Watering Trouble: Case Against Vexatious Water Bill

Watering Trouble: Case Against Vexatious Water Bill

The 13th version of the controversial water bill has returned to the twin legislative chambers of the national assembly for consideration by the legislators. This time, the executive bill has the most potent force as opposition from the governor’s forum amongst other Nigerians and organisations against the bill.

The grouse of the governors was that the bill sought to usurp their powers, as guaranteed by the constitution of Nigeria, over land assets within their states. Therefore, they would not support the bill intended to manage the water asset of Nigeria for the benefit of the population. Of serious concern to the governors in the bill was the fact that it would “ensure that the nation’s inter-state water resources are protected, used, developed, conserved, managed and controlled” by the commission.

This position was communicated through a communique from its fifth teleconference meeting. The Nigerian Governors’ Forum surmised their reservation on the bill thus: “The bill does not adequately address interests of the states and is inconsistent with provisions of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The 36 states governors, who were unanimous in their reservations towards the bill, feared that the bill, if passed, would undermine the constitutionally guaranteed powers of the states over land assets and management on behalf of their residents. The 36 states, therefore, insist that for them to consider supporting the bill, it “should be reviewed, with a view to accommodating the concerns of all states.”

Checks showed that the framers of the bill in section 1(3) states that: “In implementing the principles under subsection (2) of this section, the institutions established under this bill shall promote Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and the coordinated management of: incidental economic development, social welfare and environmental sustainability; land and water resources; surface water and groundwater resources and the river basins and adjacent marine and coastal environment.” This no doubt, would promote harmonious management of the national water asset for the citizenry.

It appeared the contentious content of the bill could be sighted in its section 2 (1), which proposed that: “The right to the use, management and control of all surface and groundwater affecting more than one state pursuant to item 64 of the exclusive legislative list in part 1 of the second schedule to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, and as set out in the first schedule to this bill is vested in the government of the federation to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this bill.”

Subsection (2) of the bill further proposed that “States may make provisions for the use, management and control of water resources occurring solely within the boundaries of the State in line with regulations and guidelines made pursuant to this bill on policy and principles of IWRM.” This remained an issue of concern to state governors, which they want expunged from the bill.

At a press conference to unveil the benefits of the bill to Nigerians over the water assets, the Minister of water resources, Suleiman Adamu, had dismissed this view that the bill would whittle down the powers of the governors over their sovereignty on land assets.

Instead, he said the bill, which sought to ensure the rights of Nigerians to water usage for domestic purposes and whittled the power of the minister, who would be a member of the water commission represented by the 36 states and regional representatives.

Adamu said, by the prescription of the bill, the minister of water resources would cede powers to the water commission, which must grant approval to activities in the sector as against unilateral and discretionary powers, presently enjoyed by the minister.

This, Adamu maintained was of less importance, as the bill proposed in its opening on the “Objective and entitlement of use of water” Section (1) 2a which reads: “The institutions established under this bill shall be guided by the following principles in achieving the objective set out in subsection 1 of this section.”

Findings by the Nigerian Tribune showed that the water bill has been listed on www.change.org, an online petition platform entitled: “Kill the 2022 water resources bill.” It has gained over 8,182 signatures of Nigerians calling for the death of the bill with less than 2000 more signatures to meet the target of 10,000 signatures it has set for online mobilisation against the bill.

Why the opposition to the bill, clause 2(2) of the controversial water bill provides that: States may make provisions for the use, management and control of water resources occurring solely within the boundaries of the state, in line with regulations and guidelines made pursuant to this bill on policy and principles of IWRM.

The principle of IWRM placed the authority of water in the hands of the federal government and is situated on the water asset management with recognition of the peculiarity of the respective authority. In his reaction to the water bill, an independent development expert, Mr. Kolawole Banwo, tasked the federal government to connect to the peculiarities in the country and ensure it reflected on the bill. According to him, while water bodies could traverse more than one state; in some cases with their attendant risk and opportunities, it behooves on the presiding authorities to sit together and resolve the issue rather than having a centralized control of the bill.

Banwo maintained that the bill should recognise powers of these states to come together for any decision it may want to take on such water bodies, this will eliminate the suspicion by the governors and others in relation to the bill, which he said offered better water management for the nation.

In the bill, clause 3(1) provides that: “A person may be without a license: take water from a water source to which the public has free access for the use of his household or for watering domestic livestock; use water for the purposes of subsistence fishing or for navigation to the extent that such use is not inconsistent with this bill or any other existing law; where a statutory or customary right of occupancy to any land exists, take or use water without charge from the underground water source, or if abutting the bank of any watercourse, from that water course, for reasonable household use watering livestock and for personal irrigation not for commercial purposes; or store and use runoff water from a roof .

The independent expert maintained that access to water is a human right, drawn from the common heritage of humankind and because water can reside anywhere, clean or contaminated, it was good to have a mechanism to manage it. However, the issue has been the centralization of control. The federal government should engage with states for a deeper understanding and clarity of the controversial issues around the control of water assets, and who would be the approving authority.

The grouse by many Nigerians and for which it expected the Minister, Adamu and his team to explain succinctly to Nigerians are the following sections of the bill. Its clause 3(2) it says: “A person may continue with an existing lawful water use, including a customary use, in accordance with part V of this bill”, while clause 3(3) provides that: “A person may use water in terms of a general authorisation as defined in section 72 or pursuant to a license issued under this bill.”

“Any entitlement granted to a person by or under this bill supersedes any right to use water which that person might otherwise have been able to enjoy or enforce under any other law to: (a) take or use water; (b) obstruct or divert a flow of water; and (c) affect the quality of any water; (d) receive any particular flow of water; (e) receive a flow of water of any particular quality; or (f) construct, operate or maintain any waterworks,” the bill states.

Efforts to get an explanation from the ministry on these contentious clauses failed as the Director and Head of Media and Publicity in the ministry, Kenechukwu in a text message said: “The resource persons are not in town. We are waiting for them to come into Abuja. I understand they will have a meeting next week, (this week).