Theoretical framework on the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC)

In order to enhance the theoretical meaning; relevance, and focus of this study, which form the pivot and proffer direction on the search for panacea to the problems this study seek to solve, the Conspiracy theory, the Frustration Aggression theory and the Human Right Approach to development have been adopted.

The conspiracy theory

A conspiracy theory explains an important social, political or economic event as being caused or covered up by a covert group or organization.

Academic work in conspiracy theories and conspiracism (a word view that places conspiracy theories centrally in the unfolding of history) presents a range of hypothesis as a way of studying the genre. According to Berlet and Lyons “conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scape-goating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm”.⁹⁹

The historian Richard Hofstadter addressed the role of paranoia and conspiracism throughout American History in his essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, Published in 1964. Bernard Bailyn’s Classic the Ideological Origin of American Revolution (1967) notes that a similar phenomenon could be found in America during the time preceding the American Revolution. Conspiracism labels people’s attitudes as well as the type of conspiracy theory that are more global and historical in proportion.¹⁰⁰ The term conspiracy is popularized by academic Frank P. Mintz in the 1980’s. According to Mintz, conspiracism denotes belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history.¹⁰¹ The term conspiracy theory is used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies.¹⁰² The term is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military banking or political actions aimed at “stealing” power, money, or freedom, from the people.¹⁰³ In order words, the study argues in line with the theory, that the establishment of NDDC is a complex plots or political actions aimed at stealing the wealth, power, money or freedom of the Niger Delta people. That the original ideals and template of the Willink’s commission was to provide special development attention to the developmental needs of the Niger Delta people and not with the pretence of establishing development agencies whose aims are diverted from the original purpose of providing infrastructural development to playing politics by the political kingpins in the areas with the developmental needs of the people.  Conspiracy theories are based on the notion that complex plots are put into motion by powerful hidden forces.¹⁰⁴ Less illustrious uses refer to folklore and urban legend and a variety of explanatory narrative which are constructed with methodological flaws or biases.¹⁰⁵ Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960 it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events.¹⁰⁶ The conspiracy theory provides the template for us to see the Federal government of Nigeria as the conspirator while the development  agencies, like the Niger Delta Development Commission as the malign covert agency.  One ought to think that the establishment of Interventionist development agencies, i.e. the Niger Delta Development Commission in the Niger Delta Region is to provide succour to the Niger Deltans for the betterment of the developmental need of the people in the region. But, however, in reality, gansteric and garrison politics, corruption, misapplication of fund and favouritism has ravaged the efficacy of the commission.

The political scientist Michael Barkun discussing the usage of this term in contemporary American culture holds that a conspiracy theory is a belief which explains an event as the result of a secrete plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end.¹⁰⁷ It should be digested however, that the likes of Ken Saro-Wiwa, Adaka Boro etc. who sacrificed their lives for the development of Niger Delta areas did that not because they wanted the establishment of development agencies in the area but essentially, the total control of resources and the unprecedented development of the region as a way to cushion the negative effect of oil spillage, environmental degradation etc. To dowse the tension, the government of Nigeria assented to the establishment of development agencies pretentiously, for the development of the Niger Delta region. This was a secrete plot by exceptional powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end. If the government of Nigeria was genuinely interested on the development of the region, then there should have been a total control of the resources in the region by Niger Deltans. Or, if the argument is on the establishment of development agencies, then why should the federal government not directly fund NDDC? Why should the Act establishing NDDC not provide for direct funding by the federal government of Nigeria? There is no clear provision holding the FGN exclusively responsible to the NDDC, other than contributions drawn from statutory revenues of the Niger Delta States and ecological fund. The arguments here are two folds. First, the development of the Niger Delta region deserves very special attention since the Federal Government has control of its resources. Second, there is an absolute need to separate: (1) ecological problems from infrastructural provisions; (2) generate states revenue from special and dedicated funds for the NDDC. The implication of the arrangement is that the Niger Delta has been indirectly used to fund the NDDC, while the federal government of Nigeria tactically dodges its development responsibilities in the region. The attitude of the Federal Government in releasing allocations to the commission does not help matters. In NDDC’s budgetary process, the Federal Government through the NASS exercises an over – bearing influence. This consolidates the argument that the establishment of development agencies in the Niger Delta Region like the NDDC was not for the social interest of the Niger Delta people but the result of a secrete plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end.

According to Barkun, the appeal of conspiracism, is three fold: first, conspiracy theory claim to explain what institutional analysis cannot. They appear to make sense out of the word that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealing simple way by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirations and their agents. Thirdly, conspiracy theories are often presented as special secrete knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brain washed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters deception.¹⁰⁸

Some scholars argue that conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audience have become common place in mass media, contributing to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon in the United States of the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries, and the possible replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political actions in the public mind. ^{109, 110, 111, 112}

According to anthropologists Todd Sanders and Harry G. West, evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans today gives credence to at least some conspiracy theories.¹¹³ Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologist and experts in folklore.

In an essay, conspiracy theories originated in the East, Daniel Pipe notes that “(f)ive assumptions distinguish the conspiracy theorist from the more conventional patterns of thought: appearances deceive, conspiracies drive history; bothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money and sex account for all.¹⁰³According to West and Sanders, when talking about conspiracies in the Vietnam War era, Pipes includes within the fringe element anyone who entertains the thought that conspiracies played a role in the major political scandals and assassinations that rocked American Politics in the Vietnam era. “This sees the Paranoid style in almost any critical historical or social scientific analysis of oppression.¹¹⁴

Noam Chomsky, linguist and scholar, contrast conspiracy theory as more or less the opposite of institutional analysis, which focuses mostly on the public, long term behaviour of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, for example, scholarly documents or mainstream media reports, rather than secretive coalitions of individuals.¹¹⁵ Popper argued that totalitarianism was founded on “conspiracy theories” which draw imaginary plots driven by paranoid scenarios predicted on tribalism.¹¹⁶ Totalitarianism, as Popper argued, is also at play in the NDDC. Since the inception, the NDDC has remained an area of Machiavellian politics. Rather than honestly focused on pushing the enabling statutory mandate of developing the region, people in and around the NDDC seem to be more concerned with the act of using clever trickery, amoral methods, and expediency to achieve desired political and fraudulent goals.

The NDDC was supposed to be a development intervention agency instituted to execute projects and programmes to alleviate the plight of the neglected people of the Niger Delta. But today, the supposed intervention agency is in dire need of an intervention to save it from self destruction. Now all the tiers of government need to intervene to save NDDC from destroying itself. Popper did not argue against the existence of everyday conspiracy (as incorrectly suggested in much of the later literature), Popper even uses the term “conspiracy” to describe ordinary political activities in the classical Athens of Plato (who was the principle target of the attack in The Open Society and its Enemies).¹¹⁷

In his critique of the twentieth century totalitarianism, Popper wrote, “I do not wish to imply that conspiracies never happen. On the contrary, they are typical social phenomena.”¹¹⁸ He reiterated his point “Conspiracies occur, it must be admitted. But the striking fact which, in spite of their occurrence; disproved the conspiracy theory is that few of these conspiracies are ultimately successful. Conspirators rarely consummate their conspiracy.¹¹⁹

Although the conspiracy theory sounds literary, it still provided the canopy under which NDDC can be analysed.

However, in accordance with the focus of the study and the search for a panacea to the problems of the Niger Delta such as environmental degradation and other myriad of assorted problems in the region, the Frustration Aggression theory was applied with a view to providing empirical analysis and basis for the analysis of these problems such as Youth restiveness etc.

The Frustration Aggression Displacement Theory

The frustration aggression theory, attempts to explain why people scape goat.¹²⁰ It attempts to give an explanation as the cause of violence.¹²¹ It is a theory of aggression proposed by John Donald Neal E. Miller et al in 1939,¹²² and further developed by Miller, Roger Barker et al in 1941,¹²³ and Leonard Berkowitz in 1969.¹²⁴ the theory says that aggression is the result of frustrating, a person’s efforts to attain a goal or good life.¹²⁵ The theory developed by John Dollard and Colleagues, says that frustration cannot be challenged, the aggression gets displace on to an innocent target.

There are many examples of this, if a man is disrespected and humiliated at his work, but cannot respond to this for fear of losing his job, he may go home and take his anger and frustration out on his family. Both are caused by poorer and more deprived sections on the society who may express their bottled up frustration and anger through violence.¹²⁶ The Niger Delta in this case is seen as the deprived section of the Nigerian society. The Niger Delta crisis is an offspring of frustration aggression due to repressive government policies, exploitative tendencies and incentivity of multinational oil companies operating in the region. The discovery of crude oil and gas brought joy and hop to the people of the Niger Deltans. This was because the people believed that the discovery would lead the region to sustainable development.

The Niger Deltans were confident that oil discovery on their region would mean access to basic amenities, such as portable water, steady electricity supply, functional health care facilities, good roads, good schools and employment opportunities, in their innocence; they believed that the Nigerian government and the multinational oil companies were interested in bringing development to their rural communities to fight against the negative consequences associated with the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas. After 50 years of operation, all of these dreams seem to be a nightmare.

Their demands are simple: “give us a fair share from the revenue accruing from our resources and care for our environment” these were articulated in the Ogoni Bill of Right, the Kiama declaration, the Warri Accord and statement from several association of the Niger Deltans, but a deaf hear was tuned by both Government and the Multinational operating companies and all they do was to pay up services. These cumulated to mushroomed frustration which invariably was led to aggression in the Niger Delta region. This aggression has also led to numerous crises in the area and also violent uprising, and kidnapping of expatriates. No wander John Dollard and Colleagues say that frustration causes aggression, but when the source of the frustration cannot be challenged, the aggression gets displaced onto an innocent target. In this analysis, the kidnapped expatriates were the displaced innocent target since the source of the frustration in this case; the federal government can not be challenged.

According to Yale group, “frustration is the condition which exists when a goal response suffers interference” while aggression is defined as an act whose goal response is injury to an organism (or organism surrogate) However, aggression is not always the response to frustration. Rather a substitute response is displayed when aggressive response is not the strongest on the hierarchy. Furthermore, this theory raises the question if aggression is innate.¹²⁷

However, the orientation basis for the frustration aggression theory is psychological. The basic postulation is that aggression is always a consequence of frustration. More specifically; the proposition is that the occurrence of aggressive behaviour invariably presupposes the occurrence of frustration and vice versa, which the existence of frustration always culminates in, or translated to aggression. The frustration aggression theory was jointly popularized by Dollard John, Doob Leonard, Miller Neal, Mowrer O. H., and Sears Robert in their seminal work “Frustration and Aggression” published in 1939, the work drew inspiration, succour, and influence from the work of the renowned psychologist, Sigmund Freud, who is a major exponent of the instinctual Theory of Aggression, for it is in his work that the most systematic and extensive use of frustration aggression argument was made. Due to observation, it may sometimes not be self-evident in that frustration may not immediately lead to aggression from lessons learnt from social living, nonetheless, the act of people suppressing and restraining their overt aggressive reaction does not imply annihilation and elimination of such tendencies, rather they are temporary compressed, delayed, disguised, displaced, or otherwise deflected from their immediate and logical. The relevance of the discussed theory argued that the frustrated individuals or groups in the Niger Delta, due to environment degradation and other myriads of assorted problems in the region, may resort to breaching socially acceptable norms and exhibit defiant behaviour, make vociferous demands, threats, and ultimately, violent destruction of lives and property.¹²⁸

However, this theory has some problems. First there is little empirical support for it, even though researchers have studied it for more than sixty years¹²⁹another issue is that this theory suggests frustrated prejudiced individuals should act more aggressively towards out groups they are prejudiced against, but studies have shown that they are more aggressive towards everyone.¹³⁰ The theory also has limitation for example is cannot say why some out groups are chosen to be scape goats and why others are not.

According to Gary and Karl¹³¹, in their argument that “overcoming the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty depends, to a large part, on the ability of engaged, informed and capable civic society groups using political space to hold their own governments and other actors accountable.”  This condition can be met, however, only under a condition of a mature democracy and institutional quality. This study suggests how these could be realized in Nigeria. The suggestion is anchored on the belief that Nigeria’s Oil resources is enough to satisfy the ‘needs’ but not the ‘greed’ of every Nigerian. Since basic needs are central to the removal of poverty in the midst of plenty, what is required is a development approach that integrates the “need” of Nigerians. Hence, the study is proposing a Human Right Approach to development in the Niger Delta.

Human Right Approach to Development in the Niger Delta

Koffi Annan, in his annual report on the work of the United Nations in 1998, observes “the rights – based approach to development describes situations not simply in terms of human needs or of developmental requirements but in terms of society’s obligation to respond to the inalienable rights of individuals” .¹³² Among the most immediate benefits of human rights approach to development is to help overcome discriminatory policies on gender or ethnic grounds. Another is its potential to shift priorities to the political economy of resource allocation. Within such a framework the conditions needed to achieve a decent standard of living are treated as basic human rights.

The UN Declaration on the rights to Development 1986 recognises that the human person is the central subject of the development process and that development policy should therefore make the human being the main participant and beneficiary of development. Thus the human right approach to development promotes participatory development in policy – making, project conception and implementation. Therefore, it guarantees accountable and transparent policy making which is the bedrock of institutional efficiency.¹³³

Nigeria is a signatory to the declaration. Almost two decades after assenting to it however, the Nigerian government has not embraced it as an approach to development. Yet, this approach holds a promise for promoting sustainable economic development and guaranteeing the turning of the oil ‘curse’ into a ‘blessing’ in the Niger Delta.

It is within this context one will appraise the emergence and seeming success story of the Ondo State experience. Here, the power of the citizens and response by government to such power are at play and resulted in the adoption of a human rights approach to development in the state.

Following protracted communal clashes between the Ijaws in Ondo State, the government attempted to embark on rehabilitation programmes in the devastated areas which also happen to be the reverine and oil producing areas of the state. The areas had, indeed, suffered a long neglect and environmental degradation accompanied by sustained agitation and restiveness, as in other parts of the reverine areas of the Niger Delta region. Following resource control and oil derivation agitations in the region, some concerned Ondo citizens went to court to prevent the government from spending the oil derivation revenue until an institutional framework was established for its utilization. The outcome is that Ondo State Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (OSOPADEC).¹³⁴

Like the NDDC, most of OSOPADEC’s interventions are in the infrastructural development of roads, water supply, jetties and school classrooms while is board has representative from oil producing areas. But its board or representatives drawn from both government and oil communities are far more effective than those of the NDDC. For example, the law establishing OSOPADEC clearly states how its funds should be allocated and the share of each stakeholder, be it the federal, state and local governments or the oil communities. The enabling law thus makes it easier for OSOPADEC to be held accountable by citizens of the state in line with the human rights approach to good governance, transparency and accountability. ¹³⁵

The commission has executed a number of projects since its inauguration in November 2001.

 References

1. L. Edigin and I.E. Okonmah, “Mystifying Development Policy Strategies in the Niger Delta: The Unending Mistake:” Journal of Research in Nation Development Volume 8 No. 2, December, 2010.
2. O. Sanya, “Slow Death in the Niger Delta”. African Review of Books 2008. www.codesira.org/linkd/publication 10/07/08.
3. K. Fayemi, S. Amadi and O. Bamidele, “Towards an Integrated Development of the Niger Delta”. Center for Democracy and Development, Lagos, Nigeria. 2005.
4. C.E. Edesonwa, “Niger Delta Will Continue to Boil unless ….” This Day, March 2, 2006, Lagos
5. E. Amaize. “A Foray in the Creeks, A Landscape of Eyesores”. Saturday Vanguard, Lagos Nigeria. March 18, 2006,
6. Environmental Resources Managers, Niger Delta Environmental Survey (NDES), Socio Economic Characteristics, Volume 1, 2002 (Lagos: NDES Nigeria)
7. L. Edigin & E. Okonmah, Op. cit. 2010.
8. Edosa & Enarna. “The Dilema of Revenue Sharing & Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in Nigeria: In Orobalor,E. Ifowodo, F. & Edosa,E(Eds), Resource Control in Nigeria; F.Parker Publishing Co. Benin City, Nigeria, 2005
9. L. Edigin & E. Okonmah, Op. Cit. 2010.
10. J.M Buchanan “Federalism and Fiscal Equity” American Economic Review Vol. XI September 1950.
11. Ibid
12. Nigel Staut S. “Conflicting Evaluation of Policy Studies”. In Imhalanhimi J.E. (1998). The Interface Between Functional and Control Aspects of Admistrative Responsibility, Benin Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 6 & 7, Numbers 1 & 2 1992 (Publisher Unknown) Benin City, Nigeria.
13. J.E. Inhanlahimhm. “Development Administration in the Less Developed Countries”, Amfitop Books, Lagos. 2000.
14. NDDC profile, “Obasanjo Inaugural Speech” 2001
15. E.A Apofure, and P. Ayawei, “The Adverse Effects of Crude Oil Spills in the Niger Delta” Urhobo Historical Society, 2000.
16. E.I Okonmah, “Youth Restiveness and Federal Government Policy in the Niger Delta Areas”. Ph.D Dissertation Submitted 2009 to School of Post-Graduate Studies, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Benin.
17. M. Oberabor, “Niger Delta: A Fading Hope”. The Guardian Outlook, Sunday June 29, 2008, Lagos, Nigeria P. 25.
18. I. Anaba. “Infrastructural Development will Curtail Niger Delta Crisis”. Vanguard Wednesday, September 5, Lagos, Nigeria.2007
19. DSP, Alamiyesigna, “The Niger Delta & Youth Restiveness: The Way Forward”. Environmental Watch, November 15, Abuja, Nigeria. 2004
20. S. Oyadongha. “Clamour for Solidarity Withdrawal: Senator, Monarchs Clash” Sunday Vanguard, April 17, 2008: Lagos, Nigeria.
21. E. Ulayi. “Lack of Infrastructure, Bane of Niger Delta Development – Federal Government”. Vanguard Tuesday September 18, 2007. Lagos, Nigeria P. 8.
22. Sara – Igbe, “South-South Presidency is anchored on Justice, says Sara – Igbe”. African News Service/July 4, 2006.
23. Omoweh, D. “Shell Petroleum Development Company, the State and Underdevelopment of the Development of the Niger Delta of Nigeria: A study in Environmental Degradation” (Trenton, African World Press, 2004).
24. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2006), Niger Delta Development Report. UNDP Abuja. http//www.newageonline.com / politics / article 01 Thursday, March 4, 2008.
25. Ibid
26. ASP Alamieyeseigha, Op. Cit. 2004
27. L. Edigin & E. Okonmah, Op. Cit. 2004.
28. W. Adebayo, “Ozekhome Support Resources Control”. Vanguard March 5, Lagos, Nigeria. 2006
29. The Guardian, (2000). “OMPADEC, A Disaster-Says Delta Labour Agency Boss”. Vanguard November 15, Lagos, Nigeria p. 6.
30. G. Adefeye. “Legislator Decries Poverty Scheme in Niger Delta”. Vanguard, Tuesday 15, 2008 Lagos, Nigeria p. 14.
31. D. Adesina “Niger Delta Development Commission to Complete OMPADEC Projects” (Lagos: the Guardian June 26, 2001) Nigeria p. 6
32. L. Edigin & E. Okonmah, Op. Cit. 2010.
33. Wikipedia, (2010) “Niger Delta Development Commission” http// en.wikipedia.org /wiki / Niger-Delta- Development Commission.
34. L. Edigin and E. Okonmah, Op. Cit .2010.
35. T.A. Oyedide. “Tradshock, Oil Boom and the Nigerian Economy, 1973 -83, In P.Collier.  JW Gunning (Eds). Trade Shocks in Developing Countries, Vol 1 2000: Africa Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 420 – 447.
36. UNCTAD 1999, 1997 International Trade Statistics Tearbook, Vol. 1 (Trade by Country), New York: UNCTAD.
37. Mbendi 2002, Cited in Wunder S. 2003. Oil Wealth and Fate of the Forest: A Comparative Study of Eight Tropical Countries. London: Rutledge.
38. ANEEJ (2003) “Report on Stakeholders Workshop on Oil Producing Communities in Bayelsa State”, Yenagoa. November 13, 2003.
39. D. Moffat, and L. Olof. “Perception and Reality: Assessing Priorities for Sustainable Development in the Niger River Delta” A Journal of Human Environment, Ambio, Vol. 24. 1995, 7/8 December pp. 527-538.
40. A . Nsirimovu, ed. “Extractive Industries and Economic, Social & Human Rights”; Port Harcourt: Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, 2000.
41. W. Adebanwu. “Nigeria: A Shell of State” 2001 Cited in ANEE J, Oil of Poverty in Niger Delta. 2004
42. Vanguard Newspaper, 26^th September, 2008 (Pp. 1 & 2)
43. S. Okecha. “Flames of Sabotage: The Tragedy of Youth Restiveness in Niger Delta”. A Paper Presented at the Institute of Governance and Development. Ekpoma (February 26-27, 2003).
44. Ibid at P. 8
45. Ibid.
46. F.I. Okojie and M.I. Ailemen. “Youth Restiveness and Environmental Depletion: A Case of Niger Delta”. A Paper Presented at the Institute of Governance and Development Seminar, Ekpoma (February 26-27, 2003).
47. ANEEJ, “Oil of Poverty in Niger Delta” African Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, Nigeria, 2004.
48. Human Rights Watch (2002). “Nigeria: The Niger Delta – No Democratic Dividend”. New York.
49. ANEEJ, Op.Cit. 2004
50. B. Eifert et al. “Managing Oil Wealth” Finance and Development 40, (1^st March, 2003. Pp 40 – 44).

51  S. Bannett and R. Osowski, “What Goes Up” Finance and Development 40 (1^st March, 2003) pp. 13 28.

52. ANEEJ, OP.Cit. 2004
53. B. Eifert, et al Op.cit. 2003.
54. J.E, Oniorhenuan, “Nigeria Economic Policy under Military Rule” Proceedings of Nigeria Economic Society Annual Conference, 1980.
55. W. Adebanwu, Op.cptt. 2001
56. A. Jega, 2003. “Imperialist Presidency” Cited in ANEEJ, “Oil Poverty in Niger Delta” African Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, Nigeria, 2004.
57. P. Adams, “The Virtues of Taxation” Chapter 19 of odious debt looses Lending, Corruption and the Third World’s Environmental Legacy (Toronto: Earthscan 1991. Pp 179 – 184).
58. ANEEL, Op.Cit. 2004
59. Human Right Watch, Op.cit. 2002.
60. B.E Aigbokhan, “Challenges and Options for Social Welfare Development in the Niger Delta”. Report Prepared for the West African Institute for Financial and Economic Management, Lagos (May, 2003).
61. Federal Office of Statistics Statistical News No. 327, August 2001, p. 5.

62  Ibid.

63. N.S Akpan & E.M Akpabio. “Youth Restiveness and Violence in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria: Implication and Suggested Solutions”. International Journal of Development Issues, 2003, 2 (2): 37 – 58.
64. E.M. Akpabio & NS Akpan, “Governance and Oil Politics in Nigeria’s Niger Delta: The Question of Distributive Equity”. Journal of Human Ecology, 30 (2): 111 – 121 (2010).
65. K.K Aaron. “Human Right Violation and Petroleum Pipeline Vandalization in Niger Delta Region of Nigeria”. The Nigerian Social Scientist, 6 (2): 14 – 20, 2003
66. ANEEL, Op.cit 2004.
67. K.K Aaron, OP.cit 2003

68  Newswatch, May 5, 2003

69. E.M. Akpabio & NS. Akpan, OP.Cit. 2010.
70. Newswatch, OP.Cit 2003
71. E.M Akpabio & NS. Akpan, OP.Cit 2010.
72. D. Oyeshola, “Essential of Environmental Issues, the World and Nigeria in Perspective”. Abidjan: Daily Graphic publications, 1995
73. World Bank 1990, Cited in Ndukwe OU “Elements of Nigerian Environmental Laws”. Calabar ,University of Calabar Press. 2000
74. OU. Ndukwe, “Eliments of Nigerian Environmental Laws”.Calabar, University of Calabar Press. 2000
75. Oyeshola, OP.cit 1995.
76. Akpabio & Akpan, OP.Cit 2010
77. Ibid.
78. NDDC 2001, “NDDC Profile, Niger Delta Development Commission”. Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
79. Newswaten, OP.Cit (Jan. 2008:20)
80. Ibid
81. Daily Trust, (19 August, 2008)
82. J. Idumange, “The Impact of Niger Delta Development Commission in the Eyes of the Ordinary Niger Delta People”. Being a Seminar lecture organized by The Delta Integrity Group. September 6^th 2011.
83. Magali and Tortora, “Majority of Nigerians Reject Violence in the Delta Region; More than 8 in 10 do not condone Vandalization Pipeline” Copyright , Gale, Call-up Organization: Cengage Learning. 2008
84. I .Udumange, OP.Cit, 2008
85. Ibid.
86. NDDC, Profile, OP.Cit 2001.
87. The Guardian, Monday August, 2001.
88. NDDC, Profile, 2001
89. Ibid.
90. I. Idumange, OP.Cit. 2008

91  K. Okoko, “Conflict and Development in The Niger Delta: Issues in the Conflict Relationship Between Oil Companies and their Host Communities in the Niger Delta in Tamuno. S. O .et al (eds) Ethinicts Conflict and Development Prospects in Nigeria.: A book of Readings. Lagos, Coperate Impression. 1999

92. N. Nworisara, “NDDC as Metaphor” Published in 2011, retrieved from Pointblanknews. Com
93. ANEEJ, OP.Cit. 2003
94. A. Kudehindu, “Brief of the Activities of OSOPADEC”. Being a Text of Address Presented by the Executive Secretary of OSAPADEC, in a Press Conference at Akure, December 9, 2002.
95. Ibid
96. Ibid
97. Ibid
98. A. Mudiaga-Odje, “Niger Delta & Politics of Oil” Being a compilation of Articles, Lectures and Papers. Jenique International Company Limited, Warri, Nigeria. 2008
99. C. Berlet; Lyons, N. Mathew. Right-Wing Populism in America: To Close For Comfort (New York: Guilford Press 2000).
100. B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution” Cambridge: Havard University Press, (1992) (1967)
101. F.P Mintz, The Liberty Lobby and the American Right: Race, Conspiracy and Culture. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1985 p. 199.
102. R. Ramsay, “Conspiracy Theories”. Pocket Essentials, 2006. ISBN 1 – 904048 – 65 – X.
103. D. Pipes, “Dealing with Middle Eastern Conspiracy. Theories”, Orbis 36: 41 – 56. 1SSN 003 – 4387, http://www.danielpies.org/24/dealing – with – middle-eastern conspiracy theories.
104. Ibid
105. G. Johnson, Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia In American Politics. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 1983.
106. 20^th Century Words (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, P. 15.
107. M. Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy; Apocalyptic visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press, 2003
108. C. Berlet, (September,2004) ,Interview: Michael Barkun. http: //www. Publiceye. Org/anti- Semitism/nw barkunhtml. Retreived 2009-10-01
109. M. Barkun, Op.Cit. 2003
110. G.S Camp. “Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia” Commish Walsh, 1997.
111. R.A Goldberg, “Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America”. Tale University Press, 2001.
112. M., Fenster, Conspiracy Theories: Secretary and Power In American Culture. University of Minnesola Press. 2008.
113. H.G. West, T Sanders, “Transparency and Conspiracy: Enthnographies of Suspicion in the New World order”. Duke University Press. 2003, p.4
114. D. Pipes, “Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and where it Comes from”. New York. The Free Press, 1997.
115. M. Albert, Qouting from Zinagazine. “Conspiracy Theory” http/ Zena. Secureforum. com/znet/zmay/ articles/oldabert/9 htm. Retrieved 2007-08-03
116. K.R Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1945.
117. Ibid.
118. Ibid

119           Ibid

120. Whitley and M. Kite, the Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, 2010).

121           J.C. Dill; Anderson, C.A. “Effects of Frustration Justification on Hostile Aggression”. Aggressive Behaviour, 21:359-369, 1995.

122. M. Dollard, et al, The Hypothesis Suggests that the failure to obtain a desired or expected goal leads to aggressive behavior. Frustration and aggression, (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1939).
123. B. Miller, et al. “Symposium on the Frustration – Aggression Hypotheses Psychological Review”, No. 48, 1941.  pp. 337 – 366.
124. L. Berkowitz, The Frustration Aggression Hypothesis Revisited, in: Berokowtz (ed), Roots of Aggression (Altherton Press, New York, 1969).
125. H. Friedman, & M. Schustack, Personally Classic Theories and Modern Research (Fifth ed, pp. 204 – 2007) Pearson, (1999).
126. Whitley and M. Kite. OP.Cit. 2010.
127. N. Pastore, “A Neglected Factor in the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis: A Comment” Journal of Psychology, 29 (1950) P. 271.
128. B.A. Chikor, “Appraising the Structural Aspect of the Crisis of Community Development and Environmental Degradation in the Niger Delta” in Osuntokun Akinjude (ed) (2000). Environmental Problems of the Niger Delta, (Lagos: Fredric Ebert Foundation, 2000).
129. Whitely and M. Kite, OP.Cit. 2010.
130. Ibid.
131. I. Gary and I. Karl. “Bottom of the Barrel: African’s Oil Boom and the Poor”. Catholic Relief Service, New York (2003).
132. K. Annan, “Facing the Humanitarian Challenge: Towards a Culture of Prevention”. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information (1999).
133. UNDP, Human Development Report: Human Rights and Development, (1986).
134. ANEEJ, OP.Cit. 2004
135. Ibid