The Presidential Amnesty Programme (PAP) was established by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua in 2009 as one of the measures to bring under control the restiveness among the youths of the Niger Delta which was, at that time, affecting, adversely, the nation’s oil production levels.
The Yar’ Adua administration made a conscious decision to curtail an escalating conflict situation by initiating a peace process that included amnesty and unconditional pardon to agitators and militants in the Niger Delta region.
The programme included Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration (DDR) for the militants who were thought to number 15,000 but which final count reported 30,000. Policy analysts estimate that the DDR cost the government about US$1.68 billion dollars thus making it one of the most expensive DDR programmes in the world.
From indications, the present administration intends to diversify the Nigerian economy and make it less dependent on oil which we think is a right policy direction. But until it is clearly defined, oil remains the main stay of the economy dominating export earnings and public revenue by over 80 per cent.
We are worried that as the Buhari administration insists on stopping the amnesty programme by December 2015, what will be the impact of that decision on the Niger Delta vis a vis the response of the youths who have come to rely on it for sustenance.
As the year draws to a close and December approaches, we advise on the need for a well thought out transition timetable that will ensure that the relative stability gained in the process of implementing the programme is built upon and sustained.
The amnesty programme was never meant to be in perpetuity, it has to stop some day but the region needs to have a firm commitment from the Government that the 32 million people whose means of livelihood have been destabilised, distorted, and wiped out in some cases in the process of oil exploration and production will be taken care of beyond the symbolic establishment of institutions like Ministries and commissions.
We commend the government for infusing into the area enormous resources to ameliorate the effects of environmental degradation. We also acknowledge that between 2010 and 2014, the government channeled into the region about N7.75 trillion amounting to roughly US$40 billion to address development issues and other human development indicators designed to help the poor.
But unfortunately, in our view, inadequate physical and social infrastructure remain characteristics of the region even as pollution is still very much widespread.
Over the years, development initiatives implemented in the region aimed at achieving reduction in conflict, have largely been unsuccessful due to avoidable reasons. These programmes generally suffer lack of integrated development framework, poor management and implementation, inadequate funding, weak coordination, poor governance, lack of transparency and accountability processes, corruption and poor attitude of both governments and citizens.
It is our opinion that as the government mulls its closure, it is necessary to undertake a holistic evaluation of the programme to determine who benefited and at what cost and the actual amount it cost the people of Nigeria. It will also be useful to design an integrated multi –pronged approach for disengagement from the programme that includes sustainability strategy for already implemented development initiatives in the region.
