MY INTELLECTUAL BANQUET!: ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE WHERE THERE IS ONLY A SUR...

MY INTELLECTUAL BANQUET!: ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE WHERE THERE IS ONLY A SUR...: THE ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE OF A DECEASED WHERE THERE IS A SURVIVING ADMINISTRATOR – A LEGAL DISCOURSE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION Wheth...

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE WHERE THERE IS ONLY A SURVIVING ADMINISTRATOR - A LEGAL DISCOURSE

THE ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE OF A DECEASED WHERE THERE IS A SURVIVING ADMINISTRATOR – A LEGAL DISCOURSE

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

Whether surviving Administrator(s) is entitled to continue with the Administration of Estate of deceased person upon the death of his/her partner.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Will: A will is an instrument that expresses the intention of the deceased stating the manner his estate would be administered upon his death.

Beneficiaries: The persons named in the Will or Letter of Administration to benefit in the estate of the deceased  

Testator: The person making the will.

Estate: The property that you own or have an interest in at the time of your death.

Executor: Person named in the will to be responsible for administering the estate of the deceased.

Reasons to Have a Will

There are several reasons why you should consider making a will.  They are, for example:

1. To distribute your property as you wish. 

Only by making a will can you select the individuals you wish to benefit and what each should get. 

2. To allow you to choose your own executor.

When you make a will you may appoint the executor of your choice.  If you die without a will, somebody must apply to the court to be appointed as an administrator.  The administrator’s job is to divide your property and assets among those who are entitled to it. The person appointed administrator is usually a member of your family, or if you have none, a close friend or even a creditor. However, this may not be the person you would have chosen. 
                          

3. To give you flexibility in carrying out your wishes.
A will gives you flexibility.  For example, you may use “trusts” to help manage the property that you leave your beneficiaries.  Also, it lets you set out all the powers needed by the executor to carry out your wishes.

4. To provide guardianship for your children

When you make a will you may choose the guardian for your children.  If you die without a will, the court will appoint a guardian for your children. The guardian will usually be a close relative but it may not be the person you would have selected.

5. To avoid delays and costsBy making a will and appointing your own executor, settling your estate should progress more quickly. Your family will not have to spend time applying to the court to appoint an administrator.  This will save your estate money as well. 

 WHO CAN & WHEN TO MAKE A WILL

Under the Law, any adult above the age of 18 years old can make a Will. Also, persons of unsound mind cannot make a Will. It is advisable that a person should make a Will as soon as he becomes an adult and has a regular income. This need becomes more important when an adult gets married. This is because once a person gets married; the customary laws which ordinarily may not be your intention would then apply.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN EXECUTOR AND AN ADMINISTRATOR
           
An executor is the person appointed, ordinarily by the testator by his will or codicil, to administer the testator’s property and to carry into effect the provisions of the will.

An executor may be appointed either:

i.          Expressly by the testator in the body of his will

ii.         By the exercise of a power of nominating an executor conferred by the testator by his will

iii.        by implication from the testator’s will when the executor is known as an executor according to the tenor. In other words where a testator fails to nominate a person in express terms to be his executor, but upon a reasonable construction of his will it appears that a particular person has been appointed to perform the essential duties of an executor such appointment is sufficient to constitute that person an executor.

DIFFERENT EXECUTORS FOR DIFFERENT PROPERTIES
A testator may appoint different executors for different parts of his estate; he may appoint certain persons executors of his property abroad or of his property in a particular country and others of his property in Nigeria. He may appoint different executors for real property while another for personal property.

CONDITIONAL AND SUBSTITUTED APPOINTMENTS

A testator may appoint his widow to be his executrix during her widowhood, or his son to be his executor upon attaining his majority. He may make the appointment conditional upon the happening of a certain event, he may provide for the determination of the appointment or the substitution of one executor for another upon the happening of a given event.

THE CHOICE OF EXECUTOR
No restriction whatsoever exists upon the choice of an executor. An alien may be appointed. A convicted criminal may be appointed but the fact that the executor is serving a prison sentence may make it impossible for him to administer the estate so that the court may grant administration to others under its discretionary powers.

ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE
The most obvious method of accepting the office of executor is for the person appointed to obtain a grant of probate, although the executor may without applying for probate do such acts with reference to the testator’s estate as constitute an acceptance of the office.

EFFECT OF ACCEPTANCE
An executor cannot accept in part and refuse in part: he must accept or refuse the office as a whole or where the appointment is limited, to the full extent of the appointment. The acceptance of the executorship involves the acceptance of the trusts which the testator himself may have imposed upon his executors.

RENUNCIATION OF THE OFFICE OF EXECUTOR
A person appointed executor may decline by filing in court the application that he does not intend to act the executor of the testator although usually the testator consults the person before appointing him as executor

EXECUTOR’S ACTS BEFORE GRANT
The executor derives his title under the will and the testator’s property vests in him as from the date of death without any interval of time. The probate itself is a mere authentication of his title but if it affects the legal estate in land, it is also a document of title.

SOURCE OF ADMINISTRATOR’S TITLE:
The administrator derives his title entirely from the grant of letters of administration, and the deceased’s property does not vest in him until the grant, so he cannot make a lease or other disposition before the grant.  An administrator is a person appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction to administer the property of a deceased person.

The office of the administrator is said to be dative because it derives from such a grant whereas the office of executor derives from the will of the deceased person.

THE DOCTRINE OF RELATION BACK
In order to prevent injury being done to a deceased person’s estate without remedy, the courts have adopted the doctrine that upon the grant being made the administrator’s title relates back to the time of death. It is applicable against a person dealing wrongfully with the deceased’s real estate.

THE CHAIN OF REPRESENTATION - DEVOLUTION ON DEATH

An executorship cannot be assigned at common law, because it is an office of personal trust. It can only devolve by operation of law. Upon the death of one of the executors/ administrators, the office with its incidents , duties and powers, and the estate and interest in all the property vested in the executors by virtue of their office, devolve upon the survivor(s).

Upon the death of a sole executor, or of the last survivor of several executors, the office devolves upon the executor of the sole or last surviving executor who has proved the will and so long as the chain of representation is unbroken, the last executor in the chain is the executor of every preceding testator.

The Supreme Court in Yusuf v. Dada (1990) 4 N.W.L.R. (Part 146) 657 at 682 stated per Agbaje, J.S.C. as follows:

‘Where more than one executor or administrator is appointed the joint office is treated as that of an individual person. Each executor represents the estate for all purposes subject only to the statutory exceptions. They have a joint and entire interest in the estate (real and personal) of the testator or intestate, which is incapable of being divided; and in case of death such interest vests in the survivor without any new grant by the court.

Consequently, if one of two executors or administrators purports to grant or release his interest in the testator’s or intestate’s estate to the other, nothing passes; because each was possessed of the whole before. Similarly, the act of one in possessing himself of the effects is the act of the others, so as entitle them to a joint interest in possession and a joint right of action if needed.’

The above position of the law is inapplicable where the deceased dies intestate under the native laws and customs

It is trite law that on the death intestate of a husband, whether his widow can inherit his property will depend on the customary law of her intestate husband’s locality. Thus, where a person dies intestate leaving many heirs behind, his property will devolve on the heirs and will become a communal or family property of all the members of the family.

The major means through which individuals are differentiated and placed into a system of inheritance is through the form of marriage that they choose to adopt, be it a civil marriage, or under a customary or sharia system. It is of brief note that the form of marriage should have such a major impact on both the rights of the couple and of their children, given that marriage may not be viewed as a contract between two individuals within Nigerian societies. As will be described below, marriage should not be understood as an absolute marker of rights entitlement, but a prima face signal to the courts of the intended system of inheritance.

Individuals must make the choice to contract either a statutory, monogamous civil marriage, or a marriage under a customary or sharia system which is permissive of polygamy.  

Ordinarily, under Igbo customary marriage law a widow has no right to inherit her deceased husband’s estate but she can be granted the use of his land if she remains in the family after his death.

Thus, it was held in Madu v. Madu [2007] 14 N W L R (pt. 784) 335 S C that under a customary law marriage which is polygamous by nature and not monogamous, there cannot be an implied gift by the husband to the wife. Such grant is subject to her good behaviour, it cannot vest the estate in her.

In Nezianya & Azika v. Okagbue(1963) All N L R 352, it was held that a married woman had no right to succeed to the estate of her later husband under Onitsha customary law. It was immaterial that she had been in possession of the property without the prior consent of any member of her deceased husband’s family. The fact that she has been in possession for a long time without interference from the family members does not constitute a bar to the family’s right of ownership of the property.

In this latter situation, her long possession was not adverse to the family nor did it give her any right to alienate the property.

A widow has no right of ownership over any property of her deceased husband. It is immaterial whether she has surviving sons or not. The only property of her husband which she has right to keep after the husband’s death are outright gifts made by the husband in his lifetime.

 In Eze v. Okwo the husband was survived by three customary law widows but no issue. Before his death the deceased instructed his senior wife to administer his property and use the income there from to maintain herself and the other wives, and to continue staying in his compound with the hope that they might have issues for him. The senior wife attempted to carry out the wishes of her husband but was challenged by his nephew, the plaintiff in this case. He claimed not only that he was the rightful administrator of his uncle’s estate but also that the defendant should be expelled from her late husband’s compound. It was held that a widow can neither inherit her husband’s compound nor administer it. A widow reserves some rights in her husband’s estates. She has the legal right to retain the use and possession of the matrimonial home subject to good behaviours. She is also entitled to farm in her deceased husband’s farmland even if she has no surviving children

Coincidentally, under Yoruba customary law, separate houses or rooms allotted to the wives by their polygamist husband do not vest in the wives; as such allotments are not outright gifts. This is very similar to Igbo customary law. Thus, upon the death of the intestate husband, such houses or rooms become part of the real property of the deceased which will devolve on his family.

Moreover, where a husband in his will purports to vest his share of un-partitioned family property in his wife, it is not capable of devolving upon the widow and such property consists of rights which are purely communal and inalienable. And where such property is being distributed by the family members, the widow cannot successfully claim that she is entitled to the share which would have been her husband’s had he been alive. This is because the devolution of family property under customary law “follows the blood".

The rationale behind this rule is that family land must be kept intact and also the fact that the deceased intestate’s customary law wife is not regarded as a member of the “family” for this purpose. This is evidenced in the statement by Coker48 that: “…among the Yorubas of Nigeria the wives of a man also constitute part of his…property”.

In Suberu v Sunmonu (1957) 12 FSC 33 the question was which of the two parties – the material or paternal relation – should inherit the real estate. The court held that as the deceased’s son died intestate without issue, his share of the family house devolved upon his uterine brothers children. The court also declared thus: “it is a well settled ruled of native law and custom of the Yoruba people that a wife could not inherit her husband’s property.”

In Oshilaja v. Oshilaja the court held that in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Suberu’s case, the widow in the instant case could not inherit her deceased husband’s estate. And as the deceased intestate died without a child, the court held that the sons of his uterine sister (there being no surviving full blood or uterine brother) were entitled to share in the estate to the exclusion of his widow. The disintegration of the family property could not therefore be avoided if some part of the family land were inheritable by a widow as she could not possibly leave the land in her deceased husband’s family in the event of her remarriage. 

One common rule of customary law which is synonymous with all the traditional African societies is that in customary law if intestate succession, the widow has no place in the sense that she can never inherit from her husband on intestacy. It is remarkable to find such uniformity in the customary laws of so many people with different origin, histories and customs. This rule appears irrespective of the services the widow may have rendered to her deceased husband, or of her contributions, financially or otherwise to the accumulation of his property.

 This inconsiderable attitude towards the right to inheritance by the widow extends to the administration of the intestate estate. In the Igbo case of Ejiamaike v. Ejiamaike  Oputa J. held that

 ‘a widow of a deceased person had no right under Onitsha customary law to administer the estate of her late husband especially where there is an “okpala” (first male issue) of the deceased who was not a minor’. There is an application of the Igbo law in the decision in the Yoruba case of Aileru Kors v. Anibi where Jibowu J. held: “under native law and customs, widows cannot administer the estate of their husbands”.

It is interesting to note that in recent times, the courts have departed from the rule of customary law that a widow cannot inherit the estate of her deceased husband. Thus in Loye v Loye, the court drew attention to modern socio-economic changes in the relationship of husband and wife and held that:

…a widow has no right of inheritance to the estate of her deceased husband. However, this aspect of our customary law needs urgent reform because it is capable of working great hardship in modern times when wives make significant contributions to the wealth and properties of their husbands. Customary law bases the right of inheritance on “blood relationship”, for example, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, or even parents of the deceased. But this principle of our customary law should be reformed so that “a widow” or “widower” on grounds of marriage or marital ties could claim a share in the estate of the deceased spouse. 

Ifeanyi Ogu Esq.



MY INTELLECTUAL BANQUET!: THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - MATTERS ARI...

MY INTELLECTUAL BANQUET!: THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - MATTERS ARI...: THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY – OVERVIEW BACKGROUND: Perhaps the most important influence on the formulation of business polic...

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - MATTERS ARISING

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY – OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND:

Perhaps the most important influence on the formulation of business policy is the concept of social responsibility. The relationship between business and society: business and its environments and business and participants are very complex yet dynamic. The notion of social responsibility of business has emerged out of dynamism (frequent changes) of the relationship between those parties. Corporate enterprises have grown in size, the level of education has significantly increased and people now ask a lot of more questions about their rights, privileges and their responsibilities. Related to this is the fact that, the awareness of the social impact of business activities as a whole is enormous both overtly and covertly, directly and indirectly.  The outer environment has remained relevant in most management writing, and one of the most publicized aspects of this is the issue of social responsibility.  For as long as the business system remains a subsystem of the organised society, the modern business manager/executive is left with no choice other than to be concerned with societal expectations i.e. be socially responsible.

Every organization function as a part of an interactive system, which has several shareholders, prominent among those stakeholders, are: managers, owners, employees, consumers and society at large.  The organization manager cannot afford to ignore or short-change any of these groups, if it does the success of the organization would be affected and it might die.

If owners are unhappy with the performance of the company, they may withdraw their fund and re-invest elsewhere. When workers are unhappy, and unable to meet their needs they may quit their job and seek alternative employment. When consumers’ needs, tastes, values and requirements are ignored they will stop buying the product or services and seek substitutes. Where the larger society is disregarded, the company may be isolated or unfavourable legislation clamoured for against the company.

It makes sense therefore for all business concern to respond to these groups and satisfy their needs by being socially responsible.  However, this work is meant to examine and analyse the social responsibilities of business in Nigeria.  The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation has been chosen as a case study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Many firms are faced with the problem of how best to perform their social duties and yet remain afloat in a dynamic economy like ours.  The system comprises three classes of firms with their respective peculiar perceptions as to what social responsibility entails and the society.

The first class comprise firms that perceive social responsibility as the mere act of producing safe and reliable products or services: when this is actualised, they see themselves as been socially responsible forgetting the fact that lots of harm has been done to the environment during the course of production and should be corrected.

The second class are those firms that view social responsibility as that, that pertain to the employed general welfare, such as adequate payment of salaries, good conditions of service and other employment benefits. They fail to recognize the fact that apart from what I would call ‘internal welfare security’ been offered to the employees that the external welfare security (which is the environment) ought not to be neglected because efficiency can only be maximized on an employee when the internal and external environment of work is relatively conducive.

The third class comprises firms though have perfect understanding of what social responsibility is all about, but could not perform due to persistent poor turnover and return.  This they blame on government’s nonchalance towards the regulation of importation into the economy.

However, the society (i.e. the inhabitations of the environment) on the other hand has an interest to protect and that is, a better and conducive environment.  They would go to any length to achieve this thus, restiveness and riots, not considering the immediate capacity and financial position of the companies in question.

These enumerate misconception has caused a lot of problem in the company – community relations and will continue to linger unless clarity is given to the term and that is what this work seek to resolve.

DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

One major problem facing businesses especially in this part of the world is defining precisely what social responsibility is. Does it mean manufacturing environmentally friendly products? Donating a portion of the profit to charitable homes? Creating jobs in the inner cities plagued by high unemployment? Or what?

The dictionary of management defined social responsibility as:

“The duty of a privately owned enterprise to ensure that , it does not adversely affect the life of the community in which it operates (French and Seward, 1975)

Lord Holmes and Richard Watt (1985) in their publication “Making Good Business Sense” defined corporate social responsibility as “the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large”.

David and Blomstom (1075) defined social responsibility as:

“The obligation of decision makers in the corporation to take action which projects and improves the welfare of the society as a whole along their own interest”.

Professor Umo O. (1994) in his book Social Responsibility of a Firm defined Social responsibility from three points of view.

(a)               As a concept

(b)               As an impact on accounting profit

(c)               As a specific societal programme

AS A CONCEPT:  This refers to the business firms’ decisions and actions taken to reason partially beyond the firm’s economic or technical interest.  Broadly speaking, it means to pursue policies, make decisions that follow those lines of actions, which are desirable in terms of objectives and values of the society.

AS ANIMPACT ON ACCOUNTING PROFIT:        This may take the form of using part of the profit to sponsor scholarship of the children of the employed.

AS A SPECIFIC CORPORATE PROGRAMME:  This involves the identification of specific corporate programmes, which ranges from economic, educational to medical and governmental programmes. They are distinguished from those programmes, which may be classified as internal and external to the business.

INTERNAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY:  This has to do with ensuring due process of justice, equity and morality in employees’ selection, training, promotion and even firing.  It may also relate to such things as increasing employee’s productivity, improving workers physical environment and so on.

EXTERNAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: This refers to such actions as stimulating environmental development and entrepreneurship, improving the level of public enlightenment training and hiring the unemployed in the society.

            In a general sense social responsibility of business involves those actions or behaviour that is expected from the organization by the society.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION

The term ‘corporate social responsibility is basically of American origin.  Between1929 and1933unemployment rose from 23% to 30% in the United States due to the ‘great depression’. Business was deteriorating, incomes were dropping and national moral was low. Increasingly, society’s value began to play down, individual is emerged, a new view of social responsibility, one in which business are seen as responsible for well-being of their employees, customers community and the society at large.

            In Nigeria, the concept of social responsibility is not as systematic sophisticated as those of western industrialized nation and the US.  The concept evolved basically after the civil war in 1970.

            Limited records exist to show the social note of business in pre-independent era.  This was because the bulk of companies operating in Nigeria than were owned and managed by foreign colonial exploiters that enjoyed government support.  The primary concern of the then government, which was the only societal agent, is not to ensure social duty performance of businesses but how to make Nigeria a cheap and dependable raw material base for British companies abroad.  Therefore no effort was geared towards this and government blocked every move made towards this end.  For instance, trade union activities were illegal until 1939 and even at that, the 1942 General Defence Regulation outlaid strikes, which is about one of the major strategies of making companies socially responsible.

            Despite these impediments, there were some certain bold moves to note. The earliest was the 1943successfulgeneraldstrikewhich resulted in workers getting cost of living allowances for inflation, which skyrocketed immediately after the Second World War. In 1987the employees of Public Works Department (PWD) went on a 3-day strike demanding amongst other things better conditions of service and increase in pay.

            The post independent era saw the development of the concept of social responsibility in Nigeria.  The law reform (Torts) Act of d1961, Part II, made business organization to be responsible for the provision of safety for persons entering in or upon its environment irrespective of whether the person has a contract with the organization or not.

            The period 1970 – 1977 saw further development in corporate social responsibility.  The Nigerian Standard Organization (now Standard Organization of Nigeria) decree was promulgated to develop and monitor quality standard of Nigeria made products.  1971 witnessed the emergence of the Industrial Training Fund Decree. This compels employers to contribute towards a fund for training in industrial manpower.

            In 1973, Wages Board and Industrial council decree emerged to administer matters relating to wages. 1974 saw Labour Decree promulgated to govern general labour conditions in Nigeria.

           

            Perhaps, the Zenith of the development of corporate social responsibility in Nigeria was in 1979 when the economic and social goals of the society were boldly enshrined in Nigerian Constitution.

            Though the historical development of the concept of social responsibility of business is not as organized and systematic as that of Western nations, the concern or focus of the societies are logically the same; control of the economy in such a way and manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen.

 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY -  PROBLEMS

PROBLEM OF DEFINITION

            Dr. Iyanda (1980) postulated that what constitutes social responsibility today may become normal business expectation tomorrow.  Worse still, it may become irrelevant. He claimed that not long ago, free medical services, year bonuses even payment of taxes were regarded as evidence of socially responsible businesses, but today, they are normal business practices for which no social credit can be claimed. Oshagbemi (1983) in his book ‘Small Business Management in Nigeria’ observed that business as an element of the society, has a responsibility to aid the society in realising her goals and objectives. Business organizations contributes to the societal problems and therefore are duty bound to help found solutions to these problems and consequently make the society a better place to live in.

            According to Milton Friedman (an internationally known classical economist) “there is one and only one social responsibility of business; to use its resources and energy in activities designed to increase its profit, so long it stays within the rules of the game … engages in free competition without deception or fraud”.

            These various ideas on social responsibility of business have been politicised between those who support and those who oppose it in such a way that the term corporate social responsibility has several meaning and emphasis today.

OTHER PROBLEMS:

            Series of arguments have been advanced against the practice of corporate social responsibility.  Among these arguments are those put forward by Davis Fredrick and Bhaustrow (1959). They are identified thus:

(a)       Profit Maximization:  The most prominent of the arguments against business assumption of social responsibility is that of the classical economies determine to this school of thought, business function is an economic one. The managers are the agent of the stockholders and his decisions are controlled by the desire to maximize profit for them.

            According to Milton Friedman (Chief proponent of this school of thought), in a free enterprise or private property system, a corporate executive i.e. an employee of the owners of the business and as such is directly responsible to his employers.  His duty is to conduct and run the business in accordance toothier desire, which generally is to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society. He also maintained that corporate social responsibility is fundamentally a subversive doctrine in a free enterprise system.

(b)       Lack of Social Skills:  Another point raised against social goals is that many businessmen may lack the understanding and skills for the performance of social duties.  This could be traced to the fact that their views are primarily economic and their skills are the same. Businessmen are therefore philosophically unfit for social jobs.

(c)        Dilution of Business Primary Purposes:  Yet another argument raised is that social goals might dilute business emphasis on economic productivity, divide the attention of its leaders and weaken business in marketplace.  This may result in poor accomplishment of both its economic and social roles.

(d)       Business Has Enough Powers:  According to this line of reasoning, business organization is one of the most powerful institutions in the society.  Therefore, the process of combining social activities with the already established economic activities of the business would give it an excessive concentration of power.

However, the above series of arguments are been put forward against the assumption of social responsibilities by businesses and consequently, these forms the major problems been faced by firms in the discharge of social duties especially in the developing country like Nigeria.

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY -  PROSPECTS

Despite the various arguments corporate social responsibility, there are at the other extreme; School of thought that support and advocates for the concept of social responsibility.

A member of this school is Richman (1932) who declare that unless a much more balance is soon achieved between the social and economic power exerted by the private corporate sector and the social responsibilities it assumes.  Corporations stand an excellent chance of losing much of their existing pioneer and independence. Austin (1931) also stated that, the job of top management today must be broadened to include an awareness of societal changes it causes. Such awareness will place new responsibility on business management for intelligent, careful thoughtful decisions as to the basic responsibility for meeting such change.

Koontz and O. Donnel (1990) a strong joint advocate of this school of thought also declared “Business like any other type organization must interact with and live within an environment, so take into account our every action, these element of our surroundings which are important to us and others, we all do this when we drive on the right side of the road, wear clothes, pay tax work for a living, vote, etc” they concluded by saying that managers must respond to their environments by achieving congruence within it. They must endeavour to accomplish their mission best judgement in responding to political environment, respect all the rights of others and act as a constructive force in the society. This is their social responsibility.

Steiner (1983) viewed social responsibility as “an important philosophical drift from unbridled self-interest to an enlightened social interest”. In congruence with him, is the declaration that made management to involve itself in such social causes a said to education, urban renewal, opening up of better job opportunities to both men and women alike, training the disabled persons, environmental pollution control and much more. “Unemployment is an economic and social problem, misuse of resources is an economic and social problem and pollution of the environment also, covers both dimensions.  A manager is not only an economic decision maker but asocial decision maker as well”.

Davis (1993), also in support stated “There is an iron law of responsibilities which state that in the long run, those who do not use power in a manner that the society considers responsible, will tend to lose it”.

Also in consonance with these authors is Eells (1996) who thinks that prudent regard for all the interest that merge in making the future is in fact the only way to protect and augment shareholders equity.

A fierce publicity is recommended on the part of the government to promote this cause.  The government may achieve this by setting up a body that will see to the affairs of companies in this regard.  This body shall put in place a performance standard for companies in this respect and should monitor their activities closely for departures. This body shall also see to the building up of the level of awareness of the general public as regards their rights and entitlements by organising seminars and conferences.

NNPC and its joint ventures should set up community relation Committee. This committed should be charged with the primary responsibility of ensuring that proper community welfare policies and plans are developed and implemented across the community.

Large firms in the industry should create a community relation department to be manned by a manager on fulltime basis.  He (the manager) should educate the communities and negotiate their demands.  Where this is done, it will save the firm the cost of moving from one conflict resolution room to another.

Other non-oil organization should be compelled by the government to form similar committees in their various sectors for even spread of welfare packages across the community.

Akumuo Afam. Thomas

REFERENCES

Aluko, Gbolahang, Olusegun and Odugbesan (1998), Business Policy and Strategy, Pumark Nigeria Limited, Lagos

Barrah, H. (1983) Social Responsibility of Businessman, Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York.

Edward, J. (1986) Business Success and Social Progress: The Inner Kingdom, Journal of General Management, Vol. II, No. 4, pp 10-110

Effiong, J. (1939) Foundation of Modern Business Administration: A Management Approach, Published by Department of management Studies, UNICAL, Nigeria.

Imosili, I. (1985) Corporate Social Responsibility, Concept and Scope, Nigeria Management Journal Penman Vol. 12, No. 1 pp 8-15.

Iyando, O (1980) The Social Responsibility of Advertising in Nigeria. A Journal of Professional managers, vol. 1, pp 8-12.

Monday, I. (April 1997) ‘Business and Society’  A paper delivered at a Seminar of Business Students Association, UNI-UYO, Akwa Ibom State.

Oshagbemi,T. (1983) Small Business Management in Nigeria Longman Group Ltd. Publishers Nigeria

Ramanathan, K.(1976) Towards a Theory of Corporate Social Accounting, the Accounting Review, Pp 1-4.

Banshen, M.(1980) Corporate Strategies for Social Performance, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.a

Davies, K. (1992) “The case For/Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities “Academy of Management Journal, vol. 16, No. 2 pp 312 –321.

Davies, K. (1976) “Social Responsibility is inevitable” California Management Review Vol. 10 No.14, p 8.

Hay, Emma, Greg and Johnson Gates (1976), Business and Society Cases and Texts, Ohio South Western Publishing Co.

Nwokedi, A. (1987) Community Relations in Oil Producing Companies in Nigeria: Weakness and Solutions, A Paper Presented at Owerri Biannual International Seminar on Petroleum Industry and Nigerian Environment.

Oshegbemi, T.(1979) Corporate Strategy for Business Social Responsibility: A conceptual Framework: A Seminar Paper Presented at the Department of Business Administration, Ahmadu Bellow University (ABU) Zaria, May,1979.