Nigeria: Ogun will soon join oil-producing states, Senator Adeola assures
The lawmaker representing Ogun West in the National Assembly disclosed this on Tuesday, while speaking in Ota at the 2nd Edition of the Town Hall Meeting/Mega Empowerment and Thank You Tour of Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area.
He said that all machinery has been set in motion for the commencement of the drilling on the island that shares a border with the Republic of Benin.
Adeola, who is the Chairman Senate Committee on Appropriations, said the yet-to-commence activity on the Tongeji Island could be attributed to the economic policies of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the disposition of the Governor of the State, Prince Dapo Abiodun, towards socioeconomic advancement.
He submitted that Ogun will witness tremendous economic prosperity and growth when the drilling activities commence in the oil-rich Tongeji Island.
He added that the nation's crude oil production will receive a boost as soon as the activities commence.
Senator Adeola noted that President Tinubu, in his two years in office, had attracted more Foreign Direct Investment into the country, with the same feat being recorded by Governor Dapo Abiodun in Ogun.
While further praising the Ogun State governor for completing the agro-cargo airport, which has attracted other mega projects from the private sector, establishing a dry sea port and delivering other infrastructural projects across the state, Adeola declared that the governor will be remembered as the best in terms of delivery of infrastructural and socioeconomic development.
On the empowerment programme, Adeola explained that he decided to decentralise the programme to empower more constituents in the senatorial district.
He added that the programme was also facilitated to reward the people of Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area, as one of the five LGAs in the senatorial district, for their support during the 2023 general election.
Reeling out his achievements as the senator, Adeola said that the largest project he facilitated is situated in Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area.
He informed the constituents that 15 road projects have been completed as his constituency projects, while 9 road projects are ongoing in different locations in the LGA.
The senator, however, disclosed that a sum of N26 billion has been mobilised for the construction of Atan-Ikonga-Alapoti-Ado-Odo Road, submitting that when the road project is completed, it will enhance the socioeconomic development of Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area.
While assuring the people that he will continue to offer qualitative representation at the Senate, stated that 'I moved 10 bills under two years, and 70 percent of them have scaled second reading.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
6 days ago
- Khaleej Times
Pakistan faces over Rs4.1 billion loss after airspace closed to Indian aircraft
Pakistan Airports Authority has faced a loss of Rs4.1 billion since Pakistan closed its airspace to Indian operated and owned aircraft, according to a report by Dawn. The figure was quoted by the Ministry of Defence to the National Assembly last Friday. The ministry also said that the shortfall was "in overflying revenue". Timeline and closure of airspaces The closure followed a deadly attack on Indian tourists in Kashmir on April 22. More than 70 people were killed in missile, drone and artillery fire in the subsequent military conflict, until a ceasefire was announced on May 10, as reported by Reuters. Pakistan had closed its airspace to Indian aircraft on April 24, while India took a similar measure days later, with the ban to last until May 23. Later, the Pakistan extended the ban until June 24, and India responded with an extension until June 23. On June 23, both countries said that the bans would remain the place for another month, Reuters said. Later, the Indian government announced that Pakistan had extended the ban until August 23 and that Indian airspace would be closed to Pakistani aircraft until the same date. Priority is defence According to Dawn, the statement by the Ministry of Defence stresses that it prioritises defence and sovereignty over financial losses. It also reports the ministry as saying that there are no changes when it comes to overflight and aeronautical charges, and the figure specifies refers to 'revenue shortfalls, not overall financial losses'.
Zawya
06-08-2025
- Zawya
Zimbabwe: The mines and minerals bill, unconstitutional clauses remain from previous bill
The Mines and Minerals Bill [ link ] was published in the Gazette on the 25th June. It has been given its first reading in the National Assembly and the Parliamentary Legal Committee [PLC] is currently examining it to assess whether or not it is consistent with the Constitution. The PLC examined an earlier Mines and Minerals Bill in 2022 and found several clauses to be unconstitutional. In this bulletin we shall look at the current Bill to see if the unconstitutional aspects of the earlier Bill which the PLC identified have been retained or rectified. The PLC's Report on the Previous Bill Three years ago the Government published a very similar Bill, which lapsed when Parliament was dissolved immediately before the 2023 general election. That Bill, as we have said, was examined by the PLC and found to be unconstitutional in several respects. The PLC's adverse report can be accessed on the Veritas website [ link ]. The PLC found that the following provisions of the old Bill were unconstitutional: · Clause 6(4)(a) (its equivalent is clause 6(4) of the new Bill), which stated that anyone wishing to mine a strategic mineral had to demonstrate a capacity to invest at least US $100 million or a greater or lesser amount prescribed by the Minister. The PLC found this was unconstitutional on the following grounds: 1. The amount was so high it would prevent ordinary citizens from mining strategic minerals and would amount to unfair discrimination on economic grounds, violating section 56(3) of the Constitution. 2. It would also violate section 13(4) of the Constitution, which requires the State to ensure that local communities benefit from resources in their areas. 3. The Minister's power to vary the amount was open to abuse and would violate the principle that laws must be certain, which is an important element of the rule of law enshrined in section 3 of the Constitution. Does the new Bill remedy these defects? NO. The new clause 6(4)(a) requires miners to demonstrate an ability to invest 'such minimum sum as the Minister may prescribe' and lays down no specific amount for the investment. From the tenor of the clause however the prescribed amount will be very high, beyond the reach of all but the most serious miners [the memorandum to the Bill in fact says that miners will have to commit to invest at least US $1 million]. Furthermore, there are no guidelines or parameters limiting the Minister's discretion, so the Minister's power to fix and vary the amount will be just as wide as in the former Bill. · Clause 8(3)(a) (clause 9(3)(a) in the new Bill), which stated that members of the Mining Affairs Board who were public servants should remain members 'indefinitely'. The PLC found the clause violated principles of good governance laid down in section 9 of the Constitution, which demanded that members of the Board should serve fixed terms. 'No office on any Board,' the PLC said, 'can be allowed to run in perpetuity.' Does the new Bill remedy the defect? N O. Clause 9(3)(a) of the new Bill says that members hold office for 'a renewable term of four years', which means that their terms can be renewed indefinitely – which the PLC decided was unconstitutional in the earlier Bill. · Clause 12 (clause 13 of the new Bill), which permitted the Mining Affairs Board to state questions of law for decision by the Supreme Court, and gave the Court power to decide those questions. The PLC found this provision to be unconstitutional because section 168 of the Constitution declares the Supreme Court to be a court of appeal which hears only cases coming from courts, not from bodies such as the Mining Affairs Board. Does the new Bill remedy this defect? Yes, but only by creating another constitutional difficulty. According to clause 13 of the new Bill, the Mining Affairs Board will be able to state questions of law to be decided by the Administrative Court. This is legally permissible, though the High Court would be a better forum to decide questions of law. Although the Bill cures that defect, it goes on to create a worse one. Under clause 331 the Chief Justice will be obliged to set up a new Mining Court as a specialised Division of the High Court and, once he has done so, references in the Bill to the Administrative Court will have to be construed as references to the new Mining Court – except that the Administrative Court will 'continue to have exclusive jurisdiction' over certain matters set out in the Eighth Schedule to the Bill. Not only is this very confusing, it is also unconstitutional because section 171 of the Constitution gives the High Court original jurisdiction over 'all civil and criminal matters throughout Zimbabwe'. By purporting to give the Administrative Court exclusive jurisdiction over some mining disputes, the Bill seeks to deprive the High Court of its constitutional jurisdiction – which it cannot do. · Clause 35(4) (clause 37(5) of the new Bill) which stated that if a landowner refused permission for prospecting to be carried out near his or her homestead, the landowner would be prohibited from acquiring mining rights over the land for ten years. The PLC considered this violated landowners' property rights under section 71 of the Constitution and unfairly favoured the rights of miners over those of landholders. Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision is exactly the same. · Clause 37 (clause 39 of the new Bill), which allowed landholders to register up to 100 hectares of their arable and pastoral land with a provincial mining director in order to protect the land against prospecting and pegging. The PLC considered this prejudiced landholders and farmers at the expense of miners. The PLC was also of the view that registration of land was the prerogative of the Ministry responsible for lands, not mines, and therefore the provision violated section 194(1) of the Constitution, which required government institutions to co-operate with each other. Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision is exactly the same. · Clause 59 (clause 61 of the new Bill), which stated that if a miner had more claims than he or she had disclosed when registering his or her block of claims, the provincial mining director could demand payment from the miner for the extra claims. The PLC thought this provision, like many others in the Bill, gave too much power to provincial mining directors and would encourage corruption: the power to demand and receive money should be vested in the Mining Affairs Board. Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision is the same. We should add that neither the old nor the new Bill seems to give miners a right to appeal against decisions of provincial mining directors so they are left without a proper remedy if directors incorrectly assess the number of their claims. · Clauses 72 and 111 (clauses 74 and 113 of the new Bill): clause 72(8) of the old Bill declared that there would be no appeal against certain decisions of the Mining Affairs Board, and clause 111 made a similar provision for certain decisions of the Minister – the decisions would be final. The PLC considered these clauses violated section 68(3) of the Constitution, which states that the law must provide for a review of administrative decisions. Does the new Bill remedy these defects? Yes, but only by creating fresh constitutional difficulties. The new clause 74 (equivalent to clause 72 of the old Bill) now says that decisions of the Mining Affairs Board will be reviewable by the Administrative Court [which will actually be the new Mining Court – see above] but only on very narrow procedural grounds specified in the clause. Clause 113 of the new Bill – equivalent to clause 111 of the old Bill – makes a similar provision for decisions of the Minister. The problem here is that section 68 of the Constitution gives everyone, including miners, the right to: 'administrative conduct that is lawful, prompt, efficient, reasonable, proportionate, impartial and both substantively and procedurally fair'. The procedural grounds of review permitted by clauses 74 and 113 are far narrower than those mandated by the Constitution – in particular, they will not allow courts to decide whether the decisions they are reviewing are reasonable, proportionate and fair, which is what the Constitution requires them to do. Hence the new clauses are unconstitutional. · Clause 130 (clause 132 of the new Bill): This clause stated that the grant of a mining lease over an area automatically cancelled the registration of all mining locations within the area. The PLC considered this provision deprived the miners concerned of their property rights without the safeguards set out in section 71(3) of the Constitution: in particular, the miners were not to be given notice of the cancellation, there was no provision for the government to get a court order confirming the cancellation, and the holders of the mining locations were not entitled to compensation. Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision is the same. · Clause 131 (clause 133 of the new Bill), which prohibited anyone from challenging the validity of a mining lease. The PLC considered this violated section 68 of the Constitution, which states that everyone whose rights have been affected by administrative conduct – in this case the grant of a mining lease – has the right to be given written reasons for the conduct. More pertinently, the provision violated section 69 of the Constitution, which gives everyone the right to have their disputes resolved by a court or other tribunal. This means that a miner whose mining rights have been cancelled because of the grant of a mining lease to someone else, for example, or the holder of a mining lease who thinks he or she should have been granted a larger one, must have a right to take the matter to court. Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision is the same. · Clauses 246 and 251 (clauses 248 and 253 of the new Bill): These clauses allow mining locations that are not being worked to be expropriated and transferred to the Minister of Mines. The PLC felt that they should be transferred to the State, not the Minister, presumably to avoid corruption. Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provisions are identical. · Clause 259: This clause prohibited officials in the Ministry of Mines from holding any financial or proprietary interest, direct or indirect, in mines or mining companies. The clause went on to say that in any legal proceedings accused officials would bear the burden of proving they did not act contrary to their duties as public officers. The PLC thought that shifting the burden of proof was unconstitutional. Does the new Bill remedy this defect? Yes, but in a shocking way. The entire clause has been omitted, so the Bill now contains nothing to prevent officials in the Ministry from acquiring mining interests for themselves. The opportunities this gives for corrupt behaviour are obvious. Admittedly there are other laws that penalise corruption – sections 173 and 174 of the Criminal Law Code, for example – but omitting the clause from the Bill sends entirely the wrong message to public servants, the message being: Join the Ministry of Mines and get rich. · Clause 298 (clause 308 of the new Bill): This clause made it a criminal offence for persons who discovered precious stones not to notify a provincial mining director within ten days of the discovery. The PLC felt that the clause imposed absolute liability on persons who discovered precious stones, even if they did not know the nature of what they had discovered, and so the clause was unconstitutional. Does the new Bill remedy this defect? No. The new provision remains the same. The defect would be very easy to put right, simply by adding words imposing criminal liability only on persons who fail to report their discovery 'knowingly and without lawful excuse'. Conclusion In this bulletin we have confined ourselves to seeing if the constitutional problems the PLC found in the earlier Bill have been rectified in the new Bill, and we have demonstrated quite clearly that they have not. There are many other defects in the Bill which we have not touched on, and not just constitutional ones. We shall deal with them in future bulletins. © Copyright The Zimbabwean. All rights reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Zawya
30-07-2025
- Zawya
South Africa: National Council of Provinces Passes Two Bills
The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) passed the 2025 Appropriation Bill and the Eskom Debt Relief Amendment Bill during its plenary sitting held today. The Appropriation Bill is a key part of the national budget. It outlines how government funds will be allocated among various departments. Section 27(1) of the Public Finance Management Act requires the Minister of Finance to table the annual budget for a financial year in the National Assembly before the start of that financial year or, in exceptional circumstances, on a date as soon as possible thereafter. The Minister of Finance tabled the National Budget for the 2025/26 financial year, including the Appropriation Bill and the Eskom Debt Relief Bill, in May this year. Following the passing of the Bill in the National Assembly last week, the Appropriation Bill was subsequently referred to the Select Committee on Appropriations for consideration and reporting back to the NCOP plenary sitting for adoption. This Bill is the law that authorises government to use public funds for various departments and entities, enabling them to deliver services and develop infrastructure and social programmes such as healthcare, education and social grants, while also supporting economic growth. The Bill also focuses on job creation and addressing unemployment. On the other hand, the main objective of the Eskom Debt Relief Bill is to amend the Eskom Debt Relief Act of 2023 by reducing the financial requirements for Eskom for the 2025/26 financial year. It proposes that the entire amount for that year be treated as a loan, which can be converted into equity upon the fulfilment of certain conditions. The Bill also introduces interest into the Eskom debt relief package at a market-related rate. The aim is to balance the interest charge and Eskom's cash flow, while reflecting a fair market-related rate. This is part of ongoing interventions to stabilise the power utility, which has faced years of operational challenges and financial crisis, and to modify its debt relief plan. Now that the Bill has been passed, there is hope that Eskom will have a more enabling balance sheet to spend more money on improving its capacity to supply electricity. These two Bills passed by the NCOP will now be sent to the President for assent, as required by the Constitution. Once Parliament passes the Appropriation Bill and signed into law by the President, government departments are allocated funds and commence implementing their approved spending plans. Parliament then exercises ongoing oversight through its portfolio and select committees to ensure accountability in the use of public funds. The Auditor-General conducts independent audits of departmental spending and reports the findings to Parliament. Where instances of financial mismanagement or underspending are identified, Parliament may recommend corrective action to ensure responsible and effective use of public resources. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Republic of South Africa: The Parliament.
