Re: “The Great Obi-Mbieri Oil Heist-The Questions Remain Unanswered

By: J. C. Jan

A FORMAL REJOINDER TO THE “SETTING THE RECORDS STRAIGHT”
ADVERTORIAL

The publication titled “RE: ‘THE GREAT OBI-MBIERI OIL HEIST’ — SETTING
THE RECORDS STRAIGHT” purports to address concerns surrounding petroleum activities in Obi-Mbieri. However, instead of resolving the fundamental questions concerning representation, authority, negotiations, documentation and the interests of the affected communities, substantial attention has been directed toward the persons asking those
questions.
Personal attacks, allegations about motives, or descriptions of individuals do not answer
questions of legitimate public interest.
The people of Obi-Mbieri are entitled to factual answers.
The purpose of this rejoinder is therefore not to accuse any person or company of criminal
conduct. It is to identify the questions that remain unanswered and to request that the relevant facts and documents be made clear.

1. FIRST, LET US REMOVE THE ISSUE OF “CONFUSION” ABOUT THE
   TWO AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITIES
   There appears to be an attempt to suggest that there is confusion concerning the communities identified in connection with the petroleum activities.
   There is no need for such a distraction.
   The publication itself identifies Obi-Mbieri Autonomous Community and Ezi-Mbieri
   Autonomous Community, and further identifies Umuagwu and Achi as the relevant host
   villages.
   The issue, therefore, is not whether the two Autonomous Communities can be identified.
   They have been identified. The more important questions are: What petroleum resource has actually been identified within each of these communities.

How much oil has been identified or estimated in each community? What is the quantity attributable to Obi-Mbieri Autonomous Community, and what is the quantity attributable to Ezi-Mbieri Autonomous Community?
What geological, technical or official information supports those figures?
If the information is available to those involved in the operation, why should the affected
communities not be given a clear explanation of the resource that is said to exist within their
respective areas?
The quantity of a natural resource can be profoundly relevant to the economic, environmental and developmental future of a community. It is therefore reasonable for members of the affected communities to ask what has actually been discovered, where it is located and what the available evidence shows.
2. HOW LONG HAS THIS OIL BEEN KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO EXIST?
Another fundamental question has not been satisfactorily addressed:
How long has the petroleum resource now being discussed been known, identified,
explored for, or suspected to exist?
Was the existence of the resource only recently established? Or had exploration, geological assessment, seismic work, technical evaluation or other investigations been taking place for some considerable period before the wider community became aware of it?
If the resource has been known for months or years, the community is entitled to ask:

• When was it first identified?
• When did exploration or assessment begin?
• When was its existence confirmed or considered sufficiently established?
• Who knew about it?
• Which institutions or representatives were informed?
• What discussions followed that discovery or assessment?
• At what point did community representatives become involved?
  These are not accusations.
  They are basic questions of chronology and accountability.
  A resource with potentially generational consequences should not suddenly become a public subject only after arrangements concerning it have already been underway.

3. HOW LONG HAS THE REPRESENTATION AND NEGOTIATION
   PROCESS BEEN GOING ON?
   Perhaps the most important question concerns the representatives who are said to be engaging
   with the petroleum company.
   If negotiations or engagements have been taking place on behalf of Obi-Mbieri, when did
   that process actually begin?
   Who initiated it?
   Who was approached?
   Who participated?
   Who authorised the representatives?
   What mandate were they given?
   What meetings have taken place?
   How frequently have those engagements occurred?
   What matters have been discussed?
   And what, if anything, has already been agreed, accepted, promised or undertaken?
   The community should not be expected to accept that a matter of this magnitude can be
   handled indefinitely through an opaque process while the wider population remains
   uninformed.
   If the representatives possess a lawful mandate, identifying that mandate should not be
   controversial.
   If there is a resolution, appointment, authorisation or other instrument empowering particular
   individuals or bodies to act, it should be capable of being identified.
   If no such mandate exists, that too should be made clear.
4. WHO ARE THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY NEGOTIATING ON BEHALF OF OBI-MBIERI?
   This remains the central question.

If Seplat is engaging with recognised leadership or representatives of Obi-Mbieri, the identity
and authority of those representatives should be capable of being established.
The people are entitled to know:

1. Who are the authorised representatives?
2. What offices do they hold?
3. Who appointed or authorised them?
4. When were they authorised?
5. Through what process were they authorised?
6. Is there a written resolution, appointment or other instrument establishing their
   mandate?
7. What is the scope of that mandate?
8. What are its limitations?
9. What specific matters were they authorised to negotiate?
   10.What have they reported to the community?
   These are ordinary questions of governance, representation and accountability.
   They do not constitute an accusation of wrongdoing.
10. WHAT IS THE SOURCE AND EXTENT OF THEIR AUTHORITY?
    Holding a community position does not automatically establish unlimited authority to bind an
    entire community on every matter.
    The relevant question is whether the person or institution concerned has been specifically
    authorised to deal with the petroleum activities now affecting Obi-Mbieri and the interests
    arising from them.
    Was the authority derived from:

• a Town Union resolution;
• an Autonomous Community resolution;
• a duly constituted general meeting;
• a recognised traditional institution;
• a government-recognised body; or
• another lawful instrument?
  And, critically, what exactly were they authorised to do?
  There is a material distinction between being generally recognised as a community
  representative and having a specific mandate to negotiate matters capable of affecting the present and future interests of an entire community.
  That distinction must not be blurred.

6. THE EXISTENCE OF A TOWN UNION DOES NOT END THE INQUIRY
   The existence of an officially recognised Town Union does not, by itself, answer the
   questions being raised.
   If the Town Union is the body dealing with Seplat in respect of these activities, then the
   relevant representatives, their mandate and the limits of their authority should be identifiable.
   The community should be able to establish:

• who was authorised to act;
• when that authority was granted;
• what resolution or instrument granted it;
• what matters they were instructed to negotiate;
• what limitations were placed upon them; and
• how they are accountable to the wider community.
  This is not an attack on the Town Union.
  On the contrary, a properly constituted institution is strengthened, not weakened, when its
  authority and decision-making processes are transparent.

7. WHAT EXACTLY IS BEING NEGOTIATED?
   The community is entitled to know the nature and scope of discussions taking place in its
   name.
   Without alleging that any particular arrangement has already been concluded, clarification
   should be provided as to whether discussions concern:

• land access;
• exploration activities;
• environmental protection;
• employment;
• local contracting;
• community development;
• compensation;
• security;
• infrastructure;
• community representation;
• Host Communities Development Trust arrangements; or
• any other obligation, undertaking or commitment capable of affecting Obi-Mbieri

The question is simple:
Which matters have been discussed, which remain under discussion, and which, if any,
have already been agreed?
That is a legitimate request for transparency.
8. WHY IS THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOURCE ITSELF NOT
CLEAR?
The debate should not be reduced to questions of who will eventually receive money.
Before discussing benefits, revenue or compensation, the community should understand the
underlying facts.
What exactly has been discovered?
Where is it located?
What quantity has been identified or estimated?
What portion relates to each identified Autonomous Community or host village?
What is the present status of the exploration?
Is the resource commercially viable?
What technical assessment supports the information being presented?
What stage of development, if any, has been reached?
These are fundamental facts.
If they are not yet known, the community should simply be told that they are not yet known.
If they are known, there should be no reason to create unnecessary uncertainty around them.
9. WHY MUST THE PEOPLE LEARN ABOUT THIS THROUGH A NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION?
This question deserves particular attention.

Why should members of Obi-Mbieri learn about matters potentially affecting their
collective future through a newspaper publication rather than through transparent
community processes?
A newspaper should not become the first place where members of a community discover that
representatives are purportedly negotiating matters connected to a natural resource located
within or affecting their community.
If representatives have been engaging with an oil company for a substantial period, why was
the wider community not appropriately informed?
If the process began long ago, when were the people informed?
If the community was informed, when, where and through what recognised process?
If meetings were held, where are the records?
If mandates were given, where are the resolutions?
If agreements or commitments were discussed, where is the documentation?
A community should not have to reconstruct the history of negotiations from newspaper
advertisements and public exchanges.
There should be a transparent institutional record.
10. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION HAS
STARTED
It may be argued that commercial production has not commenced and, therefore, there is
presently no production revenue to account for.
That does not resolve the issue.
The concern is broader.
Decisions, representations, commitments and negotiations made before production can have consequences long after production begins.
Exploration may already involve matters concerning:

• access to land;
• environmental protection;
• employment;
• local participation;
• contracting;
• security;
• infrastructure;
• community development; and
• future arrangements concerning the resource.
  Governance should therefore not begin only when revenue begins to flow.
  Proper representation and accountability should exist before material commitments are made.

11. EXPLORATION IS NOT PRODUCTION — BUT EXPLORATION IS
    NOT IRRELEVANT
    There should be no confusion between exploration and commercial production.
    The present concern is not that Obi-Mbieri is already receiving production revenue.
    The concern is that activities undertaken during exploration and assessment may create
    decisions, expectations, obligations or arrangements capable of affecting the community’s
    future interests.
    Therefore, saying that there is no current production revenue does not answer questions
    about:
    Who is representing the community?
    What authority do they possess?
    What have they been discussing?
    What has been documented?
    What commitments, if any, have been made?
    These questions remain legitimate regardless of whether commercial production has
    commenced.
12. WHERE ARE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS?
    If the process is lawful, transparent and properly authorised, the documentary record should
    provide clarity.
    Subject to applicable confidentiality and legal restrictions, the community should be able to establish
13. The relevant petroleum licence, lease or authorisation.
14. The identity of the relevant licence holder and operator, where applicable.
15. The geographical area covered by the operation.
16. The applicable regulatory approvals.
17. The recognised community structures involved.
18. The persons authorised to represent Obi-Mbieri.
19. The resolution, appointment or other instrument conferring that authority.
20. Any material agreement, memorandum, undertaking or commitment made on
    behalf of Obi-Mbieri.
21. The applicable Host Communities Development Trust arrangements.
22. The mechanisms through which Obi-Mbieri’s interests are being protected.
    The request for documentation should not be portrayed as hostility.
    Documentation is how legitimate authority is distinguished from mere assertion.
23. THE ABSENCE OF THE EZE DOES NOT CREATE UNLIMITED
    AUTHORITY
    The medical absence of the Obi-Mbieri traditional ruler should be treated with respect and
    should not be exploited for unnecessary controversy.
    However, his absence cannot reasonably be treated as creating unrestricted authority for
    another person or institution to make decisions affecting the collective interests of Obi-Mbieri.
    If another institution possesses lawful authority to act, let that authority be identified.
    If the Town Union has been mandated, let the mandate be identified.
    If particular representatives have been appointed, let the appointment be established.
    Transparency removes unnecessary suspicion.
    Unexplained authority creates it.
24. LET SEPLAT SPEAK FOR SEPLAT
    There is another important issue arising directly from the publication.
    The publication makes extensive assertions concerning Seplat’s activities, operations and
    relationship with the community and appears to defend the company’s position. Yet the writer expressly states that he does not speak for Seplat.

That creates a straightforward question:
Does Seplat Energy adopt the factual assertions contained in that publication as its
official position?
If it does, the company can say so.
If it does not, the company can equally make that clear.
This is not an attack on Seplat.
It is a request for corporate clarity.
Where a publication makes definitive factual assertions about a company’s activities and
seeks public support for those activities, the affected community is entitled to know whether
those assertions represent the company’s official position.
15. OPINION IS NOT THE SAME AS CORPORATE REPRESENTATION
Every individual is entitled to express an opinion.
That right is not in dispute.
But there is a material difference between expressing a personal opinion and making
categorical assertions about the conduct of a company while defending that company’s
activities before the public.
If those statements are personal views, they should be understood as such.
If they represent the company’s position, the company can confirm that.
The appropriate response is not censorship.
It is clarification.
16. OBI-MBIERI CAN SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT AND STILL DEMAND
ACCOUNTABILITY
There is no contradiction between welcoming legitimate investment and demanding
transparency.
Obi-Mbieri can support:

• responsible exploration;
• employment opportunities;
• local contracting;
• infrastructure;
• environmental protection;
• community development; and
• legitimate economic opportunities for its people,
  while insisting that these matters be handled through lawful, transparent and properly
  authorised processes.
  Supporting investment does not mean surrendering the right to ask questions.
  A genuine partnership requires clarity concerning who represents the community, what
  authority they possess and what obligations or commitments are being discussed.

17. THE REAL ISSUE IS NOT SIMPLY “WHO GETS THE OIL MONEY?”
    Reducing this entire matter to the question of who will receive oil revenue misses the more
    fundamental issue.
    The real questions are:
    Who speaks for Obi-Mbieri?
    Who authorised them?
    What is their mandate?
    When did that mandate begin?
    How long have they been engaging or negotiating?
    What exactly have they been negotiating?
    What has been agreed, if anything?
    What commitments have been made?
    What quantity of oil has been identified in each of the two Autonomous Communities?
    How long has the resource been known or under assessment?
    What documents exist?
    What safeguards are in place to protect the community’s present and future interests?

And most importantly

Why should the people of Obi-Mbieri have to learn about matters potentially affecting
their collective future through newspaper publications rather than through transparent
community processes?
These questions do not accuse anyone of stealing oil.
They do not declare any individual guilty of an offence.
They do not, by themselves, allege wrongdoing by Seplat.
They demand facts, accountability and transparency.
18. THE SIMPLE WAY FORWARD: LET THE DOCUMENTS SPEAK
There is a straightforward way to resolve the controversy.
Let the relevant parties:

1. Identify the persons or institutions authorised to represent Obi-Mbieri.
2. Identify the instrument establishing that authority.
3. State when the authority was granted.
4. Explain the scope and limits of the mandate.
5. State when engagement or negotiations commenced.
6. State the matters that have been discussed.
7. State what, if anything, has been agreed.
8. Identify matters that remain under negotiation.
9. Provide available information concerning the petroleum resource identified in
   each relevant Autonomous Community, subject to legitimate technical or legal
   limitations.
   10.Explain how Obi-Mbieri’s interests are being protected.
   11.Clarify the applicable community-development and Host Communities
   Development Trust arrangements.
   12.Provide the relevant information through appropriate and lawful community
   channels.
   If everything is properly authorised and properly documented, the documentary record should
   provide the answers.
   There is no need for insults.
   There is no need for character assassination.
   There is no need to dismiss legitimate questions as “confusion.”

Facts do not fear scrutiny. Lawful authority does not fear verification. Properly
mandated representatives should not fear demonstrating the mandate under which they
act.
CONCLUSION
Obi-Mbieri is not asking for anything extraordinary. It is asking to know:
What has been discovered?
How much has been identified?
How long has it been known?
Who has been dealing with the matter?
How long have they been doing so?
Who authorised them?
What exactly have they been negotiating?
What commitments have been made?
What documents exist?
And why should the people of Obi-Mbieri learn about matters of potentially
generational importance through newspaper publications rather than through
transparent community processes?
A natural resource with potentially generational consequences deserves more than newspaper
exchanges, personal attacks and competing assertions.
It requires:

• Transparency
• Proper representation
• Lawful authority
• Documented mandates
• Accountability
• Meaningful community participation
• Clear information about the resource itself
• Protection of the community’s present and future interests

Therefore, after all arguments have been made, the fundamental questions remain:
WHO ARE THE INDIVIDUALS OR BODIES NEGOTIATING ON
BEHALF OF OBI-MBIERI?
UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY ARE THEY ACTING?
WHEN DID THAT AUTHORITY BEGIN?
HOW LONG HAS THIS PROCESS BEEN GOING ON?
WHAT EXACTLY ARE THEY NEGOTIATING?
WHAT COMMITMENTS, IF ANY, HAVE BEEN MADE?
HOW MUCH OIL HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED IN EACH OF THE TWO AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITIES?
HOW LONG HAS THE RESOURCE BEEN KNOWN OR UNDER ASSESSMENT?
AND WHY SHOULD THE PEOPLE OF OBI-MBIERI NOT KNOW?
That is the question.
Answer it.
Let the documents speak.
Let the facts speak.
Let the law speak.
And let the people of Obi-Mbieri determine whether those speaking on their behalf genuinely possess the mandate they claim.
This rejoinder is intended to raise legitimate issues requiring public-interest clarification. It
does not assert that any identified person or company has committed an offence. Any
allegation of illegality or wrongdoing should be established by competent evidence and, where appropriate, determined by the relevant regulatory authorities or courts.

By: J. C. Jan