Saturday, 12 November 2011
BOOK: Glossary of Nenwe Names
Saturday, 3 September 2011
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Presidential poll null and void – Onovo, AA candidate
From AKIN ALOFETEKUN, Minna
Saturday, April 30, 2011
| • Onovo Photo: Sun News Publishing |
Even though the April 16 Presidential Election result, as declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission) INEC was described as no victor no vanquished by President Goodluck Jonathan, who was declared winner, the Action Alliance (AA) is having a different opinion following its feeling of exclusion in the exercise.
According to its presidential candidate, Engr. Martin Onovo, the fact that INEC unilaterally excluded not only his name from the presidential election, but also all candidates of the party in all elective positions across the country, impinged on the credibility of the exercise.
In this interview, Onovo expresses his party’s grievances over its exclusion by INEC.
What is your assessment of INEC performance in the elections?
INEC performance is completely unacceptable because it was marred by several deviations and inadequacies. The most important and fundamental deviation is the lawlessness of INEC, which deliberately, mischievously and corruptly violated the laws govern elections in Nigeria particularly the electoral act.
What are you saying? How did INEC violate the laws that govern elections?
The first thing is that we have to know what the Electoral Act says. The electoral Act says INEC has no authority to exclude candidates nominated by political party. Prof. Attahiru Jega, the INEC chairman had, in one of his press conferences before the election, reiterated the same, saying that unless there was a court order restraining any candidate, INEC cannot reject candidate of any political party. Now, there is no court order against the candidates of Action Alliance, but INEC went ahead and excluded all Action Alliance candidates for all positions across the country from the National Assembly elections to that of the Presidency. INEC excluded all Action Alliance candidates in the elections with no exception. Also, INEC violated the laws of election finance limit by permitting the incumbent to fund electioneering or campaign with questionable funds, which was well beyond the limit set by law. This is a fundamental requirement for free, fair and credible elections. In addition to that, our party Action Alliance, went to court, in its normal compliance with the rule of law and got a court order, which directed INEC to list its candidates to participate in the National Assembly election, but INEC violated that order and refused to list the party’s candidates.
We have another case in court against INEC, and while the case was pending, INEC went ahead and conducted elections, which also excluded candidates of Action Alliance. INEC has, therefore, violated very fundamental and significant laws for free, fair and credible elections, and has continued to maintain itself as lawless having conducted a charade, which it’s pretending to be an election and that charade is morally and legally null and void. With the unlawful exclusion of all Action Alliance candidates in the entire country, the obvious bias of INEC, which was documented by the conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP) in a protest letter signed by Willy Ezeugwe, the gross violation of the Electoral Act particularly on election finance limit, violation of court orders, wild spread rigging by falsification of results, fraudulent, corrupt and unlawful proxy voting, abuse of the military and the law enforcement agents and collation fraud made the entire exercise unlawful and illegal to be acceptable.
President Goodluck Jonathan and INEC chairman, prior to the election, pledged to ensure free, fair and credible polls. In your opinion, did they redeem that pledge ?
The first fundamental requirement for free, fair and credible elections, as I said before, is compliance with the law. The law is the basis of the human socio-political elections. The law is the fundamental basis and if the foundation is destroyed, what can the righteous do? No person, in his right senses, can describe the elections as free, fair and credible. In the presidential election, for example, the Social Democratic Mega Party (SDMP) had a court order against it and its candidate withdrew, but it was listed in the ballot paper, even though its candidate withdrew. But Action Alliance that has no court order against it was not listed in the ballot paper, and this is how Nigeria has continued to dysfunction in a very incomprehensible manner and we cannot continue to tolerate this. The promise of the president and that of the INEC chairman are obviously established as false promises. The election, therefore, is not acceptable because it is null and void in law and in morality.
Are there other ways you believe Prof Jega and INEC got it wrong?
The whole process was wrong, from the inception of voters registration exercise and starting with the use of old same staff that Prof. Maurice Iwu, immediate past INEC chairman and Jega, who was a consultant in 2007, used. The same old staff that were used in 2007 by the old INEC, which Prof. Jega was, however, part and parcel of are also being used in the current elections without anyone being redeployed or reassigned. These were the same people who committed treasonable offence against this country in what they called 2007 elections, which the major beneficiary the late President Umar Yar’Adua described as fraud. This same people were allowed to participate in the preparation and conduct of the 2011 elections.
So from the very beginning and from the deceit of direct capture machines, which INEC claimed would stop people from multiple registration but which had no capacity to do that, even though it was restated by Prof Jega himself to the Senate but it was a misleading position and claim which would have made him resign if it were in other countries. But he did not resign; rather he went ahead and committed many more fundamental and unacceptable atrocities from the point of view of the law, such as ignoring completely the law about election finance limit because it favoured the incumbent president, who has access to state resources. INEC also completely ignored the law about exclusion and he went ahead deliberately to pre-rig the election by excluding the candidates of Action Alliance. But if we had gone behind or had struck a deal with the incumbent, I am pretty sure that the Action Alliance would have been included in the ballot. The CNPP wrote a formal protest letter signed by Willy Ezeugwu about INEC bias and it not being clearly independent. How can you, therefore, have free, fair and credible election when the umpire is not independent? How can, for example, Rangers International Football Club play against Rancha Bees when a Rangers fan is the referee? So the whole election was fundamentally flawed from the very beginning.
Why would INEC remove the name of your party?
Well, I would have asked you to go to INEC to find out, but I will tell you what I know, which is that our national chairman Senator Suleman Salawu, went with all our nominations on January 31, 2011 by 2pm to INEC office for submission and obtain clearance. INEC received the nominations on that day but failed to issue clearance, stating, later in the day, that we were late. How could we have been late at 2pm on January 31? As the matter was believed to have been settled, INEC published in several newspapers that 11 political parties, including Action Alliance, had been admitted. In Saturday Sun Newspaper of February 5th 2011 with the caption: 8 parties shut out of April polls. In that report, INEC clearly stated that 11parties had been admitted and those 11 parties included Action Alliance. So INEC has been inconsistent with its own stories.
The same INEC subsequently claimed that there are factions in our party. None of these allegations of INEC, to say the fact, is true, even as INEC itself has not be able to substantiate or prove any beyond reasonable doubt. The most annoying part of the whole thing is that INEC corruptly sponsored a Phantom faction of known members of PDP. If you go to INEC website, including the updated one, you will find out that it clearly lists Senator Suleman Salawu as the national chairman of Action Alliance (AA), who was the very person that went with all our nominations for all positions numbering about 89, including that of the presidential candidate, which is myself and that of several governorship, senatorial and other national and state Houses of Assembly candidates to INEC office for submission.
The so-called INEC has inconsistently and corruptly continued to change its own stories from alleging that we were late to saying that there are factions in our party and by sponsoring known members of the ruling party to claim that they are faction of our party. None of these groups that claim to be factions of our party has neither secretariat, office or candidates.
INEC deliberately decided to exclude every credible candidate from the election, even as some of the so-called opposition are spurious parties sponsored by the ruling party that are used to legitimise fraud. Immediately after the election, they would shout it was free and fair and that they have conceded defeat, which is what they are sponsored for. If Action Alliance had agreed to play such role, we wouldn’t have been excluded.
What measures have the leadership of Action Alliance taken to make INEC realise its disapproval of such exclusion?
The leadership of the party has taken many steps. The first was that on February 2, 2011, we wrote a formal protest letter to INEC chairman complaining about the attempt to exclude all our candidates in the election. This letter, which we have the acknowledgment copy has not been replied till date. Again, we had had several meetings with INEC leadership, three of which I participated in these meetings, we had agreed with INEC leadership that our nominations would be accepted with clearance issued, which, however, INEC never redeemed. Again on February 18, we filed a suit against INEC and as the National Assembly elections were approaching; we went to court again and got an order directing INEC to list our candidates and allow them to participate in the National Assembly elections but INEC violated this court order. Is that not lawlessness? Every society is built on laws, except in a jungle where there is no law and where might is right. There can be no free, fair and credible elections outside the law. The definition of free and fair is as established in law. So once the laws are violating, you are outside the boundaries of free and fair election. Therefore, what INEC has organized is not an election but an unlawful charade, a treasonable waste of public resources that amount to economic sabotage and treasonable felony. That is what INEC has done and it is completely unacceptable.
What is the possibility of justice prevailing in this case?
Justice will prevail. I can tell you this. Slavery was defeated; colonialism was defeated; racism was defeated; apartheid was defeated and this’ criminocratic’ system will equally be defeated; you can be sure of that. We are going to pursue justice until we get it.
The involvement of members of the academia in the elections has been commended by a cross-section of Nigerians. In your own view, what impact did their involvement make in the entire electoral process?
Well, to me, their participation did not make any meaning or special impact, only that they are qualified to participate because we do not believe in occupational bias. The people who have qualified to hold those positions, irrespective of occupation, can hold them and act according to the law. It is very clear that INEC as an organization has acted outside the law. The elections were conducted outside the law or unlawfully. Because INEC is lawless, election conducted by it is unacceptable and null and void morally and legally.
How did the 2011 election differ from previous ones held in the country?
During the actual election, security was robust, which is good but it became worse when the military and other security agents were corrupted and became partisan. In Enugu State, for example, a governorship candidate and his supporters were arrested. Also in Edo State, where an opposition party is in government, supporters and agents of the opposition government were equally arrested and the Governor of Edo State never minced word when he accused the military of being partisan. This was how the robust security was corrupted again to become something more dangerous. With the corrupt and partisanship of the military and other law enforcement agents, there professionalism have been lost.
In your opinion, what is the future of Nigeria’s unity considering what is happening in the country today?
Nigeria will remain united, a good country and will function very well, but these corrupt and lawless deviations we have today need to be corrected.
What then is the way forward for Nigeria?
The way forward for Nigeria is a political solution that has to be agreed on by the political leadership of the entire country. But a few bold and great patriots have already made some recommendations for consideration. Prof. Ben Nwabueze, Nigeria foremost constitutional lawyer, has concluded that a revolution is the only way forward. This view was corroborated earlier by Dr. Tunji Braithwaite. Prof. Pat Utomi had called for a stop to the current criminocratic system and he has suggested in its place a government of presidential materials, which he called the Gowon Option and I understand this to mean an interim government. But we must get independent minded people of integrity to conduct elections and ensure that those who wasted several billions on this charade called 2011 election are made to pay for treasonable act.
news
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Martin Onovo ....the presidential Candidate of Action Alliance
Action Alliance: We Are Not Satisfied With Nigeria’s Dismal Records ––– Onovo
YOUR party has endorsed you as its Presidential flag bearer, but the issue is that many people don’t really know you. How do you hope to convince people to vote you when they don’t know you?NEWS
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Petroleum Products Prices And Subsidies in Nigeria - Chief Martin Onovo
Background
The prices of petroleum products in Nigeria have been a source of contention and controversy. This paper proposes to clarify the actual total cost by adding the costs of all components in retail supply of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS a.k.a. Petrol or Gasoline) the most widely demanded and utilized petroleum product. The cost components are; finding, developing, developing, producing, refining, distributing and marketing. The amount of subsidy on the retail price is then determined by the difference between the actual cost and the retail price.
The method adopted for this cost determination is similar to that used by the American Petroleum Institute (API) for the analysis of the actual total cost of gasoline (PMS) in the U.S. It splits the retail cost into the major components cost of crude oil, the cost of refining and marketing and the sum of all taxes. This method is simple and accurate.
The most accurate industry data has been obtained from and confirmed independently for this effort by industry experts. The draft paper was also reviewed and endorsed by several other experts. The data and analysis herein are as at October, 2005. Exchange rate applied is N130/USD.
The Petrol Process
To purchase petrol in Nigeria, we typically drive to a fuel station. The fuel attendant pumps the request quantity and payment is made 'cash, electronically (Value card, Top card, etc) or otherwise.
The Fuel station typically receives its supply from road tankers which have been loaded at an NNPC or other fuel depots. The NNPC depots receive their supply from local refineries through pipelines. Imported petroleum products are evacuated from ocean-going tankers to local depots which then supply to Fuel stations by road tankers.
Local refineries receive their feed crude oil through pipelines iron oil terminals. The crude oil is produced by oil companies from wells in their OMLs (Oil Mining Lease). The Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) is the senior partner in Joint Venture (JV) oil producing companies. The NNPC manages FGN investments in the JVs.
Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) are a different relationship from Joint Ventures. This determination is based on VB production which represents most of the Nigerian production. PSC production can be similarly treated.
Component Costs
Crude oil is first discovered (exploration), then the discovery is developed (field development) before it can be produced (production operations). It is then refined into petroleum products which are distributed and sold for utilization. The costs of exploration, Field Development Production Operations, Refining, Distribution and Marketing (Retail Sales) are identified herein. The sum of all product cost components is the actual cost of the product.
Exploration Costs
Exploration costs typically include seismic acquisition and interpretation costs. Exploratory well costs can be included in development costs since the exploratory well can be easily converted to a development well. 3D Seismic acquisition costs vary based on contractor, coverage, terrain, time, season, water depth, methods, commercial terms, special considerations, etc. Typical costs range from 20 - 70,000 USD/KM2. Interpretation costs range typically from 2 - 8,000 USD/KM2. We will use 50,000 USD/KM2 as estimated cost of 3D seismic acquisition and interpretation. For a 10 KM2 field 20 million barrels recovery; exploration costs can be estimated to be about - 0.025 USD/Bbl. This is equivalent to, 0.02 N/Litre.
Development Costs
Opportunity development costs depend on field location, size, development philosophy and concept. Development cost will include capital costs of field facilities design, procurement, transportation, installation and commissioning. Cost of wells and pipelines to existing terminals are also included. It will typically vary from 2-5 USD/Bbl.
At the NAPE (National Association of Petroleum Explorationists) annual conference in 2005, offshore development cost was indicated as 5 USD/Bbl. However, historical data for completed projects offshore are closer to 3 USD/Bbl. Onshore development costs are also significantly lower than offshore costs. To averagely represent the entire JV operational environment scenarios (offshore and onshore) this paper will capture development cost as: - 4 USD/Bbl. This is equivalent to, 3.27 N/Litre.
Operation Costs (OPEX)
Current (2005) production operation costs of major oil companies surveyed indicated a range of 1.5-4 USD/Bbl. This includes all overhead costs across relevant functions. This paper will capture OPEX as - 3.0 USD/Bbl. This is equivalent to, 2.45 N/Litre.
Therefore, actual crude oil production cost to the Nigerian JV can then be estimated as:
(0.025 + 4.0 + 3.0) USD/Bbl = 7.025 USD/Bbl.
(0.02 + 3.27 + 2.45) N/Litre = 5.74 N/Litre
Previous government (NNPC) estimates (2000) yielded 5.00 N/litre. The difference in these estimates can be attributed to rising oil industry service costs due to international market dynamics, inflation and/or to estimate basis differences.
For typical refinery yield of 95%; 5.74 N/litre translates to - 6.04 N/litre.
This compensates for volume losses inherent in the crude oil refining process.
Refining Costs
Installed refining capacity in Nigeria stands at 445,000 Barrels per day (BPD).
This is made up of:
Old Port Harcourt Refinery - 60,000 BPD
1. New Port Harcourt Refinery - 150,000 BPD
2. Warri Refinery - 125,000 BPD (Upgraded from 100)
3. Kaduna Refinery - 110,000 BPD (Two trains, 60+50)
Refining cost data from these refineries could not be obtained during our survey. Even when such data is available, they are very unreliable. According to the Nigerian Vice-President during an interview with Thisday newspaper in August 2005, "We have never got correct statistics from NNPC. They will never be able to tell you the correct thing. We have that problem with NNPC".
To estimate refining costs, we can rely on international industry data from similar refineries. Contemporary refining technology is of the Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) process like most Nigerian refineries. This process requires fluidizing the solid catalyst and re-circulating it continuously from the reaction section of the cracker to the catalyst regeneration section and back to the reaction section.
Data published by the American Petroleum Institute (API) estimates Gross Refining and Distribution/Marketing Costs and Profits at $1.00 per gallon in October 2005. Using a 50/50 split as established by historical U.S. cost trends, it can be clearly concluded that Refining costs and profits, account for $0.50 per gallon. This value includes the profits of the refineries.
The estimate can be used for this determination since it is from mostly FCC process based refineries just as most Nigerian refineries. Actual refining costs may be lower in Nigeria since labour costs are significantly lower in Nigeria. $0.50 per Gallon translates to $21/Bbl. We will capture refining costs as $21/Bbl. This is, 17.17 N/Litre.
Distribution Costs
Distribution costs in Nigeria are established by regulation. This is the cost margin allowed for Road Tankers that transport petrol from the depots to the fuel stations. As at October 2005, it was 2.42 N/Litre.
Marketing Costs
Marketing Costs in Nigeria are also established by regulation. This is the cost margin allowed for Oil marketing companies that operate fuel retail stations. As at October 2005, this was, 5.87 N/Litre.
Total Costs
The total cost can then be determined as the summation of all relevant costs components previously estimated viz. Exploration, Development, Production Operations, Refining, Distribution and Marketing.
Total Cost = (6.04 + 17.17 + 2.42 + 5.87) N/Ltre
= 31.50 N/Litre.
Therefore, we can conclude that the average cost of domestic petrol dispensed at retail fuel stations in Nigeria is, 31.50 N/Litre.
Current Official Retail Price
Current retail price as established by regulation has been, N65/Litre since 2005. This regulated price is split to cost components in line with the following benchmarks:
N56.71 - Depot Price
N2.42 - Transportation Margin
N1.15 - Dealer's Margin
N4.72 - Marketing Company Margin
= N65.00 - (Official Retail Price)
Subsidy
Subsidy can be determined as Actual Cost - Sales Price
Consequently, Subsidy = 31.50 - 65) N/Litre
= -33.50 N/Litre (This is a negative subsidy which confirms a profit).
Conclusion
We can confidently conclude that government makes a profit of 33.50 N/Litre on domestic PMP (Petrol) at the current price of 65 N/Litre. This translates to a very high 106% profit.
In addition, the government benefits from royalties, taxes and fees which were not factored in this simplified analysis. When factored, the actual crude cost per barrel to government is significantly less and its profit correspondingly higher.
The claim of subsidies on petroleum products is clearly incorrect
Post Script
This analysis has been deliberately simplified to ensure wider appeal and easy comprehension. A much more detailed and rigorous analysis will be inappropriate for the objective indicated. It will also come to the same conclusion and have only an added academic value.
For imported petrol, this estimate will not apply. Imported petrol has unnecessary additional costs like;
1. International Crude Oil Sale Price and Profit Margins
2. Transportation Costs of Products from source country to Nigeria
3.Port Charges, Taxes and Export duties at source country
4. Insurance costs for transportation
5. Brokerage costs for agents
6. Overhead Costs
To improve domestic supply and reduce cost, the following can be considered:
-Maximise existing local refining capacity utilization.
-Increase existing local refining capacity by building additional refineries.
-Improve JV crude oil development and production efficiency to reduce costs.
There is a large market for petroleum products in West Africa. Nigeria can develop its refining capacity to supply this large market and increase its national revenue and GDP.
NEWS



