This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ABUJA 000997 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EFIN EPET PGOV PINS NI
SUBJECT:  Revenue Sharing and Resource Control 
 
 
¶1. (U) In the interests of de-mystifying what is for 
everyone, Nigerians included, an extremely convoluted 
federal revenue-sharing system, Embassy offers the 
following summary explanation to help define the issues at 
stake in the resource control lawsuit being heard in the 
Nigerian Supreme Court.  Familiarity with the broad 
outlines of the GON's revenue distribution scheme is also 
essential for understanding many of the Federal/State 
issues that will arise from the work of the Constitutional 
Review Committee.  Some of the most contentious 
constitutional issues considered by the Committee involve 
revenue distribution and resource control. 
 
 
¶2. (U) We will present the distribution process in a 
linear, outline form and define terms as needed.  Naira 
values are based on this year's (FY 2001) income 
projections provided by the Ministry of Finance to the 
National Assembly.  Dollar values are based on an exchange 
rate of 130 naira/dollar.  (Dollar and naira figures in 
billions, except where noted.  Numbers rounded.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶I. FEDERALLY COLLECTIBLE REVENUES:  N2,126 b. 
        (16.35 b. 
USD) 
These are gross revenues to the GON which are 
divided into Oil and Non-oil Revenues. 
 
 
¶A. OIL REVENUE 
 
 
¶1.  Oil and Gas Revenues (Total):  N1,672 b. 
        (12.8 b. 
USD) 
 Comprised of: 
  Export Crude:    N863 b. 
  Petroleum Profit tax:  N353 b. 
  Oil Royalties   N163 b. 
  Domestic Crude   N241 b. 
  Upstream Oil/Gas  N 30  b. 
  Rents, oil block sales N 22 b. 
 
 
 
 
¶2. Less Primary First Line Charges:   N497 b. 

(3.82 b.USD) 
   NNPC Joint Venture Cash Calls:N350 b. 
   Petroleum Product Subsidy:   N147 b. 
 
 
Note: This total is deducted from gross 
petroleum receipts only (line 1).  Primary 
First Line Charges include capital 
contributions to the Nigerian National 
Petroleum Corporation's (NNPC) Joint Venture 
Companies (JVC's) and the national petroleum 
product subsidy.  Since the GON owns an average 
of 57 percent of the JVC's, it contributes that 
same percentage to the total of capital 
investment in the petroleum sector. 
 
 
 
 
  ¶3. Net Oil Revenues:     N1175 n. 
 (After primary first line charges)  (9.03 b. USD) 
 
 
 
 
  ¶4. DERIVATION: (13% of Net Oil Revenue) N153 b. 

(1.18 b. USD) 
 
 
Note: Derivation is to be paid to the nine oil 
producing states, and equals 13 percent of net 
oil revenues after primary first line charges. 
This payment is intended to compensate states 
for environmental degradation due to resource 
extraction.  Whether to base this 13 percent 
figure on total oil production, or onshore 
production only, is the crux of the current 
dispute between the States and Federal 
Government.  Whatever the outcome, it is at 
this point in the process that derivation is 
determined.  Offshore production constitutes 
roughly 45 percent of total production, with 
that portion expected to increase gradually 
over the next several years as new offshore 
fields come on line and existing onshore fields 
are depleted. 
 
 
  ¶5. Net GON Oil Revenues after Derivation:  N1022 b. 

(7.86 b. USD) 
 
 
  ¶6. Less Secondary First Line Charges:  N368 b. 

(2.83 b. USD) 
 
 
 Secondary First Line Charges include: 
   External Debt Service: N150 b. 
 NNPC Priority Projects: N34 b. 
 Other Charges:   N184 b. 
 
 
 
 
  ¶7. Net GON Oil and Gas Revenue   N838 b. 

(6.44 b. USD) 
 
 
 
 
¶B. NON-OIL REVENUE 
 
 
  ¶1. Non-oil Revenue (Total):    N453 b. 

(3.48 b. USD) 
 
 
 VAT       N70 b. 
   Customs Duties    N114 b. 
 Company Income Tax   N70 b. 
 Education Tax    N7 b. 
 Petroleum Products Tax  N40 b. 
 Independent Revenue   N60 b. 
  (Parastatal Profits) 
 Customs Levies    N20 b. 
 Privatization Proceeds  N70 b. 
 Fertilizer Debt Recovery  N2.5 b. 
 ¶C.  FEDERALLY COLLECTIBLE REVENUE 
 Net oil and non-oil revenue:   N1292 b. 

(9.93 b. USD) 
   National Judicial Council:  N15?? 
 
 
Note: NJC funding is deducted as a first charge 
against federally collectible revenue--net oil 
plus non-oil income--which then determines the 
level of funding for the Federation Account. 
The NJC is responsible for administration of 
the State and Federal Courts. 
 
 
 
 
II. FEDERATION ACCOUNT     N1277 b. 
(Federally Collectible Revenue less NJC funds)(9.82 b. USD) 
 
 
Note: Some non-oil income items are considered 
exclusive Federal Government revenue, and are 
deducted from the Federation Account before 
arriving at the figure for Federally 
Distributable Funds, which are allocated to the 
three tiers of government.  Exclusive Federal 
Government revenue includes all non-oil 
revenues listed above except company income 
tax, customs duties, and the petroleum products 
tax. 
 
 
¶A. Federally Distributable Funds:   N1047 b. 
    (less exclusive Federal Govt. revenue) (8.05 b. USD) 
 
 
   ¶1. Federal Govt. Share (48.5%):   N508 
        (3.9 b. 
USD) 
 
 
   ¶2. States (24%):    N251 
        (1.93 b. 
USD) 
 
 
   ¶3. Local Govt. Areas (20%):  N210 
        (1.6 b. 
USD) 
 
 
 ¶4. Special Funds (7.5%):   N78 b. 
        (.6 b. USD) 
 
 
Special Funds are then apportioned between the 
three levels of government according to the 
same percentages. 
 
 
 ¶B. Vat Distribution (N70 b.) 
 
 
  ¶1. Federal Govt. share of Vat (15%):  N10.5 b. 
  ¶2. States Share of Vat (50%):   N35 b. 
  ¶3. Local Government Areas (35%):  N24.5 b. 
 
 
 ¶C. Niger Delta Development Commission: N17.8 b. 
 
 
Note: This amount is paid by the GON to the 
NDDC.  The figure is determined by multiplying 
38.61 as a percentage against the overall 
revenue figure for the states (IIA2: N251 b.). 
This provides N97 b.  which is multiplied by 
.15 to get the basic allocation for the NDDC: 
N14.5 b.  (Note: The GON has only been paying 
the NDDC at a rate of 10% rather than the 15% 
required by the NDDC law.  End note.)  An 
additional 3.3 billion naira is added to this 
figure from a separate revenue item, leaving a 
total payment to the NDDC of N17.8 b.  This 
amount is paid to the NDDC by the GON out of 
the Federation Account, and essentially is a 
taken as a charge against the Federation 
Account after applying the revenue sharing 
formula. 
 
 
III.  Total Federal/State/LGA Disposable Revenue: 

N1370 b. 

(10.5 b. USD) 
 
 
   ¶1. Federal Government:   N708 b. 
        (5.44 b. 
USD) 
 (48% of Federation Acct., 10% Vat, Special Funds 
 distribution + retained revenue) 
 
 
   ¶2. States:      N380 b. 
        (2.92 b. 
USD) 
 (24% of Fed. Acct., VAT and special funds 
 distribution) 
 
 
   ¶3. Local Government Areas:   N282 b. 
        (2.17 b. 
USD) 
 (20% of Fed. Acct., Vat and Special Funds 
 distribution) 
 
 
 
 
------------------------ 
Resource Control Lawsuit 
------------------------ 
 
 
¶3. (U)  The foregoing revenue distribution summary is 
helpful in understanding what is at stake in the current 
lawsuit between the oil-producing states and the Federal 
Government.  As mentioned above, derivation is a 13% 
deduction from net oil revenues after all first charges are 
removed, and is intended to compensate oil-producing states 
for environmental degradation.  It is also intended as a 
type of royalty payment to oil-producing states to 
partially compensate them for the expropriation of mineral 
rights by the Federal Government under the Land Use Decree 
Act of 1973, during the military administration of General 
Yakubu Gowon. 
 
 
¶4. (U)  The Federal Government contends that offshore 
production should be excluded in determining derivation for 
the following reasons:  first, the GON argues that offshore 
production beyond the three-mile territorial limit is in 
the exclusive economic zone of the GON, and states with 
maritime boundaries therefore have no claim to special 
ownership or administration of those resources.  Second, it 
contends that offshore production is not deleterious to the 
littoral environment--one of the primary justifications for 
the derivation payment.  Finally, the GON argues that 
mineral rights beyond the three-mile territorial limit 
never belonged to the states, so both the legal and moral 
arguments in favor of compensation based on these resources 
are invalid.  The states disagree, arguing that the 
offshore/onshore dichotomy was introduced by Head of State 
General Gowon by military decree in order to help pay the 
lingering costs of the Civil War and is unconstitutional. 
 
 
¶5. (U)  The oil-producing states may have the upper hand on 
the purely constitutional issues.  Section 162(2) of the 
1999 Constitution provides that the National Assembly shall 
determine a formula for revenue allocation that takes into 
account among other things, population, revenue generation, 
landmass: 
 "Provided that the principle of derivation shall be 
constantly reflected in any approved formula as being not 
less than 13 percent of the revenue accruing to the 
Federation Account directly from any natural resources." 
 
 
The states are arguing that the introduction of a 
distinction between onshore and offshore production is not 
based in the plain language of the Constitution, which 
would seem to forbid it. 
 
 
6.(U)  Comment:  While it is unclear how the Court will 
rule, the States may well prevail if the Supreme Court 
makes a purely legal judgment based on the language in the 
Constitution.  In view of the passage, "accruing to the 
Federation Account directly from any natural resources," 
the real issue may boil down to whether certain Nigerian 
states--by virtue of having maritime boundaries--have a 
higher order claim to the 13 percent derivation from 
offshore oil than do all states collectively. 
 
 
¶7. (U) President Obasanjo unilaterally refused to pay 
derivation from May 1999, and only began making partial 
payments to the oil-producing states under political 
pressure in June 2000.  It is encouraging that the Obasanjo 
Administration is seeking a legal outcome from the Supreme 
Court, rather than continuing to take unilateral action. 
However, the issue is a political one, and many observers 
expect the Court to seek a way to thrust the question back 
into the political arena.  A more detailed report on the 
issues and background to the resource control lawsuit will 
be provided in Septel.  End Comment. 
JETER