Specifically, in Football, Article 13 of the FIFA Regulation on Status and Transfer of Players makes it clear that mutually agreed-upon terms of a football contract are sacrosanct.

“A contract between a professional and a club may only be terminated upon expiry of the term of the contract or by mutual agreement”.

Further, Article 14 of the FIFA Regulation on Status and Transfer of Players states:

‘Either party may terminate a contract without consequences of any kind (either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause.’

On what constitutes ‘Just Cause,’ the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed in its 2nd November 2007 No. 31113 Decision that a clause permitting the club to terminate the contract at any point and pay compensation unilaterally is invalid. According to the DRC, such would create a disproportionate repartition of the parties’ rights to an employment agreement to the strong detriment of the player. (See also DRC 22nd July 2004, No. 74653.)

What constitutes Just cause for a club to terminate a player’s employment contract validly does not include poor performance. FIFA’s long-standing jurisprudence states that a player’s contract cannot be justly terminated for poor performance. For instance, on November 26, 2004, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled that a provision in a player’s contract of employment that allowed the club to end the agreement if the player’s performance fell short of what the club required could not be justified and was, therefore, invalid (DRC Decision 26th November 2004, No. 114534). In that instance, the parties signed an employment contract that was in effect from November 1, 2003, to October 31, 2005.  According to the relevant document adduced before the DRC, the player’s contract was terminated due to a downturn in his performance and failure to achieve the club’s performance requirements. The DRC determined that no reasonable cause existed.

Also read: FIFA’s Change of National Team Allegiance Regulations: Case Study on Nsue Emilio – Lessons For Football Players, Stakeholders, Member Associations and FIFA

The DRC, in its Decision of 28th July 2005 No 75975, also declared that a player’s lack of performance is no valid cause for a club to terminate an employment contract unilaterally.

Also, Article 14bis of the FIFA Regulation on Status and Transfer of Players provides:

“In the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s). Alternative provisions in contracts existing at the time of this provision coming into force may be considered”.

In the light of the provisions of the above laws and case law above, a player’s employment contract can be validly terminated upon expiry of the term of the contract, by mutual agreement and by a failure of the club to pay a player’s salary for two months at the due date and by the player giving notice of termination.

It should be noted that terminating a player’s employment contract based on an injury sustained while in the service of the club is not a valid ground for player contract termination;  the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in many cases, including that of 13th May 2005 No 55230, has ruled that the club’s termination of the employment contract of the player because the player was injured, does not amount to a just cause. The DRC noted that the player’s knee injury was suffered in the course of the player’s service to the club, and so the club was to be responsible for covering the cost of treatment as well as the costs incurred during the rehabilitation process.

Article 14bis of the Regulation on Status and Transfer of Players gives the player a right to terminate his contract for default in the payment of his salary for 2 months thus: 

“In the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s). Alternative provisions in contracts existing at the time of this provision coming into force may be considered”.

In the Nigerian Professional Football League (NPFL), injuries frequently result in the termination of player contracts. Specifics on individual cases, however, are rarely made available to the public. The controversy surrounding injury-related contract terminations has brought attention to the league’s more significant issues with player rights and club commitments.

The Nigerian Professional Football League’s governing body, the League Management Company (LMC), has often been forced to arbitrate disagreements between players and teams over contract terms and injury management. In several instances, unfair contract terminations of players without appropriate compensation have occurred, resulting in legal challenges and the involvement of the League Management Company.

Many NPFL clubs experience financial difficulties, which frequently lead to the non-payment of wages and the unjust termination of contracts, including those that result from injuries. This leaves players demoralised and dissatisfied with this situation; some refuse to practise or play since they have yet to receive their salary or have other contract violations.​ 

The following are examples of African footballers who terminated their employment contracts because their respective clubs owed them wages.

1. Ahmed Musa, the Super Eagles of Nigeria Captain’s contract, was terminated with Sivasspor FC of Turkey due to the non-payment of his salary for 6 months. 
2. Michael Essien: The Ghanaian midfielder terminated his contract with Indonesian club Persib Bandung in 2018 due to non-payment of wages. Essien had joined the club in 2017, but persistent issues with salary payments led to the termination of his contract.
3. Didier Drogba: The Ivorian legend had a similar issue with Shanghai Shenhua in 2012. Drogba moved to the Chinese club from Chelsea but had to leave after a few months due to non-payment of his salary, leading him to join Galatasaray.
4. Emmanuel Adebayor: The Togolese striker had issues with non-payment during his time at Paraguayan club Olimpia. He left the club in 2020, citing non-payment of wages for his departure.
5. Khalid Aucho: The Ugandan midfielder terminated his contract with Serbian Red Star Belgrade in 2017. Aucho joined the club in 2016 but faced significant delays in salary payments, leading to the termination of his contract by mutual consent.

The following are examples of African footballers who had employment contracts terminated as a result of injury.

1. Edmore Chirambadare, a former Zimbabwe international, went through the agony of having his contract terminated by Kaizer Chiefs in the DStv Premiership because of an injury. Chirambadare’s contract was abruptly terminated in 2018. Despite winning the 2016–17 Kaizer Chiefs Most Improved Player award, he was cut from the team. He considered the sudden termination the lowest point of his South African career and the worst phase in his career. After an outstanding season in Zimbabwe, where he assisted Chicken Inn in winning their lone Castle Lager Premier Soccer League championship, Chirambadare signed with Kaizer Chiefs in July 2016. 
2. Eric Bekoe, a Ghanaian football player who played with Asante Kotoko and Sekondi Hasaacas, a former goal king of the Ghana Premier League, suffered a series of injuries that hampered his career progression. His prolonged injury issues affected his contract with Sekondi Hasaacas.
3. Tefu Mashamaite, is a South African footballer with SuperSport United, Kaizer Chiefs. The South African defender’s career was marred by injuries which led to the early termination of his contract with SuperSport United.
4. Papy Djilobodji: The Senegalese defender’s contract was terminated by Sunderland in September 2018. Djilobodji was signed by Sunderland from Chelsea but failed to impress. After the club’s relegation to League One, Djilobodji did not return on time for pre-season training and did not meet fitness standards upon his return, leading to the termination of his contract for poor performance and lack of professionalism.
5. Ezekiel Bala: The Nigerian forward’s contract was terminated by Finnish club KuPS in 2011. Bala joined KuPS from Nigeria but struggled to adapt to the Finnish league and failed to make a significant impact, leading to the termination of his contract due to poor performance.
6. Bernard Morrison: The Ghanaian winger’s contract with South African club Orlando Pirates was terminated in 2018. Morrison struggled to find form and consistency, leading to his release from the club due to unsatisfactory performance levels.

It is, without doubt, the intention of the Football World Governing body to ensure the sanctity of the football players’ service contract and the football ecosystem at large. The FIFA Regulation on Status and Transfer of Players in Article 17 (1)thereof provides as follows:

‘In all cases, the party in breach shall pay compensation. Subject to the provisions of Article 20 and Annexe 4 concerning training compensation, and unless otherwise provided for in the contract, compensation for the breach shall be calculated with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport, and any other objective criteria. These criteria shall include, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period’.

The Court of Arbitration for Sports, in a plethora of decisions, including but not limited to CAS 2008/A/1519- 1520, para. 80, CAS 2005/A/876, p. 17, CAS 2007/A/1358, para. 90, CAS 2007/A/1359, para. 92, and CAS 2008/A/1568, para. 6.37, has held that the purpose of Article 17 (1)of the FIFA Regulation on Status and Transfer of Players is to ensure contractual stability in football.

Due to the fixed calendar nature of football seasons, prompt resolution of issues is crucial. To avoid the arduous, expensive, and contentious nature of traditional court-based legal proceedings, some nations have developed sophisticated alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms specifically designed to settle issues of sports.

Football has also created its own, primarily arbitration-based, sport-specific conflict resolution system to avoid using ordinary courts to settle football-related disputes and the issues that come with them.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is authorised by Article 57(1) of the FIFA Statutes to

 “. . .resolve disputes between FIFA, Members, Confederations, Leagues, Clubs, Players, Officials, and licensed match agents and players’ agents.” 

However, CAS will only utilise this authority when all member associations of FIFA have established their internal dispute settlement procedures have been exhausted.

Article 4(3) of the Nigeria Football Federation Statutes 2010 stipulates the formation of institutional mechanisms required to settle internal disputes amongst NFF members, players, clubs, and officials.

The NFF Statutes specifically provide for creating a Disciplinary Committee with restricted authority to oversee the NFF Disciplinary Code. The rulings of this Disciplinary Committee may be appealed to the NFF Appeal Committee.

The National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC), an impartial arbitration panel with proper legal standing, should be the first place of appeal for any party experiencing difficulties relating to employment contracts in the Nigerian football industry.

FIFA has mandated member Associations to set up Dispute Resolution Chambers (DRCs) to address conflicts within their respective jurisdictions. FIFA has already established a DRC to handle disputes; however, the NFF has yet to implement it.

Article 68 of the NFF Statutes stipulates the creation of an Arbitral Tribunal, a national version of the NDRC, to handle any internal football-related disputes that fall outside the purview of the Disciplinary Committee.

There is a tremendous need for improvement in the Nigerian football industry’s conflict settlement process. Where justice cannot be guaranteed, an industry cannot grow. Conflict settlement is pivotal to the growth of the football industry in Nigeria as it will encourage more players to settle and play football without fear. Apart from that it will create a more stable and harmonious environment which is conducive for growth and development.

The post Mechanisms For The Settlement Of Employment Disputes In Football first appeared on Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL).

Over the past 40 years, the cumulative revenue from oil and gas has exceeded $1 trillion, an amount that should have been sufficient to begin transforming the nation’s economy and infrastructure. Yet, Nigeria consistently resorts to borrowing, with the total public debt standing at ₦121.67 trillion ($91.46 billion) as of March 31, 2024, according to the Debt Management Office.

This paradox raises critical questions: Are we not generating enough revenue? Is the problem rooted in implementation, political will, legal frameworks, or a combination of these factors? This article examines the oil and gas industry as a microcosm of the systemic issues plaguing Nigeria’s resource management and explores why the nation lacks sufficient resources despite its apparent abundance.

Historical Context and Industry Evolution

The Nigerian oil and gas industry has a rich history dating back to the early 20th century. In 1908, the German-owned Nigerian Bitumen Corporation conducted initial exploratory work in Ondo State, though these efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. The industry truly began to take shape in 1937 when Shell D’Arcy, a precursor to Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, was granted sole concessionary rights across Nigeria’s entire territory.

A pivotal moment came in 1956 with the first commercial oil discovery at Oloibiri in the Niger Delta. Exports commenced two years later in 1958, marking Nigeria’s entry as an oil-producing nation. The following years saw other International Oil Companies (IOCs) enter the market, including Mobil in 1955, Agip in 1962, and Elf in 1962.

Several key milestones shaped the industry’s development:

• In 1971, Nigeria joined the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and established the Nigerian National Oil Corporation (NNOC), which would later evolve into the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and eventually the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC Ltd).
• The 1980s saw the introduction of production sharing contracts (PSCs) to attract investment in offshore acreage.
• The 1990s and 2000s brought increased focus on promoting Indigenous participation.
• More recently, there has been a push for comprehensive reform, culminating in the Petroleum Industry Act of 2021.

Today, the Nigerian oil and gas industry operates under a complex structure involving various stakeholders, including government entities, regulatory bodies, international and indigenous operating companies, and service sector firms. The industry operates under various contractual arrangements, including Joint Ventures (JVs), Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs), Service Contracts, and Marginal Field Operations.

Local Content Development

The Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act of 2010 marked a significant shift towards increasing Indigenous participation in the industry. Key provisions include:

1. Giving priority to Nigerian independent operators in awarding oil blocks and lifting licenses
2. Exclusive consideration for Nigerian Indigenous service companies in contracts not exceeding $100 million
3. Mandatory submission of Nigerian content plans by operators in the industry

The Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB) was established to implement and monitor compliance with this Act. While progress has been made, significant challenges remain in full implementation and achieving the Act’s objectives.

Key Challenges

1. Exclusion of Nigerian Participation in Key Value Chains

The Nigerian oil and gas industry faces significant challenges due to the exclusion of Nigerian participation in key value chains. There are 36 value chains related to crude oil exploration, with at least seven crucial ones largely excluding Nigerian participation: Legal, Shipping, Banking, Insurance, Drilling, Oil Field Services, and Engineering and Construction.

In the legal sector, over $1 billion worth of legal work is lost to foreign firms annually due to a perception of superior expertise and international experience. The shipping industry suffers as Nigerian companies are not engaged in shipping crude oil products, primarily due to the absence of a legal framework for developing a national fleet of vessels. This leads to a significant loss of potential revenue and employment opportunities.

The banking sector is affected as funds from crude oil production are often domiciled in foreign banks, sometimes held for months before remittance to the Central Bank of Nigeria. This practice deprives Nigerian banks of substantial business and the economy of potential multiplier effects. The Nigerian insurance industry plays a very insignificant and limited role in the oil and gas industry, with no major Nigerian insurance underwriters covering risks for the over 25,000 foreign vessels in Nigerian cabotage waters or the over 1,000 oil rigs in Nigerian waters.

Drilling contracts, oil field services, and engineering and construction projects in the sector are predominantly awarded to foreign firms, limiting opportunities for Nigerian businesses and hindering local capacity building and job creation.

2. Weak Enforcement of Local Content Laws

Despite the existence of laws like the Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act 2003, Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act and Merchant Shipping Act, Nigerian participation in key industries remains limited. The definition of “local content” is often ambiguous, creating loopholes in the legislation. There’s a lack of robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with local content laws across various sectors.

Some foreign companies use local subsidiaries as “pass-through” entities to circumvent local content laws, without truly involving Nigerian ownership or control. Companies may appear compliant on paper while beneficial ownership remains foreign. Foreign-owned vessels and rigs often operate in Nigerian waters without proper licenses and authorizations, violating the Cabotage and Merchant Shipping Acts. There’s a tendency to favor foreign companies even when capable local companies are available, and weak enforcement of maritime acts has led to lost opportunities for Nigerian shipping companies.

3. Contractual Issues and Foreign Influence

The incorporation of foreign agreements often excludes Nigerian laws and designates adjudication forums outside Nigeria, contradicting local content policies. The complexity of these contracts often puts Nigerian entities at a disadvantage due to limited expertise in international oil and gas law. The use of foreign legal frameworks has sometimes resulted in unfavourable outcomes for Nigeria in international arbitrations. The arbitration between the Nigerian Government and Process & Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID) in the United Kingdom is a case in point.

4. Industry Structure Favoring International Oil Companies (IOCs)

The current structure heavily favours IOCs, resulting in a significant portion of revenues leaving the country. IOCs often have more bargaining power in negotiations with the government due to their technical expertise and financial resources. The dominance of IOCs has led to a lack of technology transfer and skill development among local companies.

5. Regulatory Issues

The dual role of NNPC as both a regulator and operator creates conflicts of interest and inefficiencies. Multiple agencies with unclear mandates lead to bureaucratic bottlenecks and inefficiencies. Frequent changes in policies and regulations have created an unpredictable business environment. Weak enforcement of existing regulations has led to non-compliance in areas such as environmental protection and local content requirements.

6. Tax Avoidance by Oil Rig Companies

Oil rig companies have formed a cartel for tax avoidance, with the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) confirming they do not collect tax from oil rigs. This represents a massive loss of potential government revenue. The revenue attributable from oil rigs is estimated at N3 Trillion yearly, approximately 15% of the National Budget. The loss of this revenue significantly impacts the government’s ability to fund development projects and public services. The practice of tax avoidance by these companies creates an uneven playing field and discourages compliant companies.

7. Transparency and Corruption

Issues persist with the transparency and fairness of contract awards and renewals. Despite improvements, concerns about transparency in revenue management and overall industry operations remain. Corruption in the allocation of oil blocks, award of contracts, and distribution of oil revenues has eroded public trust. The opaque nature of some transactions has made it difficult to hold companies and government officials accountable.

Proposed Solutions

1. Addressing the Exclusion of Nigerian Participation in Key Value Chains

To increase Nigerian participation in legal services, shipping, banking, insurance, drilling, oil field services, and engineering within the oil and gas industry, several measures can be implemented. These include establishing a legal framework for developing a national fleet of vessels for oil and gas shipping, creating incentives for international firms to partner with Nigerian companies in these sectors, and developing specialized training programs in oil and gas law, maritime services, financial management, and insurance for the energy sector. Additionally, regulations requiring IOCs to maintain a certain percentage of their operational funds in Nigerian banks should be implemented, and support should be provided for Nigerian insurance companies to develop capacity in marine insurance.

2. Strengthening Enforcement of Local Content Laws

Rigorous enforcement of the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act is crucial to increase indigenous participation. This can be achieved through stricter monitoring and penalties for non-compliance, including regular audits and public reporting of compliance levels. A transparent system for tracking and reporting local content achievements across all sectors of the industry should be established. The Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act should be reviewed and amended to address implementation gaps and strengthen enforcement mechanisms.

3. Addressing Contractual Issues and Foreign Influence

A comprehensive review of all existing contracts should be conducted to ensure compliance with Nigerian laws and local content requirements. Standardized contract templates that prioritize Nigerian interests and comply with local laws should be developed. All new contracts should include provisions for technology transfer and capacity building for Nigerian entities. Clear dispute resolution mechanisms should be established, including creating robust, local dispute resolution mechanisms to handle conflicts in the industry.

4. Balancing Industry Structure

The privatization process of NNPC should be completed to separate its regulatory and operational roles, improving efficiency and transparency. Strong corporate governance structures should be implemented in the privatized entity to prevent political interference and ensure professional management. Joint ventures between foreign companies and genuinely Nigerian-owned companies should be encouraged and incentivized.

5. Improving Regulatory Framework

The roles of different regulatory agencies should be clarified to reduce overlap and improve efficiency. A single, powerful regulatory body should be established to oversee all aspects of the industry. The Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021 should be fully implemented. Environmental regulations should be strengthened and penalties for violations increased.

6. Tackling Tax Avoidance

NIMASA’s capacity to collect taxes from oil rig companies should be strengthened through training, technology adoption, and increased resources. Stricter regulations and penalties for tax avoidance in the industry should be implemented. A comprehensive audit of all oil rig operations in Nigerian waters should be conducted to identify and address tax leakages. A specialized task force within the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) focused on oil and gas taxation should be established.

7. Enhancing Transparency and Combating Corruption

The Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) should be strengthened and fully implemented to improve accountability. Open bidding processes for all contracts should be implemented and the award criteria made public. Blockchain technology should be utilized to create an immutable record of all transactions in the oil and gas sector. All companies operating in the sector should be required to publish their beneficial ownership information.

8. Head Hunting Talents

In addition to local content development, there should be a deliberate strategy to headhunt the best talents in the world to ensure that Nigeria’s participation in the oil and gas industry increases from the current 30% to 70% in the next 3 years.

Potential Economic Impact of Reforms

By addressing the identified challenges and implementing the proposed solutions, Nigeria could realize substantial economic gains:

1. Revenue Increase: With improved efficiency, transparency, and local participation, Nigeria could potentially increase its oil and gas revenue by 30-40% within 5-10 years. This could translate to an additional $15-20 billion annually based on current production levels.
2. Job Creation: Enhanced local content implementation, downstream investments, and increased Nigerian participation in key value chains could create an estimated 500,000 to 1 million new jobs in the oil and gas sector and related industries over the next decade.
3. Foreign Exchange Earnings: With increased refining capacity, reduction in fuel imports, and the development of a national fleet for oil and gas shipping, Nigeria could save $10-15 billion annually in foreign exchange.
4. Tax Revenue: By addressing tax avoidance by oil rig companies, Nigeria could potentially recover up to N3 Trillion yearly (approximately 15% of the National Budget) in additional tax revenue.
5. Local Content Development: Strict enforcement of local content laws and capacity-building initiatives could increase Nigerian companies’ participation in the industry from the current estimated 30% to 70% within 10 years.

Conclusion

The paradox of Nigeria’s oil and gas industry lies in its vast potential juxtaposed against the limited benefits accruing to the nation and its people. By addressing the identified challenges and implementing the proposed solutions, Nigeria has the opportunity to transform its oil and gas sector into a true catalyst for national development.

The path forward requires a delicate balance between prioritizing national interests and maintaining a conducive environment for necessary foreign investments. It calls for a reimagining of Nigeria’s relationship with its natural resources – one that places the welfare of its citizens and the long-term sustainability of its economy at the forefront.

The reforms proposed, while challenging to implement, offer a roadmap for transforming the industry’s paradox into a paradigm of resource-led development. By addressing the full spectrum of challenges, Nigeria can create a more inclusive, efficient, and sustainable oil and gas sector that truly benefits its people and economy.

The post Nigeria’s Oil and Gas Paradox: Abundance Amidst Scarcity first appeared on Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL).

Dr. Agbakoba pointed out several problems with the current system. He raised concern about the PIA not being clear about how hydrocarbon processes work. He thinks this has made Nigerian players less important and let International Oil Companies (IOCs) become more powerful amongst other concerns.

Also read: Rethinking Nigeria’s Oil and Gas Governance for National Development

To address these issues, Dr. Agbakoba proposed a model similar to Saudi Arabia’s, where a single Minister of Energy oversees all energy resources, including oil, gas, electricity, and minerals. He also advocated for a complete dismantling of the current system and its replacement with one that prioritizes Nigerian interests. He thinks the government should borrow money using its assets as security, instead of depending on IOCs. He also emphasized the need for Nigeria to work hard to sell its crude oil and train its people to do key jobs in the oil and gas sector like Saudi Arabia. Additionally, Dr Agbakoba wants the government to have its ships carry crude oil, instead of using private companies.

Dr. Agbakoba expressed concern about the “hypocrisy” of developed countries, arguing they are not doing enough to support developing countries like Nigeria. He concluded by calling on President Bola Tinubu to appoint capable ministers who understand policy formulation and execution and to implement a more efficient government structure. He emphasized the importance of taking control of Nigeria’s resources and prioritizing its interests in the global economy. These impassioned remarks highlight the urgent need for a comprehensive overhaul of Nigeria’s oil and gas sector, a sector he believes is failing to deliver its potential benefits to the Nigerian people.

The post Dr. Olisa Agbakoba SAN Calls for Overhaul of Nigeria’s Oil and Gas Sector first appeared on Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL).

The country continues to grapple with what economists term the “resource curse” or the “paradox of plenty.” This phenomenon is characterized by countries rich in natural resources, particularly non-renewable resources like minerals and fuels, experiencing less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes compared to countries with fewer natural resources. In Nigeria, this is manifested in high poverty rates, inadequate infrastructure, and uneven economic development.

This article proposes a paradigm shift in the governance of Nigeria’s oil and gas sector. It advocates moving from a model focused on mere resource extraction and revenue sharing to one that leverages the industry as a powerful tool for comprehensive economic development.

Historical Context of Oil Governance in Nigeria

The governance of Nigeria’s oil and gas sector has undergone several transformations since the discovery of oil in commercial quantities in 1956. From the pre-independence era governed by the Petroleum Ordinance of 1889, which vested oil mineral rights in the British Crown, to the post-independence period where the Petroleum Act of 1969 transferred these rights to the Federal Government of Nigeria. The creation of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) in 1977 and the recent Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) of 2021 were further attempts to improve the sector’s governance. Despite these reforms, the industry remains plagued by poor governance, lack of transparency, and inefficient resource management.

A prevailing misconception has been that the shift from state-controlled to private-sector governance would inherently lead to improvements in the sector. However, this transition has not yielded the expected results. The passage of the PIA has not had the anticipated positive impact on the oil and gas industry. Nigeria’s oil revenue has continued to decline, and the country struggles to meet its Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) quota. Issues of corruption, inefficiency, and lack of transparency persist. This suggests that the governance model alone is not the root cause of the sector’s challenges.

The core issue lies not in the inefficacy or corruption of state-owned oil companies but in the lack of a clear economic design that aligns the industry with national development goals – hence the need for another approach: Development Oil.

Also read: Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL) Press Conference: Bouquet of Books

The Concept of “Development Oil”

“Development Oil” is an approach to oil and gas governance that views these resources not merely as commodities for export and revenue generation, but as strategic assets for driving comprehensive national development. It stands in stark contrast to the traditional “Contract Oil” approach that Nigeria has implemented over the years. Contract Oil, primarily implemented through Joint Ventures (JVs) and Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs), treats oil and gas primarily as commodities to be extracted, sold, and the profit shared between the government and International Oil Companies (IOCs). This model has resulted in a passive government role, IOC dominance, limited NNPC involvement, significant capital flight, and limited local content development. In contrast, Development Oil views oil and gas as strategic assets for driving comprehensive national development. It emphasizes active state participation, value addition within the country, local content development, revenue retention and reinvestment, and long-term sustainability. This approach adheres more closely to the constitutional mandate in Sections 16 and 44 (3) of the Nigerian Constitution of using natural resources for the welfare and security of Nigerian citizens and seeks to address the “resource curse” that has plagued Nigeria.

This concept is built on several key principles. At its core is strategic resource management, which treats oil and gas reserves as national assets to be managed for long-term development rather than short-term gain. It also emphasizes integrated economic planning, aligning oil and gas sector policies with broader national development goals. Value addition is another crucial aspect of Development Oil, focusing on developing the entire value chain within the country, from extraction to refining and petrochemicals. This goes hand in hand with local content development, which aims to maximize the participation of local businesses and workforce in the oil and gas industry. The approach also prioritizes revenue retention and reinvestment, keeping a significant portion of oil revenues within the country and reinvesting them in critical sectors. Sustainable development is another key principle, balancing resource exploitation with environmental conservation and planning for a post-oil future.

The concept of “Development Oil” can be traced back to visionary leaders who saw oil not just as a revenue source, but as a tool for national advancement. One of the earliest manifestations of this thinking was the creation of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960. Leaders like Muammar Gaddafi envisioned OPEC as a means to leverage oil resources for the development of member nations. Several countries have successfully implemented aspects of the Development Oil approach. Norway is often cited as a prime example. The country established a sovereign wealth fund, now the world’s largest, to invest its oil revenues for future generations. Norway also developed a strong domestic oil industry and used its oil wealth to fund extensive social welfare programs. Saudi Arabia, while initially focused on oil exports, has in recent years pursued a Development Oil approach through its Vision 2030 plan. This includes using oil revenues to diversify the economy, develop non-oil sectors, and invest in education and infrastructure. Malaysia, through its national oil company Petronas, has pursued a Development Oil strategy. Petronas has invested in developing local expertise, expanding into the entire oil and gas value chain, and using oil revenues to fund national development projects. The United Arab Emirates, particularly Abu Dhabi, has used its oil wealth to fund economic diversification, infrastructure development, and the creation of sovereign wealth funds for future generations.

Policy Recommendations

To reposition the oil and gas industry as a driver of economic diversification and sustainable development, it is essential to establish a clear national agenda. This should be accompanied by a comprehensive National Oil and Gas Development Plan that outlines specific goals, timelines, and key performance indicators for the sector’s contribution to national development.

Implementing de facto state ownership of the industry in accordance with Section 44 (3) of the Nigerian Constitution is crucial. The President’s constitutional mandate as outlined in Section 5 must be recognized and acted upon, acknowledging his role as the Chief Executive Officer of Nigeria with the responsibility to give effect to the entire constitution. It’s important to recognize that Nigeria’s natural resources are a sovereign inheritance, constitutionally guaranteed to provide welfare and prosperity for all Nigerians – a right that cannot be delegated to International Oil Companies (IOCs) by contract. Currently, management and control of Nigeria’s oil and gas is delegated to IOCs through JVs and PSCs, which is contrary to Section 44 (3) of the Constitution that mandates the government of the federation to manage and control all minerals including oil and gas.

Existing Joint Venture agreements and Production Sharing Contracts with International Oil Companies (IOCs) should be reviewed and potentially revised. Agreements with IOCs should be reframed as economic development agreements rather than simple contracts. These agreements should engage the capital and technology of foreign companies in undertakings designed to have a decisive positive impact on the country’s economy, while maintaining sovereign control over resources. New models for engagement with IOCs should prioritize technology transfer, local content development, and value addition within Nigeria.

A new governance framework centered on development should be created. This should include one strong and independent regulatory body to ensure transparency and efficiency, and a restructured national oil company focused on maximizing value for national development, similar to Saudi Arabia’s model.

Innovative funding mechanisms, such as a Sovereign Oil Fund guaranteed by oil reserves, should be explored to finance strategic investments in the sector and related industries. This approach would allow Nigeria to leverage its proven reserves as collateral for borrowing, enabling the country to fund its own oil and gas operations without relying on foreign companies. A transparent and accountable mechanism for managing the Sovereign Oil Fund should be established. Collaboration between new Nigerian actors in the oil and gas sector and the federal government should be encouraged to build a new strategy for oil and gas exploration based on the concept of development oil. Investment in capacity building for Nigerian oil and gas companies should be prioritized to reduce dependence on IOCs. A significant portion of oil and gas revenue should be reinvested in diversifying the economy and developing non-oil sectors.

Local content policies should be strengthened to ensure greater participation of Nigerian businesses in the oil and gas value chain. Investment in developing petrochemical and manufacturing industries should be made to add value to raw oil and gas products. Special economic zones focused on oil and gas-related industries should be established to attract investment and create jobs.

Conclusion

Rethinking Nigeria’s oil and gas governance is crucial for transforming this vital sector from a mere source of revenue into a powerful engine for national development. By adopting a “Development Oil” approach, Nigeria can leverage its significant natural resources to drive sustainable economic growth, improve infrastructure, and enhance the well-being of its citizens.

This paradigm shift requires bold policy changes, including the securitization of oil reserves through a Sovereign Oil Fund, which would allow Nigeria to finance its own oil and gas operations. It also calls for a re-evaluation of existing agreements with IOCs that have effectively outsourced decision-making and control over Nigerian resources.

The current exit of IOCs presents both a challenge and an opportunity for new Nigerian actors in the oil and gas sector. In collaboration with the federal government, these actors must rise to the occasion and build a new strategy for oil and gas exploration based on development oil principles.

By aligning the oil and gas sector with broader national interests and constitutional obligations, Nigeria can create a more diversified, resilient, and prosperous economy that truly benefits all its citizens. This approach not only promises economic growth but also reaffirms Nigeria’s sovereignty over its natural resources, ensuring that they are managed for the welfare and security of all Nigerians, as mandated by the constitution.

The post Rethinking Nigeria’s Oil and Gas Governance for National Development first appeared on Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL).

*In a statement by Senior Partner, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN):*

“The event marks a strategic shift for Olisa Agbakoba Legal as we expand into the oil and gas sector. We are committed to providing exceptional legal services to clients navigating the complexities of this industry.”

The event, which was opened by Managing Partner Yvonne Ezekiel, highlighted OAL’s long-standing experience and expertise. Yvonne remarked, “Our over 40 years of legal practice have equipped us with unparalleled knowledge and authority. The publications we present today reflect the dedication and expertise of our team, addressing critical issues across various sectors.”

Other partners in the firm presented several publications that demonstrate OAL’s commitment to legal excellence and innovation.

Chinedu Nneke, Associate Partner & Head of the Maritime Group, spoke about the “OAL Compendium of Public Interest Cases,” highlighting pivotal cases that address issues like judicial independence, federal revenue allocation, freedom of religion, discriminatory practices, and constitutional amendment processes. This was followed by Babatunde Ogungbamila, Partner and Head of Energy and Dispute Resolution Practice Group, who unveiled “New Trends on Debt Recovery,” a publication exploring modern debt recovery strategies, including comprehensive debt documentation, advanced technology for debtor tracing, and strategic use of injunctions.

Beverley Agbakoba-Onyejianya, leading the OAL SET Practice Group, introduced “A Comprehensive Guide to Technology Law and Practice in Nigeria,” which provides insights into the challenges and opportunities within Nigeria’s tech ecosystem. Emmanuel Agherario, Associate, highlighted its relevance for tech startups and SMEs. Finally, Collins Okeke, Associate Partner/Head Government & Public Sector Group, showcased the “OAL Compendium of Space Treaties, Policies, Laws, and Regulations in Nigeria,” a pioneering publication that consolidates key international treaties and domestic laws impacting Nigeria’s emerging role in the global space industry.

The press conference demonstrated OAL’s commitment to providing accessible and comprehensive resources for legal empowerment in Nigeria. Each publication offers valuable contributions to the legal landscape, offering insights, strategies, and practical tools for diverse stakeholders—from legal practitioners and entrepreneurs to citizens and policymakers.

Click here to view our publications.

The post Olisa Agbakoba Legal Hosts Event Themed “OAL Insights: A Year of Governance and Law first appeared on Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL).

In today’s digital age, cybersecurity has become a paramount concern for individuals, businesses, and governments alike. The rapid advancement of technology has brought about unprecedented convenience and connectivity, but it has also opened the door to a myriad of cyber threats. As these threats continue to evolve in complexity and scale, traditional cybersecurity measures are often insufficient. This is where Artificial Intelligence (AI) steps in, offering innovative solutions to bolster our defences against cyberattacks. This article delves into the role of AI in cybersecurity, exploring how it helps navigate the complexities of emerging cyber threats through real-life experiences, relatable examples, and comprehensive references.

The Evolution of Cyber Threats

The landscape of cyber threats has dramatically transformed over the past few decades. Early cyberattacks were often simple and easy to detect, such as viruses and worms that spread through email attachments. However, today’s cyber threats are far more sophisticated. For instance, the WannaCry ransomware attack in 2017 infected over 230,000 computers in 150 countries within a single day, exploiting vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows to encrypt users’ data and demand ransom payments in Bitcoin (Pesapane et al., 2018).

Moreover, cybercriminals have become more organized and professional, employing advanced techniques like phishing, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, and zero-day exploits. The rise of nation-state cyber warfare further complicates the threat landscape, with state-sponsored hackers targeting critical infrastructure, stealing intellectual property, and conducting espionage.

AI in Cybersecurity: A Game Changer

Artificial Intelligence has emerged as a game-changer in the field of cybersecurity. By leveraging machine learning, deep learning, and other AI techniques, cybersecurity systems can detect, analyze, and respond to threats more effectively than traditional methods. AI’s ability to process vast amounts of data in real-time and identify patterns that may indicate a cyber threat is invaluable in today’s digital world.

Real-Life Example: AI in Action

One notable example of AI in cybersecurity is Darktrace, a company that uses machine learning algorithms to detect and respond to cyber threats. Darktrace’s AI technology, known as the Enterprise Immune System, works similarly to the human immune system. It continuously monitors network activity, learns what constitutes normal behaviour, and identifies anomalies that could indicate a potential threat. In 2019, Darktrace’s AI successfully thwarted a sophisticated cyberattack on a major financial institution by detecting unusual data transfers and blocking the attack before any damage could be done (Zeadally et al., 2020).

Navigating Emerging Cyber Threats

The complexities of emerging cyber threats necessitate a proactive and adaptive approach to cybersecurity. AI plays a crucial role in this by enhancing threat detection, improving response times, and providing insights that help prevent future attacks.

Enhanced Threat Detection

Traditional cybersecurity measures often rely on signature-based detection, which can only identify known threats. AI, on the other hand, uses anomaly detection and behavioral analysis to identify previously unknown threats. For example, Google’s AI-based security system, Chronicle, analyzes billions of security events in real-time, identifying patterns that may indicate a cyber threat. In one instance, Chronicle detected a novel phishing campaign targeting Google’s internal systems, allowing the security team to neutralize the threat before any data was compromised (Ali et al., 2023).

Improved Response Times

AI can significantly reduce the time it takes to respond to cyber threats. Automated systems powered by AI can analyze and prioritize alerts, enabling security teams to focus on the most critical threats. Additionally, AI can automate incident response, taking immediate action to mitigate threats without human intervention. IBM’s AI-powered security platform, QRadar, uses machine learning to detect anomalies and automate threat response, reducing the average time to detect and respond to incidents by 70% (Sadiku et al., 2020).

Preventive Measures

AI not only helps in detecting and responding to threats but also plays a vital role in preventing future attacks. By continuously learning from past incidents, AI systems can predict potential vulnerabilities and recommend preventive measures. For example, Microsoft’s AI-driven security framework uses predictive analytics to identify potential security weaknesses in its software and implements patches before attackers can exploit them (Shanthi et al., 2023).

Challenges and Ethical Considerations

While AI offers numerous benefits in cybersecurity, it is not without challenges and ethical considerations. The use of AI in cybersecurity raises concerns about privacy, bias, and the potential for AI to be used maliciously.

Privacy Concerns

AI systems often require access to vast amounts of data to function effectively, raising concerns about user privacy. Ensuring that AI systems are designed with privacy in mind and comply with data protection regulations is essential. For instance, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union imposes strict requirements on how organizations collect, store, and use personal data, including data used by AI systems (Naik et al., 2022).

Bias in AI Systems

AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on. If the training data is biased, the AI system’s decisions will also be biased. This can lead to unfair or discriminatory outcomes, particularly in security systems that may unfairly target certain individuals or groups. Ensuring that AI systems are trained on diverse and representative data sets is crucial to mitigating bias (Bae et al., 2022).

Malicious Use of AI

While AI can enhance cybersecurity, it can also be used by cybercriminals to develop more sophisticated attacks. For example, AI-powered malware can adapt to security measures in real-time, making it harder to detect and mitigate. Developing AI systems that can counteract these malicious AI-driven attacks is a growing area of research in cybersecurity (Ahmed Khder et al., 2023).

Future Directions

The integration of AI in cybersecurity is still in its early stages, and there is much room for growth and improvement. Future advancements in AI technology will likely lead to even more sophisticated cybersecurity solutions. However, this also means that cyber threats will continue to evolve, requiring ongoing research and development to stay ahead of attackers.

Explainable AI (XAI)

One promising area of research is Explainable AI (XAI), which aims to make AI systems more transparent and understandable. In cybersecurity, XAI can help security analysts understand why an AI system made a particular decision, improving trust and enabling better decision-making. For example, an XAI system could provide a detailed explanation of why it flagged a specific network activity as suspicious, helping analysts verify the threat and take appropriate action (Rjoub et al., 2023).

AI and Human Collaboration

While AI can automate many aspects of cybersecurity, human expertise remains invaluable. The future of cybersecurity will likely involve a combination of AI and human collaboration, where AI handles routine tasks and alerts, and human analysts focus on complex and strategic decision-making. This collaboration can enhance the effectiveness of cybersecurity measures and ensure a more comprehensive defense against cyber threats (Ubaydullayeva, 2023).

Conclusion

Artificial Intelligence has the potential to revolutionize cybersecurity by enhancing threat detection, improving response times, and preventing future attacks. Through real-life examples and comprehensive references, this article has demonstrated how AI is navigating the complexities of emerging cyber threats. However, the integration of AI in cybersecurity is not without challenges and ethical considerations. Ensuring that AI systems are designed with privacy, fairness, and transparency in mind is crucial to maximizing their benefits while minimizing potential risks. As cyber threats continue to evolve, ongoing research and collaboration between AI and human experts will be essential in building robust and resilient cybersecurity defences.

References

• Ali, Atif, Muhammad Arif Khan, Khushboo Farid, Syed Shehryar Akbar, Amna Ilyas, Taher M. Ghazal, and Hussam Al Hamadi. “The Effect of Artificial Intelligence on Cybersecurity,” March 7, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/icbats57792.2023.10111151.
• Bae, Ilsoo, Jiwon Yun, and Sejin Seol. “A Study on Response to Cyber Threats using Artificial Intelligence.” International Journal of Terrorism & National Security 7, no. 1 (March 30, 2022): 10–21. https://doi.org/10.22471/terrorism.2022.7.1.10.
• Khder, Moaiad Ahmed, Samer Shorman, Dana Anwar Showaiter, Areej Salah Zowayed, and Sara Isa Zowayed. “Review Study of the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Cyber Security,” March 8, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/itikd56332.2023.10099788.
• Naik, Nithesh, B. M. Zeeshan Hameed, Dasharathraj K. Shetty, Dishant Swain, Milap Shah, Rahul Paul, Kaivalya Aggarwal, et al. “Legal and Ethical Consideration in Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Who Takes Responsibility?” Frontiers in Surgery 9 (March 14, 2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.862322.
• Pesapane, Filippo, Caterina Volonté, Marina Codari, and Francesco Sardanelli. “Artificial intelligence as a medical device in radiology: ethical and regulatory issues in Europe and the United States.” Insights Into Imaging 9, no. 5 (August 15, 2018): 745–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-018-0645-y.
• Rjoub, Gaith, Jamal Bentahar, Omar Abdel Wahab, Rabeb Mizouni, Alyssa Song, Robin Cohen, Hadi Otrok, and Azzam Mourad. “A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Cybersecurity.” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management/IEEE eTransactions on Network and Service Management 20, no. 4 (December 1, 2023): 5115–40. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnsm.2023.3282740.
• Sadiku, Matthew N. O., Omobayode I. Fagbohungbe, and Sarhan M. Musa. “Artificial Intelligence in Cyber Security.” International Journal of Engineering Research and Advanced Technology 06, no. 05 (January 1, 2020): 01–07. https://doi.org/10.31695/ijerat.2020.3612.
• Shanthi, Rajasegar Rajendhiran, Nitin Kumar Sasi, and P Gouthaman. “A New Era of Cybersecurity: The Influence of Artificial Intelligence,” April 5, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/icnwc57852.2023.10127453.
• Ubaydullayeva, Anna. “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Navigating the Complexities of Cyber Law.” International Journal of Law and Policy 1, no. 4 (July 9, 2023). https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.57.
• Zeadally, Sherali, Erwin Adi, Zubair Baig, and Imran A. Khan. “Harnessing Artificial Intelligence Capabilities to Improve Cybersecurity.” IEEE Access 8 (January 1, 2020): 23817–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2968045.

AUTHOR:

Josephine Uba

Digital Transformation Leader – Cybersecurity & Artificial Intelligence

The post The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cybersecurity: Navigating the Complexities of Emerging Cyber Threats first appeared on Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL).

Understanding the Legal Framework

It’s important to comprehend Nigeria’s legislative framework controlling maritime activities before taking the plunge into ship ownership. Enforcing maritime regulations and guaranteeing safety and security in Nigerian seas are the responsibilities of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA). As a result, it is crucial that you get familiar with NIMASA laws and adherence is necessary to lawfully operating or owning a ship in Nigeria.

Determine Your Purpose

Clearly define the purpose of your ship ownership. Ask yourself if you are acquiring a vessel for commercial activities, such as cargo transportation or offshore oil and gas operations? Or are you interested in recreational boating? Your goal will determine the type and size of ship you should acquire, as well as regulatory requirements and operational considerations.

Conduct Market Research

Research the Nigerian maritime market to understand the demand for various types of vessels and identify potential opportunities. Consider factors such as market trends, competition, and regulatory changes that may impact your decision. Additionally, explore financing options available for ship acquisition, such as bank loans, leasing, or partnerships.

Choose the Right Vessel

Selecting the right vessel is critical to the success of your ship ownership venture. Factors to consider include:

Size and Type: Choose a vessel size and type that aligns with your intended use and operational requirements. Options range from small fishing boats and pleasure crafts to large cargo ships and offshore supply vessels.

Condition: Assess the condition of the vessel, considering factors such as age, maintenance history, and compliance with safety standards. A thorough inspection by qualified marine surveyors is recommended before finalizing the purchase.

Cost: Evaluate the purchase price of the vessel, as well as ongoing operational and maintenance expenses. Factor in additional costs such as insurance, crew salaries, fuel, and port fees.

Register Your Vessel

Once you’ve acquired a ship, you’ll need to register it with the appropriate authorities. Ship registration is managed by NIMASA. Registration involves submitting documentation such as proof of ownership, vessel specifications, and compliance certificates. Ensure that your vessel meets all regulatory requirements for registration before proceeding.

Comprehensive Steps to Ship Registration

Ship registration in Nigeria involves several steps to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and establish legal ownership of the vessel. Here is a detailed guide to the registration process:

Preparation of Documentation: Collate the necessary documentation required for ship registration. This typically includes:

Proof of ownership (such as bill of sale, builder’s certificate, or transfer documents)

Vessel particulars (including name, tonnage, dimensions, and classification)

Certificate of survey and inspection

Evidence of compliance with safety and pollution prevention standards

Proof of payment of relevant fees and taxes

Application Submission: Submit a formal application for ship registration to the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA). The application should include all required documentation and information about the vessel and its ownership.

Vessel Inspection: Arrange for a thorough inspection of the vessel by qualified marine surveyors accredited by NIMASA. The inspection will assess the vessel’s condition, compliance with safety standards, and suitability for registration.

Payment of Fees: Pay the applicable registration fees and taxes as specified by NIMASA. These fees may vary depending on factors such as vessel size, type, and intended use. Ensure that all fees are paid in full to avoid delays in the registration process.

Issuance of Registration Certificate: Upon satisfactory completion of the inspection and verification of documentation, NIMASA will issue a Certificate of Registration for the vessel. This certificate serves as official proof of the vessel’s registration and ownership in Nigeria.

Placement of Registration Marks: Affix the assigned registration marks (including the vessel’s name, official number, and port of registration) to the vessel in accordance with NIMASA regulations. These marks must be clearly visible and permanently displayed on the vessel’s hull.

Publication of Registration Details: NIMASA may require the publication of registration details in a designated maritime publication or official gazette. This public notice serves to inform stakeholders and interested parties of the vessel’s registration status.

Compliance with Ongoing Requirements: Maintain compliance with ongoing registration requirements, including renewal of registration certificates, updating of vessel particulars, and adherence to safety and operational standards prescribed by NIMASA.

Record Keeping: Keep accurate records of all registration documents, certificates, and correspondence related to the vessel’s registration. These records should be readily accessible for inspection by regulatory authorities and other stakeholders.

Engage Professional Assistance: Consider engaging the services of maritime legal experts or consultants familiar with Nigerian maritime regulations to ensure smooth navigation of the registration process and compliance with all requirements.

By following these comprehensive steps and adhering to regulatory guidelines, ship owners can successfully register their vessels in Nigeria and operate legally within Nigerian waters. Compliance with registration requirements not only establishes legal ownership but also ensures safety, security, and accountability in maritime operations.

Obtain Necessary Licenses and Permits

Depending on the intended use of your vessel, you may need to obtain various operating permits from regulatory authorities. Certain types of vessels, such as passenger ferries or offshore support Vessels, may require specific operating permits based on their intended operations. For example:

Trading License: If your vessel will be engaged in commercial activities such as cargo transportation, you will need to obtain a trading license from NIMASA.

Fishing Permit: For fishing vessels, you will need to obtain a fishing permit from the Nigerian Fisheries Department.

Ensure Compliance with Safety and Environmental Standards

Safety and environmental compliance are paramount in maritime operations. Ensure that your vessel meets all safety standards and regulatory requirements, including those related to navigation equipment, firefighting systems, pollution prevention, and crew training. Non-compliance can result in fines, penalties, or even the suspension of operations.

Conclusion

Becoming a ship owner in Nigeria presents various prospects for business ventures, leisure activities, exploration, and discovering new horizons. Nonetheless, successfully manoeuvring through this process necessitates meticulous preparation, adherence to regulatory protocols, and a comprehensive grasp of the maritime sector. By following the steps outlined in this guide and seeking expert guidance and legal advice when necessary, you can sail on a prosperous voyage as a ship owner in Nigeria.

The post Ship Ownership: A Guide to Acquiring a Ship in Nigeria first appeared on Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL).

The conversation about national allegiance revolves around Nsue Emillo, a well-known football player whose career has included stints with multiple clubs and national teams. His story brings to light the difficulties and challenges that come with the application of FIFA’s rules. After representing Spain in underage competitions, Emilio eventually pledged allegiance to Equatorial Guinea, a decision that provoked intense criticism and investigation, given the manner of the exercise.

This overview highlights the Nsue Emilio case as a critical example of exploring the complex rules around changing national allegiance within FIFA. It examines the FIFA statutes, the historical background, and the broader ramifications for players and national teams. By looking closely at this case, we can better grasp the difficulties and conflicts that exist within the current framework and explore possible changes that may be made to guarantee transparency and equity in the football national allegiance-changing process.

The legal framework for players’ nationality change falls under the FIFA Guide to Submitting a Request for the Change of Eligibility or Change of Association.

Article 5 (1) of the FIFA Guide stipulates:

“Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the association of that country.”

The FIFA Guide provides in the succeeding  (2) for a distinction between holding a nationality and being eligible to obtain a nationality. A player holds a nationality if, through the operation of a national law, they have:

(a) automatically received a nationality (e.g., from birth) without being required to undertake any further administrative requirements (e.g., abandoning a separate nationality) or

(b) acquired a nationality by undertaking a naturalisation process.

The Guide goes further in (3) to provide for the exception of the conditions for change of nationality thus:

 “Any player who has already participated in a match (either in full or in part) in an official competition of any category or any type of football for one association may not play an international match for a representative team of another association.”

The reference to a match in (3) above refers to a game between the senior national team and the representative team of the country involved. That match would be official, as it is different from a friendly exhibition match or a competition not captured in the FIFA football match yearly calendar.

(4) For Articles 6 to 9 below, the phrase ”lived on the territory of the relevant association” shall mean a period of physical presence on the territory of that association. The period shall be for a defined period (in years) following the relevant provision.

(a) The period of physical presence is not interrupted by: (i) short absences abroad for personal reasons; (ii) holidays abroad during the football off-season; (iii)medical treatment or rehabilitation abroad following injury or illness; or III. (iv)travel abroad as a result of football employment.

(b) The period of physical presence is interrupted (and time requirement resets) where: (i) a player is transferred to a club affiliated with a different association, or (ii) a player is absent from a territory for any reason other than those set out in par. (a) above.

The narrative of Nsue Emilio, born in Palma de Mallorca to a Spanish mother and an Equatorial Guinean father, played junior international football for Spain. The major challenge appears that the player and the Equatorial Guinea Football Federation breached Article 5 (2) of the FIFA Guide to Submitting a Request for the Change of Eligibility or Change of Association concerning the distinction between holding a nationality and being eligible to obtain a nationality.

Having been capped by Spain at the junior level, there is a need for clarification on citizenship status and eligibility for a different nationality under the above-stated FIFA rules. When capped by Equatorial Guinea, he was already nation-tied to Spain due to his Under-20 international participation with the European Country. The most important fact remains that the player and the national federation continued in this position for over a decade, participating in tournaments including the 2018 and 2022 World Cup qualifiers, as well as competing at three African Cup of Nations tournaments, even after a nationality request change that was rejected and a warning from FIFA.

This double appearance led to the present complications, and the appropriate FIFA Committee turned down the Equatorial Guinean Federation’s post-capping nationality switch request on his behalf.

The player was subsequently banned for six months from international football, although he had already announced his retirement after the African Cup of Nations 2024 edition. Equatorial Guinea was stripped of the six points it had garnered from its two 2026 World Cup qualifiers in November that the player had illegally participated in.

The failed nationality switch of Nsue Emilio, especially given the prominent role he has played in the Equatorial Guinean nationality team all these years of playing illegally, most especially emerging as the top scorer at the recent African Cup of Nations held in Ivory Coast, has brought a needless and preventable dark cloud over African football and the FIFA international change of player allegiance system.

The scandal involving Nsue Emilio provides a moving example of the difficulties and complications surrounding FIFA’s regulations regarding the change of national team allegiance. Emillio’s transition from playing for Spain at the Youth level to representing Equatorial Guinea at the international level exposed the nuances and possible contradictions in FIFA’s rules. The case mentioned above highlights the necessity of establishing unambiguous, lucid, and equitable protocols to effectively manage the fine line between an individual player’s aspirations and the integrity of global football tournaments.

FIFA’s regulations should consider players’ evolving identities and professional paths while preserving the essence of international competition. However, as Emillio’s story illustrates, these guidelines might occasionally result in disagreements and misunderstandings. The controversy brought to light several vital topics, including the eligibility requirements, the administrative procedures involved, the effects of these disagreements on players’ careers, and the tactics of national associations in having their way.

The Emilio incident also highlights how crucial it is for football associations and FIFA to have strong governance and efficient communication. Preventing similar difficulties in the future requires that players, clubs, and national teams understand and follow the regulations to the letter. In addition, FIFA should consider modifying its rules to clear up any confusion and ensure that the changing character of international football is reflected.

In conclusion, the Nsue Emilio case should stimulate possible reforms within FIFA’s current structure. FIFA ought to improve its rules to better serve the interests of players and the sport by taking lessons from this and other similar incidents. The aim ought to be to establish an equitable and open procedure that permits players to respect their varied upbringings while maintaining the competitive spirit of international football.

The post FIFA’s Change of National Team Allegiance Regulations: Case Study on Nsue Emilio – Lessons For Football Players, Stakeholders, Member Associations and FIFA first appeared on Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL).

As the global space race intensifies with an increasing number of nations and private entities striving to establish their presence in outer space, Nigeria has developed a comprehensive regulatory framework – The 2015 Regulations on Licensing and Supervision of Space Activities. The regulation was enacted in 2015 and activated by the Buhari administration in 2021. This framework aims to ensure that Nigeria’s emerging space activities are conducted safely, responsibly, and in accordance with international standards. This article unpacks key provisions of the 2015 NASRDA Regulations on Licensing and Supervision of Space Activities.

Comprehensive Licensing Requirements

The backbone of the 2015 NASRDA Regulations on Licensing and Supervision of Space Activities is Section 4(1), which mandates that no one “shall carry out activities to which the Regulations apply except under the authority of a license granted by the National Space Council.” This sweeping requirement covers a broad range of entities including “Corporations registered in Nigeria with ownership of space object(s)” and “Operators and manufacturers of space object(s) and launch vehicles within Nigerian territory” as outlined in Section 1. The regulation has a far-reaching effect as it covers all space activities carried out in Nigeria or on a Nigerian aircraft or boat. This means activities like satellite launches, satellite operations, remote sensing, space tourism, space debris removal, and spaceflight operations now compulsorily require a license from the Nigerian Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA).

The process of securing a license is far from a rubber-stamp process. Section 6(1) outlines comprehensive criteria that must be satisfied, ranging from “Proof of financial capability” and “Proof of reliable and requisite technical knowledge” to ensuring “the space activity mitigates space debris” and “complies with International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Regulation with regard to frequency allocation and orbital position.”

License conditions imposed under Section 7 can be extensive, mandating everything from “preventing the contamination of outer space or adverse changes in the environment of the Earth” to “requiring the licensee to insure himself/itself against liability.” The financial bar is also set high, with Section 6(1)(j) imposing “a flat sum of $2,000,000 (Two Million United States Dollars) for space activities license.”

Beyond a blanket space activity license, Sections 12-19 mandate a multi-tiered process requiring separate permits to be secured for launch facilities/spaceports, use of approved launch vehicles and flight paths, for each individual launch or series of launches.

Also read: The National Assembly’s Power to Replace the Nigerian Constitution: An Analysis of Professor Ben Nwabueze’s Arguments

Rigorous Monitoring and Enforcement of Licensing Conditions

While the extensive licensing requirements aim to ensure proposed space missions are comprehensively vetted on paper, Sections 37-38 establish robust mechanisms for monitoring real-world activities and enforcing compliance with license conditions and overall space laws.

Section 37(1) empowers the National Space Council to give any license holder directions “as it appears appropriate to secure compliance with the international obligations of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or with the conditions of the license.” Section 38 allows for judicial warrants to “authorize a named person acting on behalf of the National Space Council to do anything necessary to secure compliance” if access is denied.

Section 43 puts teeth into enforcement by enabling civil penalties for operating without a license or breaching conditions, with fines “not less than 15% of the total value of the project” for corporate entities. Section 43(2) imposes even more severe criminal penalties for intentional offences, with individual fines “not less than 5% of the total value of the project.” The conditions for compliance are relatively onerous, and the penalties for non-compliance are significantly punitive, reflecting the seriousness with which Nigeria is approaching the space sector.

Alignment with International Treaties

A key driver behind Nigeria’s new regulatory framework is ensuring the nation’s space activities uphold the key UN space treaties it has ratified. The regulations frequently reference these obligations, such as:

• Section 9 requires space activities to “not cause environmental damage to the Earth or outer space” in accordance with the Liability Convention.
• Section 10 mandates the mitigation of orbital debris “in accordance with international space debris mitigation standards”.
• Section 11 establishes a national registry of space objects to be shared with the UN as per the Registration Convention.
• Section 39 requires a minimum third-party liability insurance of $15 million as per the Liability Convention.

Enabling the Domestic Space Sector

While the overtones of Nigeria’s regulatory framework undeniably prioritize strict oversight, NASRDA officials insist this is not designed to be a punitive system. They point to provisions like Section 4(2) exempting certain private activities from licensing and Section 39(2) waiving some insurance requirements as proof they have tried to balance national interests with enabling a thriving domestic space industry.

The 2015 NASRDA regulations substantially benefit Nigeria’s economy, technological development, and international standing. By establishing a clear and robust framework for space activities, Nigeria can attract significant foreign investment and foster public-private partnerships essential for economic growth. These regulations also encourage the development of advanced technologies and skills within the country, leading to innovation and a highly skilled workforce. Internationally, Nigeria’s commitment to adhering to global standards enhances its reputation as a responsible spacefaring nation, paving the way for collaboration with other countries and international organizations. Additionally, the burgeoning domestic space sector can create numerous opportunities for startups and established companies alike, driving job creation and positioning Nigeria as a leader in Africa’s space endeavours.

Conclusion

As Nigeria aspires to join the prestigious lineup of rising space faring countries, the 2015 Regulations on Licensing and Supervision of Space Activities signal the nation’s determination to achieve its ambitious space goals by upholding the loftiest international standards. Like the United States, which has long been ahead in enacting and implementing comprehensive space regulations through entities like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nigeria is now positioning itself as a crucial player in global space governance. By enforcing a strict yet enabling framework, Nigeria not only ensures the safety and sustainability of its space activities but also creates a terrain ripe for innovation and profitable growth. This new foundation sets the stage for Nigeria to reach for the stars, mirroring the scrupulous approach seen in established spacefaring nations while addressing the unique opportunities and challenges within the African environment.

^[1] ,The Guardian,  ‘FG signs MoU with U.S. firm to send first Nigerian to space’ (Lagos, 20 June 2024)

<https://guardian.ng/fg-signs-mou-with-u-s-firm-to-send-first-nigerian-to-space/#:~:text=Uche%20Nnaji%20The%20Federal%20Government%20has%20signed%20a,plans%20to%20send%20its%20first%20citizen%20into%20space.> accessed 24 June 2024

The post Unpacking the NASRDA 2015 Regulation on Licensing and Supervision of Space Activities first appeared on Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL).

I am concerned only with the last, Folly or Perversity, which is the pursuit of policy contrary to the Nation’s interest. Central to failed leadership is why holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggest. Surveying the vast spectrum of our recorded past, Tuchman explored this paradox and identified Folly’s hallmark: the self-destructive act carried out despite the availability of a recognised and feasible alternative.

Why do leaders act in folly in spite of clear alternatives? The answer lies in wooden-headedness, folly’s chief symptom, which Tuchman says is caused by self-deception and consists of assessing a situation in terms of pre-conceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting contrary signs.

History records Phillip II of Spain as probably the surpassing wooden-head sovereign of all time “No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in it’s essential excellence. Why is it that our leaders often fail to act in our interest? Philip III, King of Spain at the dawn of the 17th Century was said to have died of a fever contracted from sitting too long near a hot furnace, helplessly overheating himself because the person whose duty it was to remove the furnace when summoned, could not be found. This was a classic case of total self-deception based on the preconceived notion that the King does no work. Yet the alternative was simple. Folly accounts for Nigeria’s slow progress to democratic consolidation.

Folly or Perversity is at its worst when individual sovereignty shapes policy.  Under this condition, folly’s affliction is usually total and fatal. Tuchman tells of a classic case of folly: Rehoboam, King of ancient Israel, Son of Solomon and David, was confronted early in his reign with a revolt by ten out of twelve tribes of Israel over the forced labour tax decreed by his father. He consulted with the old men of his father’s council who advised him to accede to the people’s demands in exchange for their renewed loyalty.

Also read: The National Assembly’s Power to Replace the Nigerian Constitution: An Analysis of Professor Ben Nwabueze’s Arguments

Not to look weak and to exercise his sovereignty, Rehoboam found the advice too lame and turned to his inner council, comprised of his peers. They knew his disposition and, like counsellors of any time who wish to ingrain and consolidate their position, gave advice they knew would be palatable. “Make no concessions”, they admonished, “but tell the people outright that your rule would be not lighter but heavier than your father’s”. They composed for him the famous words that could be any despot’s slogan: And this shall thou say to them; whereas my father laid upon you a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. “Whereas my father chastised you with whips, I shall chastise you with scorpions”. That his subjects might not be prepared to accept this reply meekly seemed not to have occurred to Rehoboam beforehand. Instantly – so instantly as to suggest that they had previously agreed upon their course of action in case of a negative reply – the men of Israel announced their succession from the House of David with the battle-cry: “To thy tents O Israel!  See to thy own house, David.”  Not without reason, Rehoboam earned in Hebrew history, the designation “Ample in folly”.  The twelve tribes of Israel were never reunited. But driven from their lands and forcibly dispersed into the great unknown by the Assyrians. The alternative course that Rehoboam might have taken, advised by the elders and so lightly rejected exacted a long revenge that has left its mark for two thousand odd years. As the great historian, Gibbon, would say, it is difficult to fix the lowest point in Nigerian political history, but one of them certainly occurred when after the elections of June 12, it was annulled. Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire completed in 1788, contains important lessons for us today. No other historian has so eloquently and penetratingly portrayed the terrible magnitude of the Roman Empire’s descent into anarchy. This is no place to discuss Gibbon’s work but to note that leadership is the critical and essential characteristic of good governance. There are lessons in this for our leaders in Nigeria, our dear beloved Nation.

FIRST WRITTEN ON JULY 21, 1993

AND MODIFIED TODAY JUNE 12, 2024

The post Folly of Leadership first appeared on Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL).