OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF MINERAL RESOURCES UNDER THE SHARIAH AND NIGERIAN STATUTE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

Most countries have conferred the power/ownership of their resources on their government, not allowing individuals to lay claim to them. This has been beneficial for international business purposes, especially in the petroleum sector and has ensured stable revenue which is then distributed amongst the individual states in the country; while some countries like the USA recognize both state and individual ownership. Associated with exploration and exploitation activities of most natural resources is environmental degradation, which puts the environment in a non-usable position. There is therefore a need to reduce the effect of these activities. With increasing Environmental damage from the international oil companies, which has not been properly addressed by the government in countries like Nigeria, individuals have began to opt for control of their resources rather than leaving them in the control of the government. This paper aims at analyzing the effect of resource ownership by the government of a state, using Nigeria as a case study and whether the Shairah rules as established in the four juristic schools of Islamic taught can avail Nigeria from the problem of resource control agitation by the people.

CHAPTER ONE

1.0.0. INTRODUCTION

Minerals are natural chemical substances, which makeup rocks of the earth’s crust. They have certain physical and chemical properties that differentiate them from one another. There are well over 200 known minerals scattered throughout the earth, together they make up a very important branch of economic geography, the mining industry. 

1. Ownership of mineral resources is therefore classified into three regimes, the state ownership, private ownership and communal ownership. The state ownership appears to be dominant and universal phenomenon in mineral development with most countries vesting minerals in the state. Under the state ownership regime, ownership and control over use rest with the state and nothing can be done without the agreement of the state. Ownership and control can be exercised either directly or through government agencies established to carry out such purpose. 

2. The prevalence of private ownership is limited to few jurisdiction notable the united state of America. While the community property regime is clouded with confusion and misunderstanding and is virtually extinct, particularly in its applicability to the regime of mineral ownership and development.

3. Under Islamic law, minerals can be owned in three different ways. First, all minerals belong to the state; secondly, the land owner or occupier of land owns the minerals found on the land; and thirdly all minerals may be owned by one who finds them. However, according to these notable Muslim jurists, though they differ on this classification. In the view of the Hanafi School of law, minerals ownership follows land ownership. The Shafii and Hambalis are of the view that subsoil and surface minerals are not the subject of private ownership with some exceptions. In Maliki School they are of the view that all kinds of mineral resources are owned by the state.

Topic: OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF MINERAL RESOURCES UNDER THE SHARIAH AND NIGERIAN STATUTE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Format: Microsoft Word

Chapters: 1 - 5, Preliminary Pages, Abstract,  Bibliography.
Delivery: Email

No. of Pages: 78

Price: 3000 NGN

In Stock

Buy Now

Our Customers are Happy!!!

See What Some of Our Customers are Saying About Us