The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Controversy

  • Controversy over local government autonomy

    Controversy over local government autonomy

    The two chambers of the National Assembly have played their part in the ongoing attempt to amend some aspects of the 1999 Constitution, including clauses that grant autonomy to local governments, by ratifying the proposals. But the approval of, at least, 24 Houses of Assembly is required before the proposals can become law. Deputy Political Editor RAYMOND MORDI looks at the controversy that might thwart the attempt to make local government autonomy a reality. 

    THE agitation for autonomy for the 774 local government areas has been raging for some time. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) recognises local governments as the third tier of government and there are provisions in the document that give the councils partial autonomy. But, the aberration of having a state/local government joint account where monthly allocations from the Federation Account are paid into invariably means that governors can have access to allocations that are accrue to the councils for capital and recurrent expenditures. This has led to a situation where state governors’ appropriate funds meant for the councils, while staff and workers of the councils are owed several months arrears of salaries.

    Against this background, associations such as Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON) and the Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE), backed by civil society organizations, have been advocating for autonomy for local governments. Specifically, they have been calling for the abrogation of the joint state/local government accounts, so that they can have financial autonomy, as envisaged by the framers of the 1999 Constitution.

    The issue of local government autonomy is one of 32 areas proposed by the National Assembly in the ongoing effort to amend the constitution. The lawmakers have sought for separate accounts for states and local governments, for the purpose of payment of monthly allocations from the Federation Account. The proposals have been ratified by the two chambers of the Eighth National Assembly and the ball is now in the court of the 36 state house of assemblies to concur or reject the proposed amendments. The constitution stipulates that two-thirds of the state assemblies (24 state assemblies) must ratify any constitutional amendment proposals before it becomes law.

    Thus, the two chambers of the National Assembly have played their part. The proposal says local government administrators should be allowed to manage their own accounts. It is now up to the state assemblies to give their consent to the proposal. But, given that most state house of assemblies routinely approve only matters already decided by governors, can the amendment sail through in the assemblies?

    In the view of experts, in both old and new federations, the nature and character of the political system largely determine the kind of autonomy central or regional/state governments devolve to local governments. Experts are of the view “that clauses 7, 8, 162 and any other clause in the 1999 Constitution that compromise the autonomy of local government should be deleted to give free and unfettered meaning to ‘autonomy’ and make local governments function as third-tier governments;  local governments shall be directly funded and tenure of their executive and legislature stated.”

    A professor of Constitutional Law, Maxwell Gidado, said the system of local government should be constituted in such a way that would reflect a truly tripartite level of government in the constitution. He said: “Section 162 (6) of the 1999 Constitution should be amended to abolish state joint local government account to attain full financial autonomy.”

    Gidado said revenue from the federation account should not be allocated to the unelected local government councils, so as to serve as deterrent to others. He added: “In respect of unelected local government councils, it is illegal and unconstitutional to allocate revenue to them. The constitution should make specific provisions in respect to tenure of local government councils and the process of their election, removal or dissolution, commensurate with what is obtainable for office of president and the governors.”

    One of the legacies bequeathed to the country by the almost three decades of military dictatorship is a federal system of government that is in reality unitary. Owing to the fact that the current structure is a hybrid of the two different systems, there appears to a dilemma about how to situate the local government within the system. In the First Republic, local governments were under the authority of regional governments, as only the regions were recognized as the federating units. Under the current dispensation, local governments are recognized in the constitution as one of the three-tiers of government. But in practice, the autonomy granted by the constitution is not being implemented.

    Some experts argue that the recognition of local government as the third tier of government is not ideal. Such experts believe it is wrong in the first place that local governments were given powers and functions directly in the 1999 Constitution. In their view local governments in federal political systems are creations of the state and therefore ought not to enjoy powers in same measures that the constitution grants to the federating units.

    Their argument is that the country’s current federal system does not conform to the principle of federalism, which recognises only two levels of government — federal and state governments. In advanced federations such as United States of America, they maintain, local governments were only mentioned in state constitutions.

    The above argument tallies with the position of the governors. Majority of the governors are opposed to the idea of autonomy for local councils, as the third tier of government. As a result, they not only hold on to the monthly fiscal allocations to various councils, but also select local government chairmen at will, without allowing the electorates to elect them as required by the constitution.

    The Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF), the umbrella body created to enhance collaboration among the 36 state chief executives, believes that local councils are integral part of state governments. The forum’s argument is premised on the fact that, in all known federation, the federating units are usually the states and the centre, while local governments are merely administrative units. The governors argue that, in a federal system, there is no provision for local government as a federating partner and to talk of one is to engage in absurdity.

    The NGF maintains that the understanding over the years has been that in a true federal set up, the issue relating to the creation, delineation and funding of local authorities is within the constitutional purview of states, which have political and judicial status that the local government do not have.

    There are governors that have, however, openly declared support for local government autonomy. Governor Ibikunle Amosun of Ogun State and his Delta State counterpart, Ifeanyi Okowa, appear to be in support of autonomy for local governments. Amosun said the governors that are against the idea are trying to justify their practice of illegally deducting money from the councils’ monthly allocation. On his part, Okowa said any leader who desires the good of his people and the development of the grassroots must support local government autonomy.

    Thus, many observers are also advocating for full autonomy for the councils. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Yakubu Dogara, recently reiterated that the National Assembly was committed to ensuring that local government administration in the country got autonomy.

    Dogara, who made the remark at the Retreat of the Secretary to Government of the Federation (SGF) and Secretaries to State Governments (SSGs), said that autonomy for the councils was essential for development to get to the grassroots.

    The Speaker who was represented Chief Whip of the House, Mr. Ado Doguwa, said: “As long as we want development to get to the doorstep of our people, the autonomy is necessary. This is the institutional position of the National Assembly, in line with the provisions of the law. The National Assembly will continue to remain resolute to ensure that local government autonomy is achieved.

    “We will continue to take advantage of the legislative right given to us to ensure that local government autonomy is realised. The local government chairmen are in bondage inflicted on them by the governors and this bondage must be released to ensure development at the grassroots level.”

    Elder statesman and Second Republic politician Alhaji Tanko Yakassai noted that it the responsibility of the Federation Account sharing committee is to share the revenue accruing to the nation to the three tiers of government – federal, state and local government.

    He said: “It is not in accordance with the provisions of the constitution to put the share of the local governments in the states’ allocations. So, if people don’t want local governments to stand as the third tier of government, they should go and get the constitution amended. As long as the constitution remains as it is, local governments are a separate tier of government and are entitled to their share of the revenue accruing to the federation.

    “The current practice where governors are in charge of what rightly belongs to local governments is unconstitutional. If local governments go to court, it would rule in their favour, because the constitution recognizes local governments as a tier of government. The federation account sharing committee is supposed to pay the share of each local government directly into their accounts; not through any other channel.

    “The military has destroyed this country politically. First, they destroyed the foundation of our political leadership. In the First Republic, local governments were under the authority of the regional governments. So, if state governors are desirous of taking us back to the First Republic, we should go back in total; everything must go back.”

    Yakassai said he is in support of the call that the country should go back to the 1960 or the 1963 constitution. He added: “The only headache I have is, what to do with the existing 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The FCT is a much-easier issue to handle. But, with regards to the 36 states, how do we convince the governors and the 36 states house of assemblies to agree to allow themselves to be dissolved and go back to the four regions? Ironically, the power to amend the constitution is vested in them.”

    For the Chairman and founder of the United Progressives Party (UPP), Chief Chekwas Okorie, local government autonomy is inevitable, “for the purpose of the development of the grassroots and for the purpose of deepening our democracy.” He said what is in place at the moment cannot be called local governments in the true sense of the word. As a result, the UPP chieftain said democracy dividends and all the other things that are supposed to accrue to local governments have suffered, as a result of the interference of state governments.

    Okorie said there would be a quantum of development across the country, if local governments become truly autonomous. He added: “Ideally, if a local council is not doing well, the people that voted it into office will also have the power to send them packing. But that is not the situation now.”

    He added: “People at that level do not have the freedom to choose their representatives. So, you will discover that the party in power in each state usually wins 100 per cent when it comes to local government elections. If we allow this trend to continue, we might as well say bye-bye to democracy and welcome to anarchy.

    “We already have provisions in the constitution that gives local governments’ partial autonomy. With the current effort to amend the constitution, the problem that inhibits them from having full autonomy can be sorted out. This can be done by removing local governments from the joint state/local government accounts.

    “On the political side, there is also the need to make the so-called state independent electoral commissions independent in the true sense of the word; by making sure that governors are denied the power to appoint people that superintend over those commissions.”

    The Executive Director of the African Centre for Leadership, Strategy and Development (Centre LSD), Otive Igbuzor, agrees with Okorie. Igbuzor said the proposed amendment in respect of local government autonomy must also address the issue of leadership selection processes at that level of government. He said while the proposed autonomy is highly desirable, but such development would be meaningless, unless a system is put in place to throw up credible leadership selection processes that ensures only quality people are elected to preside over affairs of the councils.

  • Beyond the hijab controversy

    The decision of the authorities of the Nigerian Law School to prevent Firdaus Amasa from being called to the bar due to her mode of dressing has generated a media circus. Following the trend of debates on the issue, it is obvious that the element of religiosity involved in the matter largely incited the frenetic debates that followed. Unfortunately, religion being the delicate concept it is in human society, the debate is descending into contention between secularists and sympathisers of a particular religious sect. Yet, the Firdaus’ experience could have presented us with a platform to critically review certain faulty principles in our legal education and jurisprudential system.

    That we are having this debate at all reflects the deeply rooted legal or jurisprudential conservatism that Nigeria shares with other former European colonies. Legal practitioners in Nigeria perhaps believe that their uniform – the flowing robe and horsehair wigs – set them aside from other professionals, just as a doctor’s white coat distinguishes him or her. What is not considered is that some of these mystified legal cultures are legacies of colonialism, outmoded and long discarded in the nations of their origin.

    Eighty-six days before this year’s call to bar ceremony was held, an opinion was published in the Washington Post, with the brazen title “It’s been 50 years since Britain left. Why are so many African judges still wearing wigs?”

    The author of the piece claimed correctly that “(t)he British gave up their last colonies in Africa half a century ago. But they left their wigs behind… Not just any wigs. They are the long, white, horsehair locks worn by high court judges (and King George III). They are so old-fashioned and so uncomfortable, that even the British barristers have stopped wearing them”. Some cultures peculiar to the legal profession in Nigeria are just unfathomable why they still exist despite their apparent inconvenience and contradictions to our environment. Imagine the harmattan heat and a lawyer dressed in that suffocating contraption of a robe making submissions in a typically congested Nigerian courtroom; it’d be a lot more convenient if the official dress-code has taken comfortability of the legal practitioners into consideration. If formal dressing alone (as its the culture among legal practitioners in America for example) is what it takes to appear as an advocate in a courtroom, the drama over the Firdaus’ hijab would have been avoided – because hijab being a sort of sacrosanct identity peculiar to a sect in society would have raised no fuss when combined with other forms of formal clothing.

    The Nigeria legal system is not only conservative; it is elitist. More and more the system is programmed to inculcate in lawyers a mechanical adherence to elitist practices that are dangerous to progressive evolution of law. For example, at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, it is a norm that radical law students (especially the student activists among them) who question unfavourable policies of the university authorities risk being delayed from progressing to the law school if they receive as much as a query from the management that require them to explain why the unfavourable policies of the management is being challenged. In the policy of the law school, prospective candidates are supposed to be well-behaved, and challenging authorities over clearly oppressive policies happens to fall under the scope of “bad behaviour”; and tools such as “query”, “suspension” and other forms of “legal” instruments of political victimisation employed by universities’ authorities form an incontrovertible criteria for authorities of the Nigerian Law School to automatically designate candidates as badly behaved. It could be opined that the Nigerian Law School has been making this grave mistake, which has continuously threatened civil and democratic rights (especially the freedom to speak against perceived injustice), only because of her unwitting trust in authorities of tertiary institutions. But the school has its own similar culture of repression of democratic rights. It is in fact considered sacrilegious to protest any policy in the law school; and the school has a standing policy that exempts students with background in Students’ Unionism from standing in elections usually conducted to elect student representatives. Some law schools, in line with prevailing Nigerian standard of party democracy, have a virile zoning system that is more effective than among mainstream political parties in Nigeria – this is because an attempt to challenge the law school’s zoning arrangement holds the prospect of termination of studentship which students do not wish for.

    The implication of the clearly undemocratic practices in the Nigerian Law School forebodes a dangerous uncritical attitude among lawyers to jurisprudence, and a zombie-like loyalty to an imperfect status quo. If our lawyers are nourished on the values of uncritical, unquestioning submission to every rule, whether justified or crooked, then the chances of our laws evolving progressively from the sort of expert evaluation they ought to offer society is pathetically low. It gets to a point, which is feared we already are, that the border between secularity and religiosity becomes blurred. This becomes the case when the custodians of our laws and jurisprudence approach law with the same unquestioning fervour that a faithful gives the doctrines of his faith. If anything should be assured in society, it is the freedom of intellection and expression; and if that is denied, we are all at the risk of remaining on the same spot due to the fact that it is not allowed to think radically or to challenge the wrong prejudices, sometimes called legislation, of a few powerful elites forced on society by different manipulative methods, including our popular rigged electoral system.

    The Firdaus’ case is not about religion; it is about a lady challenging a contradictory status quo. Considering the deep contradictions in the legal practices in Nigeria, this debate should ordinarily open a Pandora’s Box for every authority connected with legal education in Nigeria. The fact that most of our laws and codes are cloned after the British system, without the consideration that we could have better laws crafted in the image of our country, makes it important for us to cultivate critical, radical minded law students. Our law schools and education institutions should be humble enough to allow criticality!

     

    • Olubanji writes from Ado-Ekiti.

  • ‘Tenure controversy mere distraction’

    Managing Director of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) Nsima Ekere has described the controversy on the alleged tenure extension of the commission’s board as a mere distraction.

    Ekere, who spoke while inspecting the N24.5 billion Ogbia-Nembe road, and other feeder roads in Bayelsa State, appealed to those fuelling the crisis to allow the board discharge its mandate of developing the region.

    He said the board would not play politics with the region’s development, and called on politicians interested in the leadership of the NDDC to sheathe their swords and wait for their time.

    His words: “We should concentrate and allow the present board of the NDDC to deliver on its mandate. We don’t need the kind of distractions we are getting now. NDDC needs stability in its management to do all these projects.

    “The stability is needed for the commission and the region so we can concentrate and deliver. I appeal to politicians to please allow the board and management of NDDC work, and when the time for politics comes, as I always say, we shall play the politics.

    “I am very pleased and satisfied with the quality of work done by the contractor. It is noteworthy that this world class performance was achieved despite the very difficult terrain of the Niger Delta.

    “The region has a very challenging terrain and that is why projects cost more here than in other places. To get this project to this level, the contractor had to remove unsuitable materials for as deep as 25 metres in some portions. The project has also seen the use of vertical drains to take away ground water to allow the road to stabilise.”

    “This is an example for other oil companies operating in the Niger Delta. Shell has shown that in addition to its statutory obligation of contributing to the funding of the NDDC, it is also necessary to work with the commission on specific impactful projects.”

  • Controversy over extension of NDDC board’s tenure

    Controversy over extension of NDDC board’s tenure

    Controversy is trailing the extension of tenure of the managing director and the board of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) by the Federal Government.

    It was learnt at the weekend that the board members had received the letters extending their tenure till 2020 contrary to the extant law which terminates the tenure by next month.

    The Chairman of the board is Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba.  Mr. Nsima Ekere is the managing director. They assumed office in November last year..

    Other members are: Adjogbe Samuel, Mene Derek, Frank George, Brambaifa Nelson and Sylvester Nsa, Ogaga Ifowodo, Uwuilekhue Saturday, Harry Dabibi, Benard Banfa, Yahaya Mohammed, Mustapha Dankadai, Mahmoud Isa-Dutse and Abdul-Kazeem Bayero.

    The letter given to the members signed by the former Secretary to the Fedral Government Babachir Lawal states in part: “The appointment took effect from November 1, 2016 and you are to serve out the remainder of the term of office of your predecessor, in line with Section 5 (2) of the Act.”

    President Muhammad Buhari named a new board on July 22, 2016, after dissolving the Senator Bassey Ewa-Henshaw-led board in 2015. The nominees were screened by the Senate and cleared in October.

    But former Acting Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Dr. Habiba Lawal conveyed the president’s approval of a new four-year term to the board on October 16.

    Lawal reportedly acted on the legal advice of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Shehu Abubakar Malami.

    The Ewa-Henshaw board was dissolved in 2015 because of the infighting among board members and a court case between board members and the Federal Government at the National Industrial Court, Abuja.

    According to the NDDC’s Act of 2000, members of the board of the Federal Government’s interventionist agency ought to be in office for just four years, without extension, and the positions to be rotated alphabetically among the nine states.

    The former Managing Director, Mr. Bassey Dan-Abia, from Akwa Ibom State, who was appointed by ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, was in office for two years, before he was dropped.

    On assumption of office President Muhammadu Buhari, appointed a former Rivers State Commissioner for Information and Communications,  Mrs. Ibim Semenitari, as Acting Managing Director. She was in office for 11 months.

    Indigenes of Akwa Ibom state protested continually and some of them even went to court, insisting that one of their own must complete Dan-Abia’s tenure. Ekere from Akwa Ibom State was then appointed. .

    At the forefront of the current protests are indigenes of Bayelsa State expecting an indigene of the state to be appointed managing director by December.

    The Ijaw Youth Council (IYC),is leading the agitation.

    But a member of the board, who does not want to be quoted, faulted the agitation.

    He cited Section 3(1) of the NDDC Act which states that “subject to the provision of Section 4 of this Act a member of the Board, other than an ex-officio member shall hold office for a term of four years in the first instance and may be re-appointed for a further term of four years and no more.”

    He also said since there is a board in place, a new Senate confirmation was not needed, in line with section 5 (3), which deals with vacancy on the board.

    “Where there is no board at all in place, section 3(i) applies. Section 5(3) applies where there is a board and vacancy occurs. There must be a board in place for a vacancy to occur. A vacancy cannot occur where there is no board as was the case when the present board was appointed,” he added.

    Director, Corporate Affairs of NDDC Mr. Ibitoye Abosede  declined to comment yesterday when our correspondent contacted him..

  • Controversy over agitation for restructuring

    Controversy over agitation for restructuring

    Nigerians are yet to agree on how to restructure the country. The disagreement is overheating the polity. Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN examines why some Nigerians are kicking against restructuring.

    The clamour for restructuring has polarised the country. Regions in the south believe in it, but they have different views of what it is all about. To the Ibos in the Southeast, restructuring will guarantee confederation in the constitution; the Yorubas in the Southwest want a restructuring that would take the country back to regionalism; while the Southsouth is pushing for resource control. While the positions of regions in the south are not irreconcilable, that of the three regions in the north is a different ballgame. The debate has pitched the south against the north, which is indifferent to restructuring in any form.

    Eminent leaders from the south believe what can save the country from disintegration is restructuring. They are of the view that the unity of Nigeria and harmonious co-existence of the various ethnic nationalities will be strengthened by fiscal federalism and restructuring of the polity.

    In making a case for restructuring, Ijaw leader Chief Edwin Clark said: “Nigeria is very sick today, because the Nigeria which our founding fathers like Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe and Sir Ahmadu Bello bequeathed to us is no longer what we have. At independence, we had a constitution that said there would be three regions; no one is superior to the other.”

    To the former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, the disintegration of Nigeria is imminent and the immediate solution is restructuring. Similarly, Afenifere chieftain Ayo Adebanjo is spitting fire that Nigeria will break up, unless zones are allowed to control their resources.

    But, the pan-northern socio-cultural group, the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), has rejected the call for restructuring, saying what the country needs at the moment is competent leadership at all levels. The ACF spokesman, Alhaji Mohammed Ibrahim, said heeding the call for restructuring would weaken the centre. He said Nigerians fought for the unity and that it is not possible for the north to support anything that would cause disunity.

    Vocal northern politician Dr Junaid Muhammed said eminent citizens pushing for restructuring are trying to blackmail Nigerians into an unclear and bogus system of government. The Second Republic lawmaker posited that none of those calling for the restructuring of Nigeria had been able to give a clear cut definition of what they meant.

    He added: “Until somebody can tell me what this restructuring is all about, I won’t be convinced about the call. These agitators of restructuring like Clark, Ayo Adebanjo, John Nwodo and others have not actually told us what will be restructured and how it will be done. That was how we were told that without Sovereign National Conference (SNC) Nigeria will collapse.”

    However, Anyaoku insists on restructuring, saying there is need for true federalism, with the existing six geo-political zones as the federating units. He criticised the present structure of federalism “where virtually all the component states are not self-sustaining and are dependent on hand-outs from the Federal Government, because they are unable to pay the salaries of their civil servants and the agreed minimum wage”.

    He said: “Its dependence on the Federal Government and the fierce struggle between its diverse groups to capture power at the centre in order to control the national resources that have been responsible for the country’s present instability and the emergence of centrifugal forces.

    “I believe that our country cannot wait much longer to reclaim the halcyon days of the First Republic, when it witnessed faster national development through a substantial viability and self-sustaining economic activities in the existing four regions at the time.”

    It is the view of analysts that different ethnic groups should agree on how to go about restructuring the country. They argued that different positions taken by the protagonists of restructuring have brought confusion into the polity. They also cautioned against hard stance position and violent posturing of those calling for restructuring, because it is capable of sending wrong signals to the opposing side.

    Legal luminary Malam Yusuf Ali (SAN), said the call for restructuring has brought more confusion into polity. He said Nigerians must agree on what they want to restructure, rather than different zones or ethnic groups defining restructuring the way it suits them.

    Ali said restructuring meants different things to different ethnic groups or zones. For instance, the Yoruba definition of restructuring is regionalism and fiscal federalism and that the perception of Igbos on restructuring is confederation, while the Southsouth is gunning for economic self-determination through restructuring. He added: “Until there is agreement among the ethnic groups in the country on how to restructure Nigeria, we will not make progress; we will be over heating the polity. Let’s agree on basic issues and stop creating confusion.”

    The senior lawyer admitted that there are problems that must be addressed, if Nigerians must live together as subjects of one nation. He said: “If we abolished the settler and indigene dichotomy and ensure equitable distribution of amenities, Nigeria will not mind if the father is president and the son is vice president. An Ibo man won’t care if a Yoruba man is president for life, provided he is not denied of basic things of life. He added that it is lack of faith that is causing suspicion among the ethnic groups.

    Civil right activist Comrade Mashood Erubami agreed that restructuring has been misconstrued by some interest groups. He said the current clamour for restructuring is timely, but not good in context. He said: “It is good that it is coming at a time the National Assembly is embarking on constitutional amendments. It is however not good in context, because it is being mistaken for secession which is not the same as restructuring.”

    Erubami explained that the objective of restructuring is change, because the brand of federalism being practised by Nigeria has not been favourable to the federating units. He said to restructure the obvious unitary system being currently practised, instead of federalism, is a step in the right direction.

    He said: “There are subjective and objective material reasons for the increasing clamour in recent times for genuine restructuring, which may continue unless justice, which is the basis for the call, is demonstrated in the management and distribution of national resources among the component parts of the country.

    “However, those who are making the call in recent times are unserious and self centred. They are just waking up to the call as a means to achieving self-determination and secession, not necessarily because they are interested in truly restructuring Nigeria.”

    A political scientist, Dr Friday Ibok, argued that without restructuring, there will be no peace. He said the 2014 National Conference has set the template for restructuring and that its resolutions, if implemented, will douse the various agitations that is threatening the peace and unity of the country.

    Ibok noted that the conference recommended devolution of powers to the states; establishment of state police, rotational presidency between the north and the south and among the six geo-political zones; the creation of 19 additional states with the Southeast getting four more states

    He regretted that the conference failed to address the issue of derivation and resource control, which is one of the issues fuelling the agitation for restructuring. He said the contentious issue had been settled by the 1960 Independence and 1963 Republican constitutions, because the two constitutions specifically provided that the federating units should control their economic activities and finances, by keeping 50 per cent of all revenues and contributing the remaining 50 per cent to the Federation Account.

    He said: “The constitutions stated that 30 per cent should be shared among the regions, leaving 20 per cent to the Federal Government.

    “But, the law was changed in 1969 by the military administration when the crude oil from the Niger Delta became the mainstay of the economy. The change was effected by military fiat. The Southsouth is clamouring for a return to a true fiscal federalism as was the case when cocoa, rubber, groundnut and cotton were the mainstay of the economy. Their demand is based on principle of equity, justice and fairness.”

    A Kaduna-based lawyer, Mahmoud Haroun, believes those behind the campaign for restructuring are those who lost out in the last general elections. He said they are seeking political relevance ahead of 2019. He said restructuring is the buzz word of a section of the elite that feels that it has been shut out of government, particularly at the federal level.

    Haroun said, to the frustrated politicians, restructuring means regional autonomy or resource control. He added: “The driving force is that if they cannot be accommodated at the federal level, they should be in-charge at the regional level. They say the centre or Federal Government is too powerful and that the way out is to return the ownership of the resources to states or geo-political zones, which may then pay taxes to run the government at the centre.

    “Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has latched on to the so-called restructuring debate; he has positioned himself as the lead discussant. Apparently, the ongoing debate on restructuring needs a strong advocate in the north and Atiku fits the bill. Atiku needs the restructuring debate, to keep himself busy on the way to another shot at the Nigerian Presidency. Too much politics has crept into the restructuring debate such that it has now become a tool in the hands of those who have lost in the current order and want to distract President Muhammadu Buhari”

    Erubami is of the view that what binds the poor people in the north, east and west together is hunger and abject poverty. He said what can liberate the poor is for them to identify their common enemies and replace them with compassionate, courageous, committed and responsible leadership. He added: “Right now there is nothing different, the same old, unserious self-centred lots are clamouring for restructuring that cannot be said to represent true mandate of the masses.”

    Anyaoku advised that most of the powers currently concentrated at the centre in the presidential system be devolved to the regions to enable each region develops at its own pace. He blames the problems of Nigeria on military intervention that imposed unitary system of government, as against federalism that allows the regions to control their resources and pay tax to the Federal Government.

    He said: “The leadership of the centre should remain less powerful and less attractive as it was at the beginning of our independence. Nigeria should be restructured into a federation of six regions, based on the existing six geo-political zones. The new structure should retain the existing states as development areas but that the governance paraphernalia of governors, state assemblies, civil service and judiciary should be removed.”

    He observed that one of the main challenges that would come with the new system would be that of revenue allocation and suggested that resources should be divided into man-made resources produced by the citizens and God-given-that is minerals both liquid and solid. He said the revenue from God-given resources should be allocated with the Federal Government receiving something between 20 and 23 per cent.

  • Controversy over agitation for restructuring

    Controversy over agitation for restructuring

    Nigerians are yet to agree on how to restructure the country. The disagreement is overheating the polity. Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN examines why some Nigerians are kicking against restructuring.

    The clamour for restructuring has polarised the country. Regions in the south believe in it, but they have different views of what it is all about. To the Ibos in the Southeast, restructuring will guarantee confederation in the constitution; the Yorubas in the Southwest want a restructuring that would take the country back to regionalism; while the Southsouth is pushing for resource control. While the positions of regions in the south are not irreconcilable, that of the three regions in the north is a different ballgame. The debate has pitched the south against the north, which is indifferent to restructuring in any form.

    Eminent leaders from the south believe what can save the country from disintegration is restructuring. They are of the view that the unity of Nigeria and harmonious co-existence of the various ethnic nationalities will be strengthened by fiscal federalism and restructuring of the polity.

    In making a case for restructuring, Ijaw leader Chief Edwin Clark said: “Nigeria is very sick today, because the Nigeria which our founding fathers like Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe and Sir Ahmadu Bello bequeathed to us is no longer what we have. At independence, we had a constitution that said there would be three regions; no one is superior to the other.”

    To the former Secretary-General of Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, the disintegration of Nigeria is imminent and the immediate solution is restructuring. Similarly, Afenifere chieftain Ayo Adebanjo is spitting fire that Nigeria will break up, unless zones are allowed to control their resources.

    But, the pan-northern socio-cultural group, the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), has rejected the call for restructuring, saying what the country needs at the moment is competent leadership at all levels. The ACF spokesman, Alhaji Mohammed Ibrahim, said heeding the call for restructuring would weaken the centre. He said Nigerians fought for the unity and that it is not possible for the north to support anything that would cause disunity.

    Vocal northern politician Dr Junaid Muhammed said eminent citizens pushing for restructuring are trying to blackmail Nigerians into an unclear and bogus system of government. The Second Republic lawmaker posited that none of those calling for the restructuring of Nigeria had been able to give a clear cut definition of what they meant.

    He added: “Until somebody can tell me what this restructuring is all about, I won’t be convinced about the call. These agitators of restructuring like Clark, Ayo Adebanjo, John Nwodo and others have not actually told us what will be restructured and how it will be done. That was how we were told that without Sovereign National Conference (SNC) Nigeria will collapse.”

    However, Anyaoku insists on restructuring, saying there is need for true federalism, with the existing six geo-political zones as the federating units. He criticised the present structure of federalism “where virtually all the component states are not self-sustaining and are dependent on hand-outs from the Federal Government, because they are unable to pay the salaries of their civil servants and the agreed minimum wage”.

    He said: “Its dependence on the Federal Government and the fierce struggle between its diverse groups to capture power at the centre in order to control the national resources that have been responsible for the country’s present instability and the emergence of centrifugal forces.

    “I believe that our country cannot wait much longer to reclaim the halcyon days of the First Republic, when it witnessed faster national development through a substantial viability and self-sustaining economic activities in the existing four regions at the time.”

    It is the view of analysts that different ethnic groups should agree on how to go about restructuring the country. They argued that different positions taken by the protagonists of restructuring have brought confusion into the polity. They also cautioned against hard stance position and violent posturing of those calling for restructuring, because it is capable of sending wrong signals to the opposing side.

    Legal luminary Malam Yusuf Ali (SAN), said the call for restructuring has brought more confusion into polity. He said Nigerians must agree on what they want to restructure, rather than different zones or ethnic groups defining restructuring the way it suits them.

    Ali said restructuring meants different things to different ethnic groups or zones. For instance, the Yoruba definition of restructuring is regionalism and fiscal federalism and that the perception of Igbos on restructuring is confederation, while the Southsouth is gunning for economic self-determination through restructuring. He added: “Until there is agreement among the ethnic groups in the country on how to restructure Nigeria, we will not make progress; we will be over heating the polity. Let’s agree on basic issues and stop creating confusion.”

    The senior lawyer admitted that there are problems that must be addressed, if Nigerians must live together as subjects of one nation. He said: “If we abolished the settler and indigene dichotomy and ensure equitable distribution of amenities, Nigeria will not mind if the father is president and the son is vice president. An Ibo man won’t care if a Yoruba man is president for life, provided he is not denied of basic things of life. He added that it is lack of faith that is causing suspicion among the ethnic groups.

    Civil right activist Comrade Mashood Erubami agreed that restructuring has been misconstrued by some interest groups. He said the current clamour for restructuring is timely, but not good in context. He said: “It is good that it is coming at a time the National Assembly is embarking on constitutional amendments. It is however not good in context, because it is being mistaken for secession which is not the same as restructuring.”

    Erubami explained that the objective of restructuring is change, because the brand of federalism being practised by Nigeria has not been favourable to the federating units. He said to restructure the obvious unitary system being currently practised, instead of federalism, is a step in the right direction.

    He said: “There are subjective and objective material reasons for the increasing clamour in recent times for genuine restructuring, which may continue unless justice, which is the basis for the call, is demonstrated in the management and distribution of national resources among the component parts of the country.

    “However, those who are making the call in recent times are unserious and self centred. They are just waking up to the call as a means to achieving self-determination and secession, not necessarily because they are interested in truly restructuring Nigeria.”

    A political scientist, Dr Friday Ibok, argued that without restructuring, there will be no peace. He said the 2014 National Conference has set the template for restructuring and that its resolutions, if implemented, will douse the various agitations that is threatening the peace and unity of the country.

    Ibok noted that the conference recommended devolution of powers to the states; establishment of state police, rotational presidency between the north and the south and among the six geo-political zones; the creation of 19 additional states with the Southeast getting four more states

    He regretted that the conference failed to address the issue of derivation and resource control, which is one of the issues fuelling the agitation for restructuring. He said the contentious issue had been settled by the 1960 Independence and 1963 Republican constitutions, because the two constitutions specifically provided that the federating units should control their economic activities and finances, by keeping 50 per cent of all revenues and contributing the remaining 50 per cent to the Federation Account.

    He said: “The constitutions stated that 30 per cent should be shared among the regions, leaving 20 per cent to the Federal Government.

    “But, the law was changed in 1969 by the military administration when the crude oil from the Niger Delta became the mainstay of the economy. The change was effected by military fiat. The Southsouth is clamouring for a return to a true fiscal federalism as was the case when cocoa, rubber, groundnut and cotton were the mainstay of the economy. Their demand is based on principle of equity, justice and fairness.”

    A Kaduna-based lawyer, Mahmoud Haroun, believes those behind the campaign for restructuring are those who lost out in the last general elections. He said they are seeking political relevance ahead of 2019. He said restructuring is the buzz word of a section of the elite that feels that it has been shut out of government, particularly at the federal level.

    Haroun said, to the frustrated politicians, restructuring means regional autonomy or resource control. He added: “The driving force is that if they cannot be accommodated at the federal level, they should be in-charge at the regional level. They say the centre or Federal Government is too powerful and that the way out is to return the ownership of the resources to states or geo-political zones, which may then pay taxes to run the government at the centre.

    “Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has latched on to the so-called restructuring debate; he has positioned himself as the lead discussant. Apparently, the ongoing debate on restructuring needs a strong advocate in the north and Atiku fits the bill. Atiku needs the restructuring debate, to keep himself busy on the way to another shot at the Nigerian Presidency. Too much politics has crept into the restructuring debate such that it has now become a tool in the hands of those who have lost in the current order and want to distract President Muhammadu Buhari”

    Erubami is of the view that what binds the poor people in the north, east and west together is hunger and abject poverty. He said what can liberate the poor is for them to identify their common enemies and replace them with compassionate, courageous, committed and responsible leadership. He added: “Right now there is nothing different, the same old, unserious self-centred lots are clamouring for restructuring that cannot be said to represent true mandate of the masses.”

    Anyaoku advised that most of the powers currently concentrated at the centre in the presidential system be devolved to the regions to enable each region develops at its own pace. He blames the problems of Nigeria on military intervention that imposed unitary system of government, as against federalism that allows the regions to control their resources and pay tax to the Federal Government.

    He said: “The leadership of the centre should remain less powerful and less attractive as it was at the beginning of our independence. Nigeria should be restructured into a federation of six regions, based on the existing six geo-political zones. The new structure should retain the existing states as development areas but that the governance paraphernalia of governors, state assemblies, civil service and judiciary should be removed.”

    He observed that one of the main challenges that would come with the new system would be that of revenue allocation and suggested that resources should be divided into man-made resources produced by the citizens and God-given-that is minerals both liquid and solid. He said the revenue from God-given resources should be allocated with the Federal Government receiving something between 20 and 23 per cent.

  • Raging controversy over new petroleum industry bill

    Raging controversy over new petroleum industry bill

    The much hyped Petroleum Industry Governance Bill, which was passed into law mid May 2017, is already generating heated debate amongst stakeholders.Many argue that the law as passed, leaves nothing to cheer about. Ibrahim Apekhade Yusuf in this report, examines the contentious issues surrounding the law

    Few issues have generated as much controversy as the Nigeria Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB). Right from the time the idea of the PIB came to the front burner of public discourse some years ago, it was a subject of heated debate considering the differences of opinions by different interest groups.

    Although the PIB has been around in one form or the other since 2008 when it was first introduced, however, during the 7th National Assembly, additional efforts were made to pass the 2012 version of the PIB but it unfortunately was unsuccessful, just as similar attempts at prior parliamentary sessions.

    But thankfully, Dr. Bukola Saraki-led Senate passed the Bill first time last May and now expects concurrence by the House.

    Thumbs up for Saraki-led Assembly

    As to be expected, a lot of kudos has gone to 9th Assembly for taking the taking the initiative to pass the bill almost 17 years after the process commenced in April 2000.

    Firing the first salvo, the chairman, Petroleum Technology Association of Nigeria (PETAN), Bank Anthony Okoroafor while lauding the Senate for taking the initiative, said the PIGB provides for the governance and institutional framework for the petroleum industry and for other related matters.

    “We need the governance bill to setup the framework for the following as stated in the governance bill document, create efficient and effective governing institutions with clear and separate roles, establish a framework for the creation of commercially oriented and profit driven entities, promote transparency and accountability and finally foster a conducive business environment,” he added.

    The Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) in a media statement signed by its Director of Communications, Dr. Orji Ogbonnaya Orji noted that the public outcry that greeted the failure of the last National Assembly to pass this important bill perhaps informed the current Senate’s resolve to revive legislative interest on the bill. This resulted in the milestone recorded at the moment.

    He said the decision of the Senate to consider the bill as priority resulting in its passage is not only legendary, but historic, given the challenges the bill had passed through in its legislative journey for almost two decades.

    Ogbonnaya hoped that with the prospects of a new law coming in to place, the huge revenue losses to the nation as a result of governance lapses will be eliminated

    He said NEITI as an agency set up to enthrone transparency and accountability in the management of extractive industries in Nigeria, has legitimate interest in the PIGB in view of its strategic importance to the realisation of its mandate.

    Bone of contention

    However rather than be a source of excitement the passage of the bill has evoked unpleasant reactions from different quarters as not a few are satisfied with the bill as in its current state.

    But what may be responsible for this blatant antagonism of this otherwise laudable initiative? The devil, as they say, is in the details!

    It is widely acknowledged that major reforms in the governance and institutional structure for the sector are necessary and urgent but a major drawback of the existing framework is the lack of clarity of roles, self- regulation, conflicts and unnecessary overlaps.

    Besides content issues with prior versions, one of the major drawbacks to passage was the bogus packaging of the PIB as a single legal instrument.

    Consequently, although the 2015 attempt contains enhanced quality work on content, the bill has been split into logical smaller pieces for submission to the 8th National Assembly, a complete departure from all prior efforts.

    Concerns by stakeholders

    Stakeholders in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector have criticised the non-passage of the Host Community Bill.

    They emphasised the need for the federal government to urgently pass the bill that addresses host community issues to allow for peace and security in the Niger Delta, even as the Bill is yet to scale through the lower house of the National Assembly.

    Expectedly, the Ijaw Youths Council (IYC) has rejected in totality the PIGB, describing it as insensitive. However, the Host Community Bill and Petroleum Industry Fiscal Bill are at different stages of scrutiny at the National Assembly.

    The Host Community Bill is aimed at addressing issues relating to community participation, security, and the ecological debt incurred by host communities from oil extraction.

    Although the oil workers union in the oil and gas sector, including the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) and the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), have cautioned were yet to make their position on the PIGB public as at press time, they had both cautioned against inserting anti-labour laws in the PIGB when the proposal was still being drafted.

    At a joint statement issued recently after a meeting in Abuja, the unions insisted that no job losses should be recorded in the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and all other agencies that would be impacted by the PIGB.

    According to the two trade unions, the National Assembly must ensure that workers interests are protected in the bill, currently undergoing legislative scrutiny at the National Assembly.

    The unions stressed that labour-related issues must be respected and given due consideration as a panacea for the successful implementation of the bill when enacted.

    The unions in the joint statement noted that a major challenge that will confront workers in the organisations and agencies that would be impacted by the PIGB, especially the NNPC is the transitions from a more socially focused organisation to a profit focused one.

    They added that the sudden and severe changes that these organisations would bring with the PIGB would impact on the workers like the case of the workers of the defunct Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) successor companies.

    The unions said the PIGB is intended to privatise, as much as is practicable, government’s interest in the petroleum sector, and that if the situation is not carefully and properly handled could lead to serious labour issues thereby jeopardising the overall benefits of the PIGB.

    They added that the PIGB also had the additional challenges posed by repeals of existing laws as some of the Acts establishing the government agencies except for Petroleum Equalisation Fund (PEF), Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NNRA) and Petroleum Training Institute (PTI) will be repealed by the PIGB.

    The unions reiterated that since the Bill plans to change the ownership structure of government establishments in the petroleum sector including asset sales and eventual divestment, workers issues relating to their welfare, benefits, jobs protection and other entitlements should be given due consideration by the National Assembly.

    The unions’ leadership said the position of the two industrial unions had been submitted as encapsulated in their memorandum to the National Assembly based on five major policy thrusts. These are Transparency and accountability fiscal terms, institutional framework (such as Minister, Regulator and commercial entities), Refinery and other downstream activities, and labour issues and membership of Institutions Boards and committees.

    Intended consequences of the PIGB

    A lot is bound to give with the introduction of the Bill. With the passage by the PIGB, the country is set to have five new commercial and governance organisations to replace existing ones, such as the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and the Department of Petroleum Resources.

    The bill seeks to provide governance and institutional framework for Nigeria’s petroleum industry.

    Among other key objectives, the bill promises to repeal the NNPC Act, and replace it with “commercially oriented and profit-driven” petroleum companies to be incorporated by the government.

    In effect, the assets and liabilities of the NNPC will be split between two new companies, namely National Petroleum Company, NPC, and the National Petroleum Assets Management Company.

    Both companies are to be incorporated by the Minister of Petroleum Resources within six months of presidential assent – that is if it gets that approval.

    The management company will run all assets currently held by the NNPC, including OPLs under production sharing contracts, while other assets will be transferred to the NPC.

    In both companies, the Bureau of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Petroleum are to hold shares in ratio of 20:40:40 respectively.

    The bill also proposes a third commercial entity, the National Petroleum Liability Company, to be vested with “certain liabilities” of the NNPC and pension liabilities of the DPR in order not to financially encumber the Asset Management Company as well as the NPC.

    The bill further seeks to repeal the Acts establishing the Petroleum Inspectorate, Department of Petroleum Resources and the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency, and to transfer their functions, assets, funds and all resources to a new body, to be named Nigeria Petroleum Regulatory Commission.

    According to the bill, this commission will have responsibility to regulate all aspects of the nation’s petroleum industry, including health, safety, environment, technical standards, infrastructural development, compliance with terms and conditions of contracts and leases, and enabling business environment.

    It will also have power to grant licenses for downstream gas, petroleum products, retail outlets and transportation and distribution facilities.

    The fifth body proposed by the bill is the Petroleum Equalisation Fund, which is to ensure “efficient distribution of petroleum products through the country” and “enhance development of all regions of the federation by ensuring economic balance in the price of petroleum products”; and “collect and provide funding for infrastructural development throughout the federation.”

    Questions over flawed PIGB

    To say there have been wide criticisms over the PIGB is simply stating the obvious. Truth is complaints have been from different quarters, especially from stakeholders who feel shortchanged by the system.

    In his assessment of the PIGB, Martin Onovo, oil and gas engineering consultant and an energy expert who boasts of over 25 years experience in the sector said the bill as passed by the senate leaves nothing to cheer about.

    Speaking in an interview Onovo who was categorical in his criticism said, “I don’t think it’s a laudable move. It has no benefits. It has very heavy unproductive costs. There are many reasons why this bill is wasteful, bureaucratic and inappropriate. In this Petroleum Industry Governance Bill, the Senate simply split the NNPC into an upstream and a downstream establishment and also replaced the DPR with a new industry regulatory authority.”

    The original purpose of the PIB, he maintained, “Was to have one comprehensive and updated law that regulates the entire Nigerian petroleum industry both upstream and downstream. This was calculated to make it easier for investors to get a complete view of all laws guiding activities in the petroleum industry so that they can make their investment decisions promptly and thereby increase investments in the industry. Unfortunately, this original primary purpose was defeated by the breaking of the proposed PIB into about five parts and passing only one part, by the Senate. It is a first step towards the misalignment of the laws governing the petroleum industry.”

    The PIGB passed by the senate covers only the governance structure of the industry and introduces very wasteful costs of the bureaucratic organisational adjustments they made, he stressed.

    He however impressed on the lower chamber the need to make the necessary amendment rather than be railroaded into making the same flaws like the members p the upper legislative chamber.

    “The House of Representatives should not accept it as passed by the Senate and if they do, it should not be signed into law. Otherwise, Nigeria will waste very valuable funds and incur increased operational costs.”

    On the way out for the industry, he insisted, is very clearly established and published. “In the upstream sector of the industry, we should grow reserves and increase production safely and more efficiently. We should also improve gas utilisation which will reduce flaring and increase revenue. In the downstream sector, we should increase domestic refining capacity.”

    The best way to achieve this, he observed, is to identify and prioritise all issues and risks involved with the sector and designed means and ways of managing them efficiently.

    “Today, the major issues include: security problems in the Niger Delta, uncertain investment climate that was created by the PIB idea, host community relations, policy changes, political risks, corruption, and mediocrity. We must manage these and other risks and issues most efficiently to achieve our national objectives for the petroleum industry.”

    Like Onovo, one group that has raised its voice above the din is the Social Development Integrated Centre (Social Action), a civil society organisation in the forefront of advocacy against socioeconomic injustice.

    Speaking at a press conference in Abuja last Wednesday, Dr. Isaac Asume Osuoka, a director at Social Action lamented what he described as “serious ambiguities and flaws in the PIGB as passed by the Senate.”

    Osuoka who revealed that his organisation has done a post mortem of the PIGB, said the outcome of the study shows that PIGB, as passed by the Senate, is seriously flawed.

    Specifically, he said: “It does not provide for the health, safety, and environment concerns. There is no provision for an end to gas flaring. There is a lack of independence for regulators and a glaring neglect of host communities’ interest in the proposed new institutions. The provisions of the PIGB as passed by the Senate do not demonstrate an understanding of the need to guarantee energy access as a right of citizens.”

    Besides, he said the powers and functions of the new institutions like the Petroleum Regulatory Commission created under the Bill do not reflect current global best practices. “Our conclusion is that the version of the PIGB as passed by the Senate is an unconscionable attempt to legalise the appropriation of national oil and gas assets to some powerful private interests.”

    The ill-advised separation of a hitherto comprehensive bill into bits (by the Senate), he stressed, “Has created a sufficient setback to a holistic and more effective effort to revamp of the oil sector in Nigeria for the benefit of citizens.”

    On the provisions of the bill proper, Osuako said the Senate chose to create new institutions in the industry including the National Oil Company, the Nigeria Petroleum Assets Management Company, the National Petroleum Regulatory Commission, the Ministry of Petroleum Incorporated and the Petroleum Equalization Fund etc., without first creating the enabling environment on which these entities will thrive.

    “In its current form, the PIGB cedes virtually all powers on environmental regulation from the Ministry of Environment to the New Petroleum Regulatory Commission. Sadly, the Commission is saddled with functions that are conflicting with each other.”

    Expatiating, he said: “The original PIB had made it clear that the Ministry of Environment shall have overriding authority on environmental matters. This neutrality and independence was necessary to appropriately enforce environmental regulations. Worryingly, in the PIGB, all provisions giving the Federal Ministry of Environment powers on environmental issues were struck out. By so doing, the Senate is causing the country to lose out on the opportunity of a new legislation to correct the lapses in our regulation of environmental issues in the petroleum sector. The logical consequence of this line of action is the exacerbation of environmental crisis and conflicts in Nigeria.

    He therefore called on the National Assembly to promptly return to the 2015 version of the PIB as regards to the environment as it has clear and effective environmental protection provisions and regulations for the petroleum industry.

    With the welter of criticisms against the PIGB still raging, the last may not have been heard of this so-called controversial bill.

  • Controversy over Ekiti panel of inquiry

    Controversy over Ekiti panel of inquiry

    Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayose has raised a panel to probe the financial transactions of his predecessor, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, who is presently Minister of Mines and Steel Development. But, the minister has gone to court to stop the probe. ODUNAYO OGUNMOLA (Ado Ekiti) examines the contentious issues.

    It was the appearance of the former Commissioner for Finance under the Fayemi administration, Dapo Kolawole, on a televised programme on June 14, last year that started the controversy over the finances of the administration.  Kolawole had explained during the programme that his boss did not plunge Ekiti into debt, as alleged by Governor Ayodele Fayose and that, on the contrary, the money Fayose received so far from the Federation Account as at that time was enough to pay three months workers’ salary, out of the six months outstanding salaries.

    The former commissioner also claimed that it was Fayose who renegotiated Ekiti debt till 2036 and not Fayemi, as the latter had paid half of the debt and was expecting the sum of N17 billion as reimbursement from the Federal Government, for some road construction projects and that this would have offset all debts, if Fayose had not breached the payment plan. This revelation irked Fayose’s government and prompted the invitation of Dapo Kolawole by the state House of Assembly, to come and explain the finances of Ekiti State while he was Commissioner for Finance.

    Kolawole did not honour the invitation; he sent a letter and medical report to the House. But, the House remained adamant and decided to invite him a second time. However, before the due date, a member of the House of Assembly, Dr. Samuel Omotoso, and Fayose’s Special Assistant on New Media and Communications, Lere Olayinka, appeared on a live television and radio programme on July 6, 2017, where they allegedly described Kolawole and Fayemi as “thieves who stole the state blind”.

    They alleged that Fayemi misappropriated N852m State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) money and that he also stole N1.5billion from state coffers and donated same to Buhari’s campaign fund. They also accused Fayemi of stealing from state coffers to establish a university in Ghana; of borrowing N5b from Ecobank for his re-election and not on any project; of colluding with his aides to steal 79 official vehicles; and that he left a huge debt behind. They also said on the programme that they had written a petition against Fayemi, Kolawole and some of his aides to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) but no action was taken.

    Immediately after watching the programme, Kolawole approached the court to restrain the House from inviting him, because since they have passed a verdict on him on a live television programme without hearing his own side of the story, he is not likely to get justice.

    After the receipt of court summons, following Kolawole’s suit, the Assembly extended an invitation to Fayemi on March 10, 2017. But wrote to explain his inability to appear before them, because of official engagements, saying all the issues they wanted him to explain were contained in the handover notes submitted to the House of Assembly.

    Fayemi also on the basis of the television programme entitled, “Ejiire” where the duo of Olayinka and Omotoso called him a thief, dragged them to an Abuja High Court for libel claiming N3 billion  as damages from them, N2billion from Lere and N1billion from Omotoso.

    When the duo were served on February 1, 2017, the Assembly allegedly in a retaliatory gesture that one of them had been dragged to court, invited Fayemi again to appear before them on February 2, 2017 failure which they would issue a warrant for his arrest. Fayemi did not appear before the House on the appointed day ostensibly because he knew he might not get justice before the legislators who had already pronounced him guilty and was bent on having its pound of flesh because he dragged one of their members to court for libel.

    The house, on February 7, 2017, slammed a warrant of arrest on the minister, directing the Inspector General of Police and the Commissioner of Police in Ekiti State to arrest him whenever and wherever they see him and bring him before the House of Assembly. This necessitated Fayemi’s second law suit, where he dragged the assembly to court and asked that the house be restrained from inviting him and set aside the warrant of arrest it issued, because due process and rule of law were not followed in the exercise of such powers.

    Fayemi also averred in his second suit which he instituted at an Ado-Ekiti Federal High Court that since he had instituted a case against one of them over the same issue of Ekiti State finances when he was governor, the House ought not to invite him again let alone issuing a warrant of arrest. Despite Fayemi’s second law suit against the House of Assembly, the house went ahead to fine him N1million and declared him a lawbreaker, apparently as a result of the non-arrest of the former governor. The two cases are still pending in Abuja and Ado Ekiti High courts.

    A twist to the whole matter was introduced when the house again sat on May 11, 2017 and passed a resolution empowering Fayose to set up a Judicial Commission of Inquiry to investigate the finances of the state during the tenure of Fayemi as governor especially, how N852million  SUBEB money was allegedly embezzled during his tenure. Governor Fayose quickly inaugurated the Judicial Commission of Inquiry.

    The terms of reference of the commission is basically on the same issue of financial transaction of Ekiti State between 2010 and 2014 and especially the alleged theft of N852m SUBEB fund. It should be noted that the same issues form the basis of the two cases instituted by Fayemi before Abuja and Ado Ekiti High Courts.

    The composition of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry soon became controversial as it was alleged that the Chairman and many members of the Commission have one axe or the other to grind with Fayemi and they are PDP members and sympathisers. For instance, Fayemi cited the partisanship of the Chairman of the panel, Justice Silas Oyewole, as a PDP’s sympathiser, while the Secretary, Gbenga Daramola, is the State Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who cannot be insulated from Fayose’s control in the handling of the panel’s job.

    Fayemi complained that another member, Blessing Oladele, is an APC defector to PDP. Oladele was said to have left APC for PDP in anger over alleged Fayemi’s refusal to help him replace his burnt car and assist him in his Ikun Araromi Obaship tussle.

    He added that another member, S.B.J. Bamise, is a senior counsel in the office of the state Attorney General, the office that conceived and constituted the panel to probe him.

    Another member, Vincent Omodara, is Fayose’s crony in the Accountant General’s Office, Fayemi alleged. The governor allegedly elevated him above the ministry director as Executive Secretary against the civil service rule to qualify him as a panel member.

    Fayemi also cited Chief Magistrate Idowu Ayenimo, who, according to him, routinely jailed APC members on Fayose’s trumped-up charges that are bailable.

    This again necessitated Fayemi’s third suit filed at an Ado Ekiti High Court restraining the Judicial Commission of Inquiry from sitting because of the circumstances surrounding its creation and its composition. Fayemi argued in his latest suit that the House of Assembly had breached its own Standing Rules which forbids discussing any matter that is pending in court. Chapter VIII, with the subtitle, Rules of Debate, Section 54, sub section 5 reads: “Reference shall not be made to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending, in such a way as might in the Speaker’s opinion, prejudice the interest of parties thereto”.

    Two matters relating to this issue are pending in court. Fayemi maintained the resolution of the Assembly directing the governor to set up the panel was not passed in accordance with constitutional provisions and so cannot be valid and any action arising from that resolution such as the setting up of the Judicial Commission becomes ultra-vires and of no effect.

    In filing the latest suit to stop the commission and which has been served on all members, the Governor, Speaker and Attorney-General, it was revealed from the documents attached with the originating summons that the case Fayemi earlier instituted in Abuja against Olayinka and Omotoso was progressing and there was already reply to the statement on oath of Fayemi by the duo of Omotoso and Lere. There was also a reply to their reply by Fayemi’s counsel, Rafiu Balogun, where the following issues came up:

    Fayemi maintained that the N852 SUBEB funds he was accused of embezzling may not be missing afterall! In his statement on oath, Fayemi alleged that Fayose breached the appropriation laws duly enacted by the state House of Assembly and failed to honour various obligations as well as compliance with existing procedures, financial arrangements and precedents, Annual budget and Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) provisions resulting in  the distortion of the carefully planned income and expenditure profile of the state to achieve a politically motivated vindictive objective.

    Fayemi averred that Fayose, as governor-elect in 2014, usurped up a role he was not constitutionally empowered to perform by conveying a meeting with representatives of bankers of Ekiti State government and threatened them to stop further financial dealings with his (Fayemi’s) administration. It was as a result of Fayose’s threat that the banks, including Access Bank, stopped all transactions with the Fayemi government and this led to the termination of the N852m loan which was nmeant to serve as UBEC counterpart funds and reversed the disbursement of same. Fayose and his aides like Omotoso and Olayinka allegedly misled the public that Fayemi withdrew the money from the account.

    He said Fayose ought to have renegotiated the ongoing transaction and existing commitments at that time to suit his prefences rather than “adopt a vindictive approach” to the detriment of the common good”. Fayemi contended it is not true that the state government lost N1bilion yearly which led to its suspension from UBEC.

    He said the statement of account presented by the duo of Lere and Omotoso from October 1, 2014 to February, 2015 is fraudulent and misrepresentation of facts which was not endorsed by Access Bank while the one that is  unadulterated and endorsed by the bank is the four-page  statement of account of Access Bank concerning the SUBEB loan covering 1st January 2014 to 31st January 2015, presented by Fayemi.

    The court will however decide which of the two statements of accounts it will believe and if indeed any money is missing going by the evidence before it.

    The other issue for the determination of the court is whether Fayemi has a University in Ghana which he allegedly built with Ekiti stolen money and if he gave President Buhari N1.5 billion to fund his campaign as repeated in the reply of the duo, though they are yet to provide any evidence to substantiate their whereas Fayemi in his statement on oath denied either having a University in Ghana or giving Buhari N1.5billion.

    The other issue raised was the N5billion loan obtained at Ecobank by the Fayemi administration which Olayinka and Omotoso claimed Fayemi withdrew and expended on his re-election in  June 2014 but in Fayemi’s statement and with the attached documents from Ecobank concerning the loan, all the projects on which the loan were expended were listed and approved and supervised by the bank. The projects include; construction of Iye- Ayetoro Road, Ado township road, Ado-Ikere Road, Agbado Road, House of Assembly project, Ekiti Parapo Pavillion, supply of Armoured Vehicles,Ikole-Ijesa Isu-Iluomoba Road, renovation of Okemesi and Ijan General Hospitals, among others.

    The document also showed that not all the money was withdrawn as the unspent balance of N520.2million was allegedly utilised  by Fayose but not in completing the projects as specified by the terms of the loan, but on other matters. The statement of account was attached.

    The other issue was that of alleged missing 79 vehicles out of the fleet bought from Coscharis Motors. Fayemi said the alleged missing 79 vehicles may also be a hoax. The same 79 vehicles Olayinka and Omotoso claimed were missing and misappropriated are currently in the fleet of the government of Ekiti State, the official Ford brand vehicles allocated to the 37 magistrates in Ekiti state, the official vehicle of Ekiti State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, the official vehicle of the State Commissioner for Budget and Economic Planning and several others were included in the vehicles delivered directly to the General Administration Department and paid for by the government of Ekiti State. Records of this are available in the General Administration Department. Documents to back this up were attached.

    Backed by the evidence he supplied to the court, the former governor averred that there was no banking facility or loan borrowed by his government that did not follow due process viz; the approval of the State Executive Council and the House of Assembly. He also insisted that no mismanagement of funds took place under his administration.

    He claimed that there was no law stopping an administration from borrowing beyond its tenure because government is a continuum. There were loans obtained for some water projects in Ekiti State since Adekunle Ajasin tenure between 1979 and 1983 that was deducted from Ekiti State allocation under Fayemi regime between 2010 and 2014.

    Fayemi contended that he did not borrow any money whose tenure expires in 2036, alleging that it was Fayose who borrowed and renegotiated till 2036.

    Some observers believe that Fayemi’s latest travails could be traced to a recent interview he granted THISDAY newspaper where he described the alleged manipulation of the 2014 governorship poll, otherwise known as “Ekitigate” as an “unfinished business.” It is believed in some quarters that his indictment by either an administrative panel of inquiry or a judicial commission of inquiry will be needed to make him ineligible to contest for the office of governor by any circumstance because indictment by such a panel is seen as a “political death sentence.”

    This is why he is determined to stop the panel from sitting before an incalculable damage is done to his political future on what he believes to be “spurious charges.” The minister believes that he can never get justice given the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the panel which he alleged is peopled by those he described as his “adversaries” as contained in his statement on oath.

    The commission has since swung into action by calling for memoranda from the members of the public. In a statement by its Secretary, Gbemiga Adaramola, the panel demanded the submission of ten copies of memoranda and a soft copy of same for perusal.

    Adaramola, who is also the Ado-Ekiti Branch Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), said the deadline for the submission of memoranda was last Friday, June 16, 2017.

    His words: “The commission hereby invites relevant stakeholders and the general Public to submit memorandum to the secretary of the commission at the registry of the commission, Ekiti State High Court Complex, Fajuyi Square, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State between now and 16th day of June, 2017.

    “Ten copies of the memorandum and a soft copy of same are expected to be submitted.”

  • Lawyers: Controversy over Buhari’s choice of words is needless

    Lawyers: Controversy over Buhari’s choice of words is needless

    To some critics, there is more to President Muhammadu’s Buhari’s letter to the National Assembly in which he refers to Vice President Yemi Osinbajo as coordinator of government’s affairs in his absence. But senior advocates, like Wole Olanipekun, Agbakoba, Yusuf Ali and others, feel otherwise. There is no controversy – Osinbajo’s acting presidency is automatic, write JOSEPH JIBUEZE, ROBERT EGBE and AUGUSTINE EHIKIOYA.

    What the law says Section 145(1) provides: “Whenever the President is proceeding on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his Office, he shall transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to that effect, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, the Vice President shall perform the functions of the President as Acting President

    PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari’s letter dated May 8 to the National Assembly was his third since he took the reins of office on May 29, 2015. In all the letters, he had delegated Vice President Osinbajo to hold the forte.

    There was nowhere in any of the letters that Buhari deployed the words ‘Acting President’ while transferring power and authority to his deputy. Yet, none stoked controversy like the latest.

    Mr. Buhari had, through the letter read in both Chambers of the National Assembly on Tuesday, invoked Section 145(1) of the Constitution to notify the lawmakers of his medical trip to the United Kingdom. It was the third time such letter would be sent to the National since his inauguration two years ago.

    “While I am way, the Vice President will coordinate the affairs of government…”, Buhari wrote in the latest letter.

    Buhari’s choice of words sparked controversy because critics believe the President took a departure from the wordings of his previous letters on the same subject.

    On January 23, when he took a 10-day short vacation as part of his annual leave, Buhari wrote “…..while away, the Vice President will perform the functions of my office.” in his letter to Senate President Bukola Saraki.

    Last year, when he took a short medical vacation between June 6 -16, 2016, Buhari wrote “… while I am away, the Vice President will perform the functions of my office.”

    But when Buhari’s letter was read on the floor of the Red Chamber, Senator Mao Ohuabunwa hardly waited for the Senate President to conclude the reading before raising a Point of Order.

    The senator, representing Abia North District on the platform of the rival Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), noted that the Constitution had no provision for a “coordinating president or a coordinating vice president”.

    Ohuabunwa argued that the President’s letter to the Senate, the highest legislative body in the land, should be direct and unambiguous.

    He said in his Point of Order: “Mr. President (Senate), I don’t think in our Constitution, we have anything like ‘coordinating president or a coordinating vice president’.  It is either you are vice president and any letter should be unambiguous and very clear.

    “So, I am saying that this letter really does not convey anything because coordinating has no space or any place in our Constitution.”

    He was, however, countered by Senate Leader Ahmed Lawan, who said Buhari had done what was constitionally required of him – transmitting a letter to the National Assembly.

    Saraki toed Lawan’s line of argument and ruled Ohuabunwa out of order.

    If the May 8 memo was not Buhari’s first to the National Assembly, was Ohuabunwa and other senators, who feel the President’s choice of words were inappropriate, off duty on June 6 last year and on January 23? Why the fuss? Or some people are just crying more than the bereaved?

    In his response to a question on the issue on Twitter, the Acting President said Buhari handed over power to him before embarking on the trip to the United Kingdom.

    Tweeting via @benamaigwo, one Bernard Amaiguo had asked: “Mr. vice president, why did Mr President refuse to hand over the affairs of the country to you?”

    Osinbajo, in his response, said the President authorized him to act in his absence.

    Also yesterday, the Federal Government described the controversies as needless distractions.

    Speaking on the issue after the weekly Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting chaired by the Acting President, the Minister of Information, Culture and Tourism, Lai Mohammed, said that the controversies were needless.

    He said:  “?It’s a needless controversy, it’s just a distraction, the operating sentence is that in compliance of Section 145(1), any other word used is not relevant.”

    Senior lawyers described the controversies as needless. They said Osinbajo automatically became the Acting President once President Muhamadu Buhari transmitted a letter to the Senate in line with Section 145(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

    Besides, they said the President’s description of Osinbajo as the person to “coordinate activities of the government” does not vitiate the constitutional provision.

    To the lawyers, the wordings of the letter do not, in any way, affect Osinbajo’s authority as Acting President with full executive powers.

    Those who spoke include: former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) presidents Chief Wole Olanipekun and Dr Olisa Agbakoba; Mallam Yusuf Ali; Prof Koyinsola Ajayi; Abiodun Owonikoko; Mike Ozekhome  – all Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANS) and activist-lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, as well as Lagos lawyer Clement Onwuenwunor.

    Olanipekun said there is no provision for the position of “Coordinating Officer/President/Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” in the Constitution, adding that the letter was not properly drafted.

    “Prof Osinbajo is either addressed as Vice President or Acting President; and in the present circumstance, and not minding the crafting and language of President Buhari’s letter to the National Assembly, Prof. Osinbajo automatically assumed office as Acting President by constitutional imperatives.

    “He cannot be addressed as Coordinating Officer but as Acting President. Those who drafted this letter for President Buhari have not been fair to him or the nation,” Olanipekun said.

    To him, Osinbajo assumed the position of the Acting President based on what the constitution dictates, and based not on Buhari’s wishes.

    His words: “No special favour is being done to the Vice-President by the transmission of a letter by the President to the National Assembly under and by virtue of Section 145(1) of the Constitution, as that section is self-executory, meaning that on the transmission of a letter to the National Assembly, the Constitution employs the use of the word ‘shall’ to install the Vice-President as the Acting President.

    “It is a constitutional appointment which takes effect from the moment the President informed the National Assembly that he is proceeding on medical leave.

    “The words employed in President Buhari’s letter cannot derogate from or override the mandatory provision of section 145(1).

    “Apart from this, under and by virtue of section 142(1) of the Constitution, both the President and Vice-President contested on a joint and single ticket, which is inseparable.

    “Having said this, my reservation still lies in the fact that a good number of Nigerians still surprisingly hold on to the thinking that government and governance should be personalised, and that by alluding to ‘government of Nigeria’, they ignorantly zero in on individuals.

    “There cannot be any vacuum in government and governance anywhere in the world, and the Constitution also states this very clearly and unambiguously in Section 142(1).

    “To me, this should be the end of the discussion and debate; as there is a world of difference between a Coordinator and a constitutionally appointed Acting President”, Olanipekun said.

    Agbakoba said the “controversy” created by President Buhari’s choice of words was unnecessary.

    The one-tine MBA President said: “I am concerned by the unnecessary controversy. I believe it is a distraction by politicians. The nomenclature used by the President to describe his Vice President does not matter.

    “What matters to the average long suffering Nigerian is good governance.  Will the Acting President create jobs; provide water, roads, electricity, food, etc. This is what is important.”

    To Ali, the letter’s content has no importance.

    He said: “Once the President transmits a letter that he will be away, the Vice President by operation of Section 145 of the Constitution transmutes as Acting President ipso facto (by that very fact or act)!”

    Prof Ajayi said the President’s clear reference to Section 145 of the Constitution meant that authority had been transferred to Osinbajo to become the Acting President.

    “The Vice President is the Acting President,” he said.

    Owonikoko shared the same sentiment. The National Assembly, he added, was right to accept the letter.

    He said: “The National Assembly has accepted the letter. Since the President cited the relevant constitutional provision that he was invoking, the consequence is clear.

    “He doesn’t have to stipulate the consequence once he has expressly identified the section under which he was writing.

    “Even in law, once you make a legal opinion that is valid, that you cited the wrong law will not make it invalid. Besides, the President is not a lawyer, even though we expect that he would have consulted before that letter was sent.”

    Owonikoko also observed that President Buhari’s use of the word ‘coordinate’ in his letter to the National Assembly, showed inelegant draftsmanship, but that this did not stop the Vice President from assuming the office of Acting President.

    He said: “The only thing is that the inelegance of the letter is something to be avoided, because if not for the mature way that the National Assembly handled the matter, it could have led to more political unease in the country about whether the use of the word ‘coordinate’ is just like a caretaker that you can be giving directions.

    “So, I think it is a welcome development that the National Assembly took a very informed and mature view of even what appears to have been an inelegant way of drafting the letter.

    “But the right message is passed on and the Acting President is on ground to discharge his duties.”

    Ozekhome also praised the National Assembly for not over-flogging the issue.

    He said: “There is nothing like ‘Coordinator of National Affairs’ in our Constitution. That is a strange importation of an unknown term into our Constitution. Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution specifically refers to ‘Acting President’, who ‘shall perform the functions of the President as Acting President’ whenever “’he president is proceeding on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office ‘.

    “President Buhari may have used the term jokingly, to represent one who is fully in charge in his absence. Certainly, it is not legally or constitutionally correct.

    “The National Assembly that has the sole prerogative to accept or reject the president’s letter under Section 145 of the Constitution can actually reject the letter from Mr President which referred to Osibanjo as ‘Coordinator of National Affairs’.

    “In that case, a needless constitutional crisis would have arisen, as a big vacuum in governance would have been created.

    “In my humble opinion, in these times that try our souls, task our patience and sap our energy, matters like this are better left to lie low,” he said.

    Onwuenwunor said the controversy could have been avoided if the President had paid attention to his choice of words.

    He said: “The words used by the President in transferring power to the Vice President through the Senate are very wrong. The words of the Constitution should have been used properly to avoid any controversy.

    “But, the Senate did the right thing by focusing on the constitutional provision and recognising Osinbajo as Acting President.”

    But, Adegboruwa believes Buhari’s description of Osinbajo was an impeachable offence.

    He said: “A coordinator is a person of equal status with others. So, the Vice President cannot make appointments or sack anybody while the President is away. He cannot discipline any erring minister. He is limited in policy decisions as a coordinator.

    “He has no power of control over the cabal to whom the president has handed over power, albeit illegally. In effect, Nigeria has no leader presently.

    “The existing office of the Vice President is no more. The constitutionally created office of Acting President has been circumscribed by the President. The President is away on an indefinite medical trip abroad.”

    According to him, the letter should have been rejected, saying: “The Senate lacks the power to pronounce Osinbajo as Acting President, without a written resolution of both chambers of the National Assembly, through a decision taken on the floor of both chambers.

    “The President cannot travel for medical checkup for an indefinite period of time. The National Assembly should reject the letter from the President. There is therefore a serious constitutional crisis.

    “Pro-government lawyers and activists, who have goaded the Buhari administration into dubious and reckless interpretations of the Constitution in the past, should be held responsible for the current crisis and all acts of impunity from Aso Villa.

    “In all, the National Assembly should commence impeachment proceedings against the President for gross misconduct.”

     

     

  • Uniform controversy: SANs back Senate

    Uniform controversy: SANs back Senate

    Frontline Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs)  have given their support to the  position of  the Senate that  the Controller General of  Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) Hameed Ali  should appear before it wearing his uniform.

    Although they unanimously  agreed that the constitution is silent on the subject, the SANs advised Ali to have a rethink  and  wear the uniform.

    In a response to our correspondent’s question on the subject,  a  SAN, Chief  Mike Ezekhome, said: “ “Even if wearing Customs uniform was not legally compulsory, wearing uniform instills in the wearer and his peers, a unique sense of identity, security, pride, unity, belonging, responsibility, espirit de corps and team work.

    “The law governing Nigerian Customs is the Customs & Excise Management Act (CEMA), Cap 45, LFN, 2004. Although  CEMA is silent as to whether it is mandatory for the Comptroller General of Custom (CGC) to wear uniform, however, the Customs and Excise Preventive Service Regulations made pursuant to CEMA, make specific reference to uniform. He must therefore comply with the provisions of both the Act and the Regulations, by wearing of the uniform of Customs, as a Para-Military Agency that even handles weapons. Not to wear the uniform is to blatantly undermine the very laws and foundation of his appointment, by disobeying the Rules and Regulations governing the appointment.”

    In a telephone chat, another SAN, Chief Ladi Williams, also enjoined the Customs’ boss to wear his uniform. He said: “The law is silent on this but all officers of such parastatals are enjoined to wear uniform especially if the occasion demands it.  A medical doctor who wants to go into the theatre room for an operation must wear uniform. The same thing applies to lawyers.

    The position the CGC is unnecessary. The legislature is an arm of  government. The CGC is part of the executive that needs to work with the legislature for the purpose of moving the country forward.  Therefore, if the senate insists that he wears the uniform, so be it.  If he feels too big for the job, he should resign. What is he trying to prove by denying the senate?

    While flaying the senate for giving too much attention to the uniform issue, a SAN, Kemi Phineiro said: “No agency or individual should defy the authority of the senate. It is not right for anybody to refuse their summon. We must not undermine the constitution by doing such.”