Ogoni oil resumption: KAGOTE, committee disagree over jobs, contracts

The apex socio-cultural organisation of the Ogoni people, KAGOTE, and the Ogoni Dialogue Committee have disagreed over allegations of job racketeering and other issues that surround the planned resumption of oil production in Ogoniland, Rivers State.

KAGOTE, which represents the four local government areas of Ogoniland: Khana, Gokana, Tai and Eleme, had last week alleged that reports available to it indicated that some members of the dialogue committee were soliciting jobs from the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.

The President of KAGOTE, Chief Lesi Maol, also raised concerns that some members of the Ogoni Dialogue Committee had allegedly smuggled the names of non-Ogoni people into the list of beneficiaries recently employed by the NNPCL. He demanded transparency from the committee, saying the Ogoni people welcomed the oil re-entry process because of the personalities involved in the committee.

However, speaking at a news briefing in Port Harcourt, the Chairman of the ODC and former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Port Harcourt, Prof Don Baridam, denied playing any role in the selection of the 40 beneficiaries recently offered employment opportunities by the NNPCL, describing the claims as false and misleading.

Baridam explained that the employment opportunities were part of a confidence-building measure proposed by the Ogoni delegation to the Federal Government, adding that the NNPCL selected the successful candidates from a pool of qualified Ogoni applicants already in its recruitment database, rather than from nominations made by the committee.

He said, “When the issue of employment was raised, the NNPCL made it clear that it would not compromise its established professional recruitment standard.

“The company informed us that its database already contains several qualified Ogoni applicants who had previously passed through its recruitment processes and performed well. The selection was conducted strictly from this pool of qualified candidates.

“While it is true that several members of the ODC submitted names of individuals they wished to consider, some of whom were not even Ogoni, the recruitment and selection process did not pass through the ODC.

“Any suggestion that the ODC or its facilitators allocated these employment opportunities as patronage is completely false and maliciously intended.”

On claims of the resumption of exploration in Ogoniland, Baridam said the committee had no information confirming that oil and gas activities had resumed under the Ogoni re-entry programme.

He also dismissed allegations that the committee had received any budget, grant or other financial support from the Federal Government.

Baridam said, “We state categorically that at no time did the ODC award, allocate, distribute or become involved in contracts of any kind.

“Contract awards were never part of the mandate given to the ODC, and the committee possesses neither the authority nor the machinery to award or influence government or NNPCL contracts.

“It is therefore entirely misleading to suggest that contracts were distributed by or through the ODC or its facilitators.

“On the alleged resumption of oil production activities in Ogoni, to the best of our knowledge and based on available information, there are no oil and gas production activities in Ogoni linked to the Ogoni re-entry programme.”

Reacting, KAGOTE said, “No individual, organisation or committee is bigger than the collective interest of the Ogoni people.”

The organisation said its intervention was aimed at obtaining “clarity, transparency and accountability, not confrontation,” insisting that questions raised about the dialogue process should not be interpreted as opposition to the Federal Government or an attempt to derail the resumption of oil production in Ogoniland.

Maol, in a statement he signed alongside 10 other executive committee members and released on Thursday, said KAGOTE supported President Bola Tinubu’s renewed talks with the Ogoni people and recognised the role of the National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, in facilitating the process.

The organisation, however, warned that the goodwill surrounding the Federal Government’s initiative could be undermined by “procedural ambiguity, inadequate communication, personality-driven decisions and any unauthorised invocation of the names or offices of senior government officials.”

KAGOTE also queried the composition of the harmonisation committee, saying the facilitators’ response acknowledged that the initial composition of the Ogoni representation had generated concerns and was subsequently reconstituted.

Maol asked, “Who authorised the original composition? What criteria were used to select persons who were not members of the ODC? Was the authority of the Office of the National Security Adviser invoked, and if so, by whom and under what authority?”

KAGOTE stressed that the questions were institutional rather than personal accusations against the NSA, arguing that clarity would protect the integrity of the office and strengthen confidence in the dialogue.

The group also questioned the procedure through which individuals were selected to represent Ogoni in joint negotiations and harmonisation processes.

According to KAGOTE, a process of such historic importance should not depend on personalities, informal arrangements or understandings known only to a few individuals.

It called for a “clear, credible and properly documented procedure” for determining who speaks or negotiates on behalf of Ogoni, alongside improved access to minutes, reports and records of material engagements by duly constituted members of the ODC.

KAGOTE further raised questions about reported oil-related activities in parts of Ogoniland while negotiations on oil resumption were ongoing.

The organisation noted that the facilitators had stated that, to their knowledge, there were no oil and gas production activities directly connected with the Ogoni re-entry programme, while acknowledging that inquiries into reported activities in “Alesa-Eleme and other parts of Ogoniland” were ongoing.

KAGOTE said the Ogoni people deserved authoritative information on whether such activities were taking place, their nature and purpose, the authority under which they were being conducted and whether they were separate from the issues under negotiation.

The KAGOTE president further demanded greater transparency around projects described as confidence-building interventions arising from engagement between the Federal Government and Ogoni representatives.

It said information “should, where appropriate, be available on the nature and location of projects, implementation arrangements, responsible government agencies, contractors or beneficiaries, approved costs and monitoring mechanisms.”

On employment, KAGOTE welcomed the clarification that the NNPCL relied on an existing database of qualified Ogoni applicants and that the ODC did not determine the final beneficiaries.

It nevertheless called for broader confirmation of the intervention, including the number of positions, selection criteria and geographical representation across the four Ogoni local government areas.

The organisation also complained that ODC members should not ordinarily learn about major developments concerning the future of Ogoniland through newspapers or informal channels.

While acknowledging that sensitive negotiations might require confidentiality, KAGOTE argued that a distinction must be maintained between “legitimate confidentiality and unnecessary secrecy.”

The body challenged the facilitators to identify any inaccurate allegation made by KAGOTE and provide the relevant facts, saying it was prepared to acknowledge and correct any position conclusively shown to be wrong.

“We have no interest in a media contest with the ODC or its leadership,” the organisation said, maintaining that its interest was in “facts, clarity and credible answers.”

KAGOTE declared that neither the ODC, KAGOTE, MOSOP, the facilitators, nor any individual or organisation was bigger than Ogoniland.

The organisation said the principle should guide every participant in the dialogue, stressing that the collective interest of the Ogoni people must remain paramount.

KAGOTE said it was “not opposed to oil resumption,” provided the process was anchored on credible environmental safeguards, community participation, fairness, transparency, security, meaningful economic participation, inclusive negotiations and clearly defined sustainable benefits for Ogoni.

“Questions are not sabotage. Constructive criticism is not opposition. Accountability is not hostility. Transparency is not an obstacle to development,” the organisation stated.

It called for broader consultation with the Ogoni people before final and irreversible decisions were taken on matters of profound historical importance, including an appropriate town-hall meeting or wider consultative engagement.

The group also requested clearer communication concerning the roles, mandates and responsibilities of those currently operating as facilitators of the ODC, saying institutional clarity would help prevent further controversy.

KAGOTE said it remained willing to engage with the ODC, its facilitators, the Office of the NSA, the Federal Government and other legitimate Ogoni stakeholders.

While noting that it did not seek to collapse the dialogue but to “strengthen it” and did not oppose responsible oil resumption but wanted a process whose outcome was sustainable, transparent and beneficial to the Ogoni people, KAGOTE said the renewed engagement between the Federal Government and the Ogoni people represented a historic opportunity that should not be squandered.