Ex-NDDC official demands review of NDDC’s Act
A former commissioner of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), representing Cross River state, Sylvester Nsa has called on the federal government to review the NDDC Act to accommodate his home state.
Nsa made the call in a statement made available to newsmen in Calabar on Tuesday. He said that the review would accommodate Cross River state in the NDDC Act following the loss of Bakassi and its oil wells.
The ex-commissioner said that in spite of the inadequacies of the NDDC Act that inhibited Cross River state in its sharing formula, the NDDC in the state under his leadership was able to attract 61 projects which had been executed.
He said that 34 projects are currently ongoing at various locations across the state, adding that a breakdown of the projects by the NDDC in the state showed that 20 emergency repaired roads had been inaugurated while 41 were waiting to be inaugurated by the NDDC.
According to him, contractors have been mobilised to site for the construction of six bridges and roads at various locations while four contractors have yet to be mobilised to site.
He said out of a total of 119 projects approved by the board of the NDDC for the state, 61 have been completed, 34 are ongoing and 20 already inaugurated in the last four years.
Nsa was reacting to a statement issued by the Governor of Cross River state, Prof. Ben Ayade, when the acting Managing Director of NDDC, Prof. Nelson Brambaifa, paid him a courtesy visit.
He said the governor was right because the current master plan of the commission pays more emphasis on oil-producing states of which Cross River has been deleted.
He said the state has been placed at a disadvantaged position due to the loss of its oil wells, saying that “I share the concern of other stakeholders and that of the governor of Cross River for an urgent review of the Act to allow Cross River state benefit equally in terms of projects allocation and 13 per cent derivation across board.
“We lost Bakassi and 76 oil wells due to no fault of ours. It was a decision taken by the International Court of Justice at The Hague and the federal government. Rather than compensating the state for the loss, we are being punished through the Act.’’
