COMMUNIQUÉ AT THE ROUNDTABLE ON THE BILL FOR A LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE LAGOS STATE WATER SECTOR

(November 11, 2004)

The Pan African Vision for the Environment (PAVE), the South-West Coordinator of the National Civil Society Network on Water and Sanitation with the support of the Heinrich Böll Foundation (HBF) organised a one day brainstorming roundtable on the Bill for a law to provide for the Lagos state water sector on the 11th November 2004 at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Lagos.

Participants were drawn from different social, economic, civil political, youths, women and academic organizations in the Lagos area.

The roundtable afforded participants the opportunity to analyse the Bill and make necessary observation and recommendations before the third reading of the Bill at the Lagos State House of Assembly.

Observations and Recommendations:

Participants observed that there has been no public hearing on the Bill and this demonstrates the lack of transparency and participation of citizens in the public affairs. This is unacceptable in a democratic dispensation and on an issue as sensitive as water. We hereby call for the convening of a public hearing on the Bill;

That the present wide gap between the elected government officials and the Nigerian civil society must be bridged to guarantee and promote popular participation in the governance;

That Lagos State Water Corporation (LSWC) is undergoing outright privatization and not Private Sector Participation (PSP) as we have been made to believe. We say NO to the privatization of Lagos State Water Corporation (LSWC);

That a new corporation to be known as the "Lagos Water Corporation" would replace the present Lagos State Water Corporation (LSWC);

That the new "Lagos Water Corporation" is expected to take over the assets of the LSWC as section 7(1)a empowers it to "own all water services assets, new water services assets and sewerage services assets";

That the "Core Investor" would appoint the chairman, Group Managing Director and all the seven other members of the Governing Board of the new water company;

That section 7(1)d empowers the new "Lagos Water Corporation" to acquire, purchase, lease, hold, construct, manufacture, maintain or insure any property forming part of the water services assets, whether movable or immovable, required for or in connection with the performance of its functions and sell, Lease, concede, dispose of, or otherwise deal with such property or any part thereof";

That in interpreting the terms used in the 93-paged document, the Bill defines "Core Investors" but was silent on the meaning of the singular term "Core Investor";

That the question arises which body would own and control the new "Lagos Water Corporation" which takes over the assets of the LSWC? Would it be "Core Investors" described in the Bill to "represents those that apply money capital to the corporation from which public interest or profit is expect (including sharers, debentures, Government and other public securities) " or the undefined "Core Investor"? There is great need for "Core Investor" to be clearly defined;

That page 9 section 2,3and 4 of the Bill makes for the incorporation of wholly owned limited companies as subsidiaries;

That whether the activities of the subsidiaries which are outside water supply will not derail the corporation? ;

That who will appoint the committee members in page10 subsection 9? From which group are the members to be nominated from? Will consumers have a say?;

That borehole should be standardized in page 7 (m);

That the phrase " however caused" to be expunged in page23 (2);

That the consumers should be carried along in page 4,h,and j;

That a specified civil society organization should be represented in the commission ;

That in section 50 (2) there should be a clear definition of what is considered to be reasonable returns in capital;

That if there is any need for a regulatory adviser, the source and amount of their remuneration should be specified;

That in section 52 (j) (2) there should be some discrimination is the fixing of charges in favour of the poor and low income earners, this can be done by way of differential metering ;

That in section 78 none of the seven conditions for determining tariffs mentions the interest of the consumers. We recommend that the interest of the consumer should be the first and major condition for determining tariffs;

That in section 81 the Commission is given wide powers to obtain whatever information it wants from any source, people who deny it information stand to be penalized, but section 69 lives it at liberty to publish statements and reports on its responsibilities and functions. The law should also make it mandatory for the Commission to make information about its activities to the public;

That the power of exemption granted the governor in section 92 can be abused and so should be expunged. Everything should go through due process;

That provision of sewerage and waste water storage should not be a matter of choice, but should be compulsory, incorporated from the design stage, upto construction level of any building, considering the health implications;

That the planning problems in the state is brought to the fore as the government cannot give account of those who are connected to the sewage system;

That the public should be educated on the importance of sewerage in every household.

That in section 116(1) who determines "hygienically conducive environment" and what sanctions are available for non-compliance;

That in section 116(4) who determines WHO standard and what sanctions are available?

That in section 119(1) what sanction for discharge?;

That in section 125(1) what happens to the victim? And what are the remedies for the victim?;

That in section 125(3) the defence is not reasonable and should be expunged;

That the composition of the court should include a representative of civil society from probably, the Nigerian Bar Association and consumer group;

That corporate fines for vandalisation of pipe network due to road repairs is too small. Make it something really punitive;

That the word "vandalisation" should be re-worded to damage of pipe network;

That there is huge difference between fines for illegal advertisement(11) and vandalisation in (1-4). Vandalisation or damage to pipe network is a more severe violation, yet it attracts lower fines;

That severe sanctions on industrial waste to the raw water river course should specified;

That the penalty on chemical waste is too low, it should be made very high;

That staff of the corporation who collects cash payment for settlement of bill should be summarily dismissed.

Signed

Akpan Anthony Johnson
President PAVE

Kristie Charles-Iyoha
DevNet

[Top]  [Back]