Controversial DESOPADEC Law: Itsekiri communities drag Delta government, DTHA to court

Fresh controversy is trailing the recently passed Delta State Oil Producing Areas Development Commission, DESOPADEC Law allegedly modeled after the NDDC, as communities of Itsekiri ethnic extraction have instituted an action in High Court of Justice, Delta State of Nigeria, Warri Judicial Division against the Delta State Government and the Delta State House of Assembly.

The claimants who are contending that the new DESOPADEC Law is inconsistent with section 162 (2) of the 1999 Constitution are seeking an “order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants (Delta State Government and Delta State House of Assembly) their servants, agents and privies, howsoever designated from collecting and /or individually dealing and/or further dealing, further transacting and/or further spending any part of the 13% Oil Derivation fund accruing to the target areas and held in trust by the Defendants, pending the design of suitable and agreeable legal framework for doing so is established by the 1^st Defendant in collaboration with the 2^nd Defendant and the target beneficiaries of the funds”.

They described modeling of the new DESOPADEC Law after NDDC as “radically variant allocation principle”, saying the composition of the Governing Board under the 2015 DESOPADEC Law, “vitiates the principle of derivation upon which the funds sought to be administered by the Board was provided for by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and as such are praying the court to repeal the new law.

While disagreeing with the concept of impacted community in the 2015 DESOPADEC Law, the claimants Emmanuel Afinotan, Cyril Egbejule, President General and Secretary of Utonlila Community Trust respectively, acting for themselves and on behalf of Utonlila Community, Warri North Local Government Area of Delta State and Prince Metsese Diden, Choice Olueh, Ugborodo Community in Suit No: W/331/2015, among other prayers, averred that the circumstances of the case was done without any reasonable bearing on the outcome of the public hearing proceeding the passage of the new law.

×