Follow Us on Google
From Joseph Obukata, Warri
Tantita Security Services Nigeria Limited, a company handling the pipeline surveillance contract awarded to former militant leader, Chief Government Ekpemupolo, aka Tompolo, yesterday broke it’s silence on the controversy trailing the burning of the oil vessel arrested for high-level oil bunkering in Escravos, Warri South-West Local Government Area of Delta State.
The vessel was caught red-handed by Tompolo’s men in the creek siphoning crude from a well-head with some of the crew members arrested but was later set ablaze by personnel of the Nigeria Navy Ship in a manner that have become contention.
Reacting to the various discontent tones trailing the action of the Navy, Emmanuel Jakpa, the lead legal consultant to Tantita, in a statement on Tuesday, urged Nigerians to support the decision of NNPC to find credible partners to rid the country of the menace of illegal bunkering rather than castigate it.
He said that since the controversy broke out, no lawyer or environmentalist have raised a hue or cry over the harm done to the environment by such unintended but avoidable judicial mishaps.
Jakpa admitted that the tanker was handed to naval authorities after investigations by Tantita and subsequently scuttled by naval authorities, saying that since then, there has been a raging controversy whether the action taken by the Naval forces who received custody of the vessel was justified in law.
He noted that the reaction of Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, who condemned the action of the naval authorities and demanded the head of the Chief of Defence Staff, General Lucky Irabor.
Irabor had defended the destruction of the vessel, saying it was in line with Armed Services Rules of Engagement. Relying on Section 111 of the Armed Forces Act.
The statement reads; “Intensifying his attacks on Monday on live television, the learned silk has called for retirement of all service chiefs because according to him the award of the contract for pipeline surveillance issued to Tantita Security, a company allied to High Chief Government Ekpemupolo, was an admission of failure of the entire military and naval authorities in Nigeria.
“The same pipeline surveillance contract has been handed in the past to other private contractors including one OMS, without a whimper of complaint by anybody. Without denigrating the performance of these past contractors, none of them have wowed the nation the way Tantita has.
“One does not recall any anyone demonstrating the level of competence and effectiveness Tantita has. So, the question is, who is uncomfortable with Tantita delivering on her mandate? One would have thought that the complaint would be that an ex-militant would be unsuited to the job because he would not deliver, apparently the opposite is just as worrisome. Therefore, the naysayers are complaining Tompolo is working and they have been deprived of the opportunity to complain that he is incompetent.
“Tantita is working and succeeding with the full assistance and cooperation of military and naval forces. At one time the red herring was that a PSC was being given the right to bear arms while the western states operated Amotekun – that amoeba – were being deprived of such a right.
“Today, the picture is much clearer, no PSC and certainly not Tantita is bearing arms; Tantita’s success is due in large part to the wide ranging informal local knowledge network at its disposal, coupled with its unbeatable understanding of its local terrain as well its no nonsense approach to curbing the menace to our environment, but above all is the trust that the ordinary people of the region seem to have in High Chief Ekpemupolo.
“This uncanny combination of factors appears to be the secret sauce for the successes recorded so far. It is instructive that the people who have attacked the Federal Government for awarding this contract, the security chiefs for “abdicating” their roles, and finally Tantita for doing a yeoman’s job have never acknowledged the success so far recorded.
“The Armed Forces Act is certainly good law, no doubt, but it is inapplicable to facts of this circumstance. The circumstance of this matter is that somebody using the instrumentality of a ship had interfered with Nigeria’s ownership rights to produce hydrocarbon oils for refining.
“Unquestionably, the ship had crude oil in its cargo holds but lacked authority to take it. The ship captain made a confessional statement admitting he lacked authority to take crude, after which the ship was ordered sunk. Many well-meaning lawyers quickly seized upon the rule of law issue and asked why the order to scuttle the vessel could not await legal proceedings in court. Some other well-meaning people, lawyers included, went as far as to suggesting that it was all meant to cover evidence of complicity.
*Let’s take the legal issues first. Was there a breach of the rule of law, or was the CDS right to say that the action taken by naval authorities were within their rules of engagement? While MR Falana relies on the Armed forces Act it is our humble opinion that the applicable law is the Hydrocarbon Oils Refining Act. Section 15 of the Hydrocarbons Oil Refining Act provides as follows, “If any officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that any refining of hydrocarbon oils contrary to the provisions of this Act is being carried out on any land or premises, he may enter thereon, if need be by force, and dismantle or seize any apparatus and equipment used for or in connection with such unlawful refining.”
“The purpose of taking the crude from the well head was certainly for illegal refining, whether here or abroad. This clearly brings the vessel within the ambit of this law. And this law permits dismantling the apparatus or equipment used for illegal refining. Scuttling the ship was to dismantle it.
“Section 1 of the Act already outlawed any act connected with refining without a license when it provided that, “Subject to the provisions of this Act no person shall refine any hydrocarbon oils save in a refinery and under a license issued under the Act.” So any person taking hydrocarbon oils without a refiners licence or permission to carry hydrocarbon oils is in breach of the law.
“Section 18(1)(b) of the law gives the power to the government to levy distresss (seizure) on all equipment, plants, tools, ships, vehicles, animals or other goods or effects whatsoever used in the refining, sale or distribution, sale of hydrocarbon oils found in any premises or any land… etc” used in violation of the Act.
“This clearly supports the rules of engagement cited by the CDS, seizure may result in destruction and where the owner is able to prove that the officer was wrong to detain or destroy his property he will be entitled to compensation in full.
“Therefore, the CDS was right. And a person cannot be liable for an offence if he was authorised by law to do the act complained of.
“Reprising it all, an officer has the right to detain or dismantle anything used in connection with illegal refining including a ship. In detaining it, it could be destroyed. Any person who claims his property was destroyed can go to court to seek redress. The burden of proof is on him. If he succeeds, he will get compensation. In other words, it is the Hydrocarbons Oil Refining Act and not the Armed Forces Act that meets the peculiar circumstances of this case. Care must be taken not to provide unwarranted solace to the people who destroy our environment, rape our common wealth and cheat our nation of the resources necessary for schools and hospitals.
“As for those worried about the rule of law or the destruction of evidence, while it is conceded that their concerns are genuine and germane, it is equally clear that the best evidence for the prosecution of a crime is a confessional statement. This is the best evidence rule in law. It is also the law that no crime will go unpunished simply because the instrument by which the crime was committed is not produced in court.
“The ship cannot tell us who owns it, nor can it tell us how many times it has been used to commit a crime, it is the people who were caught on the ship that can tell us this, and to the best of my knowledge none of them died with the scuttling of the vessel, so no evidence has been lost and people alarmed at the possible loss of evidence can rest that prosecution can still take place against all persons who may have been involved with this nefarious trade.
“We agree that this is one more act which further damages the delicate Niger Delta environment. However, it is my personal belief that if this act will deter the sponsors of illegal bunkering from putting so many million dollars into acts which will only degrade the delta further, then it is the hard but necessary choice to make.
“It is a difficult choice, but we know that many ships seized by law enforcement agents lying at various ports across the country have sunk and discharged their cargo into the territorial waters of Nigeria polluting the environment, while lawyers fought over injunctions and counter injunctions and argued themselves hoarse sometimes for the better part of a decade”.
