Delta Moves To Resolve Table Water Producers’ Dispute With SON
By UCHE OGBODO
Government Steps Into Regulatory Dispute
THE Delta State Government has pledged to investigate complaints by table-water producers who accused officials of the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) of harassment, extortion and excessive regulatory demands.
The assurance came after members of the Association of Table Water Producers (ATWAP), Delta State chapter, staged a peaceful protest at the Government House in Asaba.
The producers asked the state government to intervene in what they described as mounting pressure from SON officials, including alleged threats to shut down their businesses.
Receiving the protesters on behalf of the state government, the Commissioner for Special Duties, Ejiro Etagherure, said the administration would examine the complaints and seek an amicable resolution.
Producers Seek Protection From Alleged Pressure
Etagherure said the state government recognised the importance of water to the population and would not support actions that amount to oppression.
He said the documents and other information submitted by the association would be reviewed as part of the government’s response to the dispute.
“Your prayers have been heard,” the commissioner told the protesters, assuring them that the state government would look into the issues raised.
He also commended the association for conducting its protest peacefully.
The intervention places the Delta Government between the producers and a federal regulatory agency at a time when regulatory compliance has become a major concern for businesses operating in the packaged-water sector.
Over 200 Producers, Thousands of Workers
ATWAP Delta Chairman, Mark Evans, told the government that more than 200 table-water producers operate across the state.
According to him, the businesses collectively provide employment for between 10,000 and 11,000 workers.
Evans argued that the producers already operate under regulatory oversight from the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), which inspects their facilities and conducts periodic checks.
He therefore appealed to the state government to examine what the association considers additional and excessive demands from SON.
Allegations of Forced Payments
Evans alleged that SON officials had recently issued various demand notices to table-water producers and that some operators were compelled to make payments because they feared their factories would be shut down.
He claimed that some producers were allegedly directed to transfer money into personal accounts.
The association said it had receipts and other documents which it believed could support its complaints.
These allegations have yet to be independently established, making the government’s proposed review important in determining what occurred and whether any regulatory procedures were breached.
Dispute Over ‘Pilot State’ Enforcement
Another concern raised by the association involves a claim that Delta had been selected as a “pilot state” for enforcement of certain regulatory requirements.
Evans said producers had repeatedly requested documentary evidence supporting the claim but had not received satisfactory proof.
The issue has added another layer to the dispute, as businesses need clear information about regulatory requirements to plan their operations and comply with the law.
Balancing Regulation With Business Survival
The dispute highlights the difficult balance between effective regulation and the sustainability of small and medium-sized enterprises.
Packaged-water businesses have a direct public-health responsibility because their products are consumed by large numbers of people. Regulatory agencies therefore have a legitimate role in ensuring that producers meet required standards.
At the same time, allegations of harassment, improper payments or unclear enforcement requirements, if established, could undermine confidence in the regulatory system and place additional pressure on businesses already facing rising operating costs.
The Delta Government’s proposed intervention could therefore provide an opportunity for both sides to clarify their positions.
The immediate challenge will be to establish the facts, distinguish legitimate regulatory requirements from disputed demands and ensure that enforcement follows transparent procedures.
