupies a central position in a constitutional democracy because it is entrusted with the responsibility of interpreting the law, protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that public authorities act within the limits of their powers. Nevertheless, the authority of the judiciary cannot rest solely on the fact that judges wear judicial robes. It must rest on the integrity of judicial reasoning, consistency in the application of the law, fidelity to binding precedents and the confidence of the people that justice is being administered impartially. My concern is not that judges may occasionally disagree on difficult questions of law. Judicial disagreement is inevitable in a functioning legal system. The concern arises when courts of coordinate jurisdiction deliver irreconcilable decisions on substantially identical questions without any legally sustainable distinction, particularly where those decisions concern the powers of INEC and the administration of elections. Such contradictions create uncertainty, encourage forum shopping and expose the electoral process to manipulation by litigants who seek a favourable judicial order rather than a lawful resolution of their disputes. As we approach the 2027 general election, the judiciary must not become an arena in which competing political interests seek contradictory orders capable of frustrating the electoral timetable or undermining the authority of the electoral commission. I nevertheless retain faith in the possibility of judicial reform and in the many judges who continue to discharge their responsibilities with courage and integrity. But faith in the judiciary must not be confused with an obligation to excuse misconduct or institutional failure. Respect for the judicial institution requires us to insist that it meets the standards expected of it under the Constitution. The legal profession also has a responsibility. Lawyers must not encourage judge-shopping, conceal binding authorities or exploit procedural loopholes to procure contradictory orders. The Bar must defend the independence of the judiciary while insisting on professional discipline and ethical conduct. The ultimate objective is not to weaken the judiciary but to restore and strengthen its credibility. Judicial independence must be accompanied by judicial responsibility.
