Fejiro Oliver Warns Asari Dokubo Against Alleged Plot to Take Over Eastern Corridor Pipeline Contract

…Insists Niger Delta host communities deserve direct access to surveillance contracts

…Questions N2.7trn claim, says underserved communities should be prioritised

Niger Delta activist, Fejiro Oliver, has warned former militant leader, Asari Dokubo, that any alleged attempt to take control of the Eastern Corridor pipeline surveillance contract would fail, insisting that communities across the oil-producing region deserve a fair opportunity to participate in protecting critical petroleum infrastructure located within their territories.

Oliver, who spoke to reporters in Abuja on Tuesday, argued that pipeline surveillance arrangements should not be concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or companies, but should reflect the interests of the various communities whose lands and waterways host the country's extensive oil and gas infrastructure.

The activist expressed concern over what he described as an attempt to secure control of the Eastern Corridor contract, maintaining that communities that have yet to benefit directly from pipeline surveillance arrangements should be given priority rather than allowing existing beneficiaries to expand their influence.

His comments come amid an escalating disagreement over pipeline surveillance contracts in the Niger Delta, following Dokubo's allegations that the Olu of Warri, Ogiame Atuwatse III, and other individuals receive N2.7 trillion annually from such arrangements.

The allegation has drawn a strong response from the monarch's representative, Prince Collins Oritsetjmeyin Edema, who challenged Dokubo to provide evidence to substantiate his claims.

Edema, the Sole Representative of the Olu of Warri to NNCL/JV Partners, issued the challenge in a statement on Tuesday, questioning the basis of the allegation and warning against statements capable of heightening tension in the politically and ethnically sensitive Niger Delta region.

The dispute has brought renewed attention to the allocation, administration and beneficiaries of pipeline surveillance contracts, which have become an important part of efforts to protect oil and gas infrastructure against crude oil theft, vandalism and other activities that threaten Nigeria's petroleum revenues.

OLIVER QUESTIONS N2.7TRN ALLEGATION

In his intervention, Oliver challenged Dokubo's reported figure of N2.7 trillion, describing it as unsubstantiated and arguing that the controversy should not be used to advance the interests of any particular individual or ethnic group.

He maintained that he had previously played a role in advocating the Federal Government's decision to engage host communities in pipeline surveillance, explaining that his position was informed by the need to ensure that people living in oil-producing areas had a direct stake in protecting the infrastructure that runs through their territories.

According to Oliver, his understanding of the amounts paid to the companies involved in the surveillance arrangements was based on figures he had examined, including calculations converting their dollar equivalents into naira.

He alleged that Dokubo had relied on figures he had publicly disclosed concerning payments to Tantita Security Services and Maton Engineering Nigeria Limited, despite, according to him, not having seen the underlying contract documents.

Oliver said: “Asari quotes N2.1 trillion paid to Tantita/Maton because I revealed the figures after my conversion of the dollar equivalent paid to the companies. He has never seen the contract papers. I have.”

He rejected Dokubo's reported N2.7 trillion figure, arguing that allegations involving such substantial sums should be supported by verifiable documentation rather than statements that could inflame public sentiment.

The figures cited by the parties, however, remain allegations in the controversy and should be distinguished from independently verified contract values or confirmed annual payments. Neither the claims nor the competing figures, as presented in the available account, establish the precise amounts paid to individual contractors or beneficiaries.

The disagreement underscores the importance of transparency in public discussions about pipeline surveillance contracts, particularly because the arrangements involve the protection of national petroleum assets and have implications for public revenue, community relations and security in the Niger Delta.

HOST COMMUNITIES MUST HAVE A FAIR SHARE

Beyond his disagreement with Dokubo, Oliver used the controversy to renew his call for a more inclusive approach to awarding pipeline surveillance contracts.

He argued that the existing arrangements should be examined to determine whether communities across the Niger Delta are adequately represented among the beneficiaries.

According to him, the concern is not simply about which individual or company controls a contract, but whether the system provides opportunities for the different ethnic groups and oil-producing communities whose territories are affected by petroleum exploration and transportation.

Oliver questioned what he described as the composition of the three contractors engaged in the surveillance arrangements, arguing that the distribution of responsibilities and benefits had raised legitimate questions about representation.

He said: “I didn’t also find it palatable that out of the three contractors engaged in the job, two are Ijaws with the last one being PINL led by an Edo, with the Olu of Warri who’s Itsekiri as chairman.”

The activist's argument is that a programme intended to protect oil and gas infrastructure should not inadvertently deepen perceptions of exclusion among communities that have endured the environmental, economic and social consequences of petroleum operations for decades.

The Niger Delta has long experienced tensions over resource control, environmental degradation, unemployment and the distribution of benefits derived from crude oil production. Against this background, the allocation of surveillance contracts has acquired significance beyond the immediate business interests of the companies involved.

For many communities, participation in such arrangements represents an opportunity to gain employment, generate income and become directly involved in securing infrastructure within their areas.

However, the question of equitable access also presents a challenge for government and the relevant contracting authorities. A system based solely on ethnic representation could create new disputes, while an arrangement that ignores the interests of host communities could reinforce longstanding feelings of marginalisation.

A sustainable framework would therefore need to establish clear eligibility requirements, define the responsibilities of contractors, provide transparent information about contract awards and ensure that communities have a verifiable stake in the arrangements.

‘MILITANCY HAS GIVEN WAY TO INTELLECTUAL ADVOCACY’

Oliver also sought to distinguish his disagreement with Dokubo from a rejection of the former militant leader's historical role in the Niger Delta struggle.

He described Dokubo as an elder in the movement for resource control and acknowledged his previous support for calls to decentralise pipeline surveillance arrangements.

According to Oliver, Dokubo had supported the campaign for a broader distribution of the contracts and had made videos advocating that position.

He said the former militant leader's reported attempt to secure control of the Eastern Corridor contract was therefore surprising, given the earlier calls for decentralisation.

Oliver stated that he continued to respect Dokubo as an elder in the struggle for resource control, despite disagreeing with what he described as his present approach.

He argued that the region's campaign for a fairer share of its resources and economic opportunities should increasingly be pursued through intellectual engagement, public accountability and constructive advocacy rather than the confrontational methods associated with the era of militancy.

“Militancy,” he suggested, had become outdated as a primary instrument of agitation, with intellectual reasoning and public advocacy offering more sustainable means of advancing the interests of the Niger Delta.

The position reflects a broader debate within the region about how best to pursue resource control and community development without reviving the violence and disruption that previously affected oil production.

Although pipeline surveillance contracts can provide economic opportunities, their long-term value depends on whether they contribute to stability, community participation and the protection of critical infrastructure.

Oliver's intervention suggests that the struggle over the contracts is also a contest over the direction of the Niger Delta's resource-control movement and the principles that should guide its future.

URHOBOS, ISOKOS, OTHERS SHOULD BE PRIORITISED

The activist was particularly critical of what he described as an attempt by Dokubo to expand the influence of existing beneficiaries rather than support communities that have yet to secure direct participation in the surveillance arrangements.

He identified Urhobo, Isoko, Ilaje, Opobo, Bakassi, Ibibio, Efik and Ogoni communities among those he believes should be given greater consideration.

According to Oliver, these communities should have a stronger claim to participation if they are yet to benefit directly from pipeline surveillance contracts.

He also argued that the Eastern Corridor arrangement should remain associated with the interests of Itsekiri and Edo communities, alleging that these groups already have a share in the existing structure.

Oliver said: “The Eastern Corridor Okunbo already gives the Itsekiris and Edo their own shares of the surveillance contract and should remain with them.”

He added that communities that had yet to receive direct contracts should be the ones pressing for greater access, rather than Dokubo, whom he alleged was seeking to expand the influence of an already represented group.

“The Urhobos, Isoko, Ilajes, Opobos, Bakassi, Ibibios, Efik and Ogonis are yet to directly get the contract that should be crying to have a share and not Asari whose two Ijaw sons already control the majority,” he said.

The allegations about the distribution of contracts and the extent of individual beneficiaries' interests have not been independently established in the account. Nevertheless, they highlight a central question in the debate: whether the existing surveillance structure provides a sufficiently transparent and equitable mechanism for involving the many communities across the Niger Delta.

Any assessment of the arrangements would need to establish which communities are covered by each contract, the geographical scope of the contractors' responsibilities and the criteria used to determine participation.

Without such information, disagreements over who deserves a contract risk becoming disputes driven by competing claims of ethnic entitlement rather than evidence-based assessments of community needs and operational requirements.

OLU OF WARRI'S REPRESENTATIVE DEMANDS EVIDENCE

Meanwhile, Edema's response to Dokubo's allegation has added another dimension to the controversy, particularly regarding the reputational consequences of making claims involving prominent traditional institutions and individuals in the Niger Delta.

The monarch's representative argued that Dokubo's public intervention should be considered against the background of his longstanding association with militancy and confrontational political expression.

He maintained that statements involving the Olu of Warri, Pipeline Infrastructure Nigeria Limited, PINL, Tantita and other actors in the surveillance arrangements could have consequences beyond an immediate public disagreement, given the region's complex ethnic and political relationships.

Edema's demand for evidence places the burden on Dokubo to substantiate the reported N2.7 trillion allegation rather than allowing the figure to circulate without documentary support.

The demand also raises a broader issue of accountability: substantial public claims about contract payments should be capable of verification through relevant documents, official disclosures and explanations from the contracting authorities.

At the same time, questions about the allocation of surveillance contracts should be open to legitimate scrutiny. Demanding evidence for a specific allegation should not prevent broader examination of whether the arrangements are transparent, competitive where appropriate, and beneficial to the communities concerned.

The distinction is important because public confidence depends both on preventing the spread of unsubstantiated allegations and on ensuring that individuals and companies entrusted with protecting national assets are subject to appropriate scrutiny.

A DEBATE THAT EXTENDS BEYOND INDIVIDUALS

The confrontation between Oliver and Dokubo illustrates how the pipeline surveillance debate has expanded beyond the technical task of protecting oil infrastructure to encompass questions of economic inclusion, ethnic representation and the future of resource-control advocacy.

For the Federal Government and the relevant oil-sector authorities, the challenge is to ensure that security arrangements remain effective while addressing legitimate concerns about the participation of host communities.

Pipeline surveillance requires operational competence, coordination, reliable intelligence and the cooperation of people familiar with the terrain. At the same time, the concentration of economic opportunities among a limited number of actors can create resentment if communities believe that their contributions and sacrifices are not being recognised.

A credible approach would therefore combine security requirements with transparent contract administration, clear community-engagement procedures and verifiable information about payments and responsibilities.

It would also avoid treating pipeline surveillance contracts as the exclusive preserve of particular ethnic groups or prominent individuals. Communities should be considered according to their relationship with the infrastructure, their security needs, their capacity to contribute and the applicable contractual framework.

For the Niger Delta, the stakes are considerable. Disputes over surveillance arrangements can undermine cooperation if they deepen existing divisions, but a transparent and inclusive system could strengthen local participation and reinforce the protection of petroleum infrastructure.

Oliver's warning to Dokubo is consequently part of a larger argument about who should benefit from the region's security economy and how those benefits should be distributed.

Whether the controversy produces meaningful reforms will depend on the willingness of the relevant parties to move beyond competing allegations and establish the facts surrounding the contracts.

Ultimately, the central question is not simply whether one individual can take control of a particular corridor, but whether the surveillance system can protect Nigeria's petroleum assets while providing fair, transparent and accountable opportunities for the communities that host them.