The Nation Newspaper

Tag: panel

  • Panel refuses to hear complaints by 72 convicted soldiers

    The presidential panel constituted to review compliance of the armed forces with human rights obligations and rules of engagement in the fight against insurgents has declined jurisdiction over the complaints by about 72 soldiers earlier convicted by military court martials.

    In a unanimous ruling over the weekend, the seven-man panel held that it lacked the requisite jurisdiction to review the trial of the soldiers, their conviction and the sentences passed by the court martials.

    The panel, led by Justice Biobele Georgewill (of the Court of Appeal), said since the soldiers, who include Brig.-Gen. E. A. Ransom-Kuti (N/8301) who was demoted to Colonel by the Army Council, have appealed the court marshals’ decisions at the Court of Appeal, and have also applied to the President for pardon or clemency, they should explore both options.

    The Justice Georgewill-led panel had, during its proceedings on September 11, directed lawyers to the soldiers (Femi Falana, SAN) and the Nigerian Army (Biola Oyebanji) to address it whether or not it possesses the jurisdiction to hear the five memoranda submitted by the soldiers.

    In its lead ruling delivered on September 13, the panel said it was an investigative panel constituted by the Federal Government with specific mandate, as contained in the terms of reference.

    It said it lacked the powers to “re-hear, re-consider, decide, overturn or quash trials, convictions and sentences of any or all the petitioners by the respective court marshals that tried, convicted and sentenced them.”

  • Panel to rule on convicted soldiers’ cases against Army

    Panel to rule on convicted soldiers’ cases against Army

    THE Presidential Investigation Panel to Review Compliance of the Armed Forces with Human Rights Obligations and Rules of Engagement will today rule on whether or not to hear complaints by some convicted soldiers against the Army.

    The chairman of the seven-man panel, Justice Biobele Georgewill, chose the date yesterday after taking arguments from lawyers to the complaining soldiers and the Army.

    The affected soldiers include those sentenced to various punishments by some courts martial.

    Among the soldiers is a former Commander of the Multi-National Joint Task Force, Enitan Ransome-Kuti, who was demoted from the rank of Brigadier-General to Colonel.

    Others include Lt.-Col. A.O. Ojo, who was dismissed by the Nigerian Army for alleged negligence of military duties, and 54 soldiers, who claimed to have been illegally tried and convicted by the court-martial for demanding weapons for counter-insurgency operations in the Northeast region.

    Also included are Lance Corporals Bankole Taiwo, Ayodele Olawale and Isiah Olofu as well as Private Adebayo Gbenga.

    Arguing the soldier’s position yesterday, their lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), said although his clients have pending appeals before the Court of Appeal against their convictions and the sentences passed on them by the courts martial, the panel could still hear aspects of his client’s complaints relating to rights violation.

    Falana said his clients were not requesting the panel to review the decisions of the courts martial, by sitting on appeal over them, but were seeking to explore the platform provided by the panel by asking it to recommend to the President to grant them pardon.

    He noted that nothing in the panel’s terms of reference precluded it from hearing issues relating to a matter pending in court.

    Falana said: “Notwithstanding the pendency of the said appeals, the Federal Government has set up this panel with clearly defined terms of reference to consider all cases of violations of human rights and departure from the Constitution and the African Charter on People’s Rights.

    “Nowhere is it stated in the terms of reference of the panel that it shall not look at cases in court. Section 198 of the Armed Forces Act provides that notwithstanding the pendency of a case in court, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy by the President shall not be affected.

    “What we have before this honourable panel is a prayer that this panel should recommend to the President to grant pardon to the petitioners.”

    He told the panel what his clients had done to secure the presidential pardon and how the Presidency and the Chief of Army Staff responded to their request.

    “I, therefore, urge your lordship and honourable members to allow us to make representations on behalf of the petitioners. We are not here to try the cases before the Court of Appeal,” he said.

    He added: “Our clients were tried before the courts martial because they demanded weapons to fight the war and the authorities said there was no money to buy weapons.

    “After the trial, facts emerged that huge funds earmarked for the purchase of weapons were diverted.

    “The matter before you are not before the Court of Appeal. This matter goes to the root of violation of human rights in the military,” Falana said.

    But, lawyer to the Nigerian Army, Biola Oyebanji, who also appeared alongside Brig.-General D.O. Idada-Ikponmen (rtd), urged the panel not to entertain the soldiers’ complaints.

    Oyebanji argued that the “limited” scope of the panel’s terms of reference did not give room for entertaining such complaints.

    He argued that the complainants’ quest for pardon was an afterthought, because it was not prayed for in soldiers’ petitions submitted to the panel.

    The panel has announced that it will hear other petitions by Falana, including that relating to the alleged violation of human rights by the military justice system.

    It will be heard in Maiduguri, Borno State, where the panel’s Northeast sitting is to take place.

    It also promised to hear a petition by Falana in relation to the bombing of a camp in Rann, Borno State, which caused the death of thousands of displaced people being sheltered in the camp.

  • UN names Fowler on tax experts panel 

    UN names Fowler on tax experts panel 

    United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guteress has named Executive Chairman of Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) Tunde Fowler as a member of the International Experts Committee on Tax Matters.

    The committee has 25 members.

    Fowler’s appointment was conveyed by Mr. Bolaji Akinremi, Minister Plenipotentiary of Nigeria Permanent Mission, New York, in a mail to the FIRS.

    It said: “I have great joy to inform you that the UN Secretary-General, H.E Antonio Guteress, has appointed Mr. Babatunde Fowler as one of the 25 members of the prestigious International Experts Committee on Tax Matters for a four-year tenure to commence at the inauguration ceremony in Geneva on 1 October 2017. In addition to the notification of the appointment by the SG to the UN Economic Council already placed on the website of the Council, individual letters of appointment would be addressed to the appointee and the appointee is to formally accept the nomination through a letter of acceptance addressed to the UNSG through the Nigeria Permanent Mission New York. Please, express the heartfelt congratulations of the Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the UN, Ambassador Tijjani Muhammad-Bande, to Mr. Williams Babatunde Fowler on his appointment and a warm wish for a successful tenure”.

    Fowler, who is also the Chairman of the African Tax Administration, Forum, (ATAF) and the Joint Tax Board (JTB), was Chairman, Lagos Internal Revenue Service (LIRS). His sterling performance in Lagos led to a sharp rise in Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) from an average of N3.6 billion monthly, as at January 2006, to an average of over N23 billion monthly as at June 2015.

    Despite a challenging economy, with oil at under $50 per dollars for most part of 2016 and a sliding purchasing power, Fowler led FIRS to realise over N3.303 trillion in 2016.

    With Fowler’s leadership, the FIRS got the ATAF Award for the best Innovation in Africa, with the FIRS e-Stamp Duty solution, while the Chartered Institute of Taxation, Ghana, (CITG) honoured Fowler as a fellow of the institute.

    FIRS introduced six payment solutions: e-Registration), e-Stamp Duty, e-tax pay, Remita), e-Receipt, e-filing and e-Tax Clearance Certificate e-TCC- to make tax payment easy as ABC, anytime, anywhere.

  • Banire’s ‘misconduct’: Panel begins sitting

    Banire’s ‘misconduct’: Panel begins sitting

    Embattled National Legal Adviser of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr Muiz Banire, failed to appear yesterday before the disciplinary committee of the party at Ward C of Mushin Local Government of Lagos State.

    Banire was being investigated for alleged anti-party activities and misappropriation of campaign materials and logistics.

    The panel summoned Banire to appear at 10 am yesterday at Bishop Aggey Memorial School, Ilasamaja in Mushin, to defend the allegations against him by two members: Olukayode Tunde Tolu and Ayodeji Adebayo.

    As early as 7 am, members started trooping to the venue, while the panel waited till about 11.20 am before sitting.

    Committee Chairman Bolaji Abass introduced other members, including Laide Badru (secretary), Wunmi Bewaji (general counsel) and Mrs Muinat Mustapha.

    Abass said the committee would examine the allegations against Banire by concerned members.

    The panel chairman assured the party the committee would be fair, saying its decision would be submitted to the ward executive of the party for delivery to the local government and APC  State Executive.

    Badru addressed the petitioners, but Banire was absent.

    The panel secretary displayed copies of advertorials in two national newspapers and evidence of receipt of the courier letter inviting Banire.

    Olukayode said Banire committed grievous offences against the party with several acts of indiscipline.

    Adebayo said Banire’s alleged indiscipline were similar to what caused  Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP’s) electoral defeat in the 2015 general election.

    He said: “Party discipline and party loyalty made APC what it is today. Whatever the decision of the party is, it is binding on members. If a member goes against the party, there must be sanction.”

    The petitioners said Banire should be suspended and debarred from holding party office as well as contest for 10 years.

    They said besides the fact that Banire had been absent from ward meetings for over two years, contrary to Article 9 (2) (iii) of APC’s constitution, he had also been engaging in unrestrained media campaigns against the party, its organs, leaders and functionaries.

    The petitioners said the embattled party chieftain “deliberately” embarrassed APC, contrary to Article 9 (2) (I) contrary to the constitution.

    The petition reads: “That the member (Banire) has openly been encouraging and inciting court actions against the party, its organs and functionaries, when internal dispute resolution mechanisms have not been explored or exhausted, contrary to Article 21 (A) (ii) contrary to the constitution.

    “The member (Banire) has been conducting himself in such a way and manner as to constitute a distraction to the good policies and programmes of the government of President Muhammadu Buhari, contrary to Article 21 (A) (ii) contrary to the constitution.

    “The member (Banire) collected campaign ‘materials and logistics’ for the 2015 general election and the recent local government elections without deploying, disbursing or applying same for the benefit of the party. He has failed to pay, as at when due or howsoever, party dues and levies.

    “The member (Banire) has been conducting himself and continues to conduct himself in such a way and manner as could jeopardise, endanger or damage the electoral fortunes of the party and the party brand contrary to Article 21 (A) (ii) contrary to the constitution”

    Hundreds of party leaders and members in Mushin Local Government Area staged a peaceful protest to the Governor’s Office at Alausa in Ikeja where they submitted a petition for  transmission to the national APC leadership.

    They called for Banire’s expulsion from the party.

    The protesters said Banire “intentionally” neglected his duties as the party’s legal adviser by failing to defend the party’s interest in a law suit.

    They added that he caused a legal representative to disavow the party in the law suit.

     

     

     

  • Ogun gets panel to check illegal drug

    The Ogun State government has set up a committee to fish out illegal drug dealers and those patronising them, to rid the state of drug-related crimes.

    The government said it would not tolerate illegal drug dealers in any part of the state.

    Director of Pharmaceutical Services in the Ministry of Health Mr. Olufemi Fafiolu addressed reporters in Abeokuta, the state capital, on the increase in illegal drug dealers and outlets.

    Fafiolu said the committee would raid and picket illegal and counterfeit drug premises, outlets and unwholesome processed food outlets this month.

    He warned those engaged in illegal drug businesses to desist.

    The director noted that anyone caught would face the full wrath of the law.

    The state government, according to the director, “is worried by the influx of illegal drug dealers from Lagos State into the state, and the government will not fold its arms while unscrupulous elements perpetrate illegal drug deals”.

  • Magu raises panel to make NFIU autonomous

    Magu raises panel to make NFIU autonomous

    The Acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu yesterday inaugurated a committee to reposition the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).

    He asked the panel to coordinate the effective process of amendment of Section 1(2)(c) of the EFCC Act to expressly reflect NFIU as an autonomous unit under the EFCC with a one month deadline.

    Head of Media and Publicity of rhe EFCC Wilson Uwujaren, said the committee’s members were drawn from law enforcement, financial and regulatory agencies.

    He said: “The committee is chaired by Dr. Abdullahi Shehu, a former Director-General of the Inter-Governmental Action Against Money Laundering in West Africa, GIABA.

    “Other members of the committee are Mr. Chidi Chukwuka from the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC); Mr. Bamanga Bello, Head of the Special Control Unit against Money Laundering (SCUML); Hajia Jamila Yusuf of the Central Bank of Nigeria;  Mr. Udofia Akpan Obot, a former deputy director, CBN , while Mrs. Joke Liman of the EFCC is to serve as secretary

    The inauguration is coming on the heels of the recent suspension of the NFIU from membership of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units.

    Magu charged the committee to take a holistic look at the mandate and operations of the NFIU with a view to coming up with proposals to reposition the agency for greater efficiency.

    The statement said: “While noting that members of the committee are persons with rich experience in Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Financing of Terrorism, Magu reminded them that membership of the Egmont Group was critical to Nigeria’s effort to tackle money laundering, and monitoring of financial flows within and outside the country.

    He charged the Committee to among others, address the concern of the Egmont Group, by providing the necessary frameworks needed “to coordinate the effective process of amendment of Section 1(2)(c) of the EFCC Act to expressly reflect NFIU as an autonomous unit under EFCC so as to provide legal basis or clarity on its operational independence from the EFCC.

    “Make recommendations with respect to the funding of the NFIU’s operations. Develop career path for the staff of the NFIU.

    Responding on behalf of the members of the Committee, Shehu expressed delight at the opportunity given to them to serve the country.

    He added: “We see this as a call to service and we assure you that we will ensure that we carry out this task judiciously in order to reposition the NFIU, and ensure that it is autonomous as this will further strengthen the anti-corruption fight”, he said.

    “Nigeria was the first country to enact an anti- money laundering law in Africa and also the first to set up a Financial Intelligence Unit, an agency that has mentored other FIUs in the West Africa sub-region.

    He praised Nigeria’s role in setting up and nurturing GIABA to global reckoning. Shehu however acknowledged that there were challenges in the country’s anti- money laundering framework which must be tackled for the country to fully achieve the objective of fighting corruption and money laundering.

  • 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.”

  • Ondo APC crisis: Panel to publish recommendations on Kekemeke

    Ondo APC crisis: Panel to publish recommendations on Kekemeke

    The panel Ondo State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) set up to probe the activities of its chairman, Isaac Kekemeke, yesterday said he failed three times to appear before the committee.

    The party’s State Executive Committee (SEC) accused Kekemeke of negligence and anti-party activities.

    It promised to make public its recommendations.

    A disciplinary committee extended its sitting till yesterday to give Kekemeke another opportunity to appear before it.

    Other leaders of the party, including the state’s Acting Chairman, Ade Adetimehin; Director General of Rotimi Akeredolu Campaign Organisation, Victor Olabimtan; the Women Leader, Mrs Omolara Atiba; the Secretary, Mr Raman Rotimi; the Financial Secretary, Ishola Moshood and the Auditor, Samuel Bamidele, appeared before the committee.

    Kekemeke hinged his decision to shun the committee on the ground that he was not duly invited to appear before it.

    But the chairman of the disciplinary committee, Prince Abayomi Adesanya said the embattled state chairman was duly invited to the panel’s sitting through letters delivered to him.

    Adesanya, who accused Kekemeke of beating up two administrative workers of the party when they delivered the invitation letters to him, added that courier services were also used to deliver the letters to the embattled party chairman.

     

     

    He said Kekemeke could be expelled from the party because the committee would not avail him any further opportunity to appear before it.

    The panel chairman, who is also APC’s State Publicity Secretary, said the ultimatum the State Executive Committee (SEC) gave the committee had lapsed, adding that the panel’s recommendations will be presented to the party today for approval.

    He added that the committee would make its recommendations on the evidences before it and the submissions by members who appeared before it during its public hearing.

     

  • Panel discovers 97 bank accounts belonging to LAUTECH

    •N13.626b released in five years

    Oyo and Osun, the two owner-states of Ladoke Akintola University of Technology (LAUTECH) at Ogbomoso, have said they discovered 97 different bank accounts operated by the management of the institution.

    The two state governments said this was contrary to their directive that LAUTECH should maintain a Single Treasury Account (TSA) to promote transparency.

    The discovery, they said, is contained in the visitation panel’s report submitted recently.

    They insisted on a forensic audit of the accounts of the institution.

    The report, it was learnt, also revealed that majority of the banks had closed shop due to either restructuring, merger or delisting by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

    The states said they released N13.626 billion in subventions, excluding Internally Generated Revenue (IGR), to the institution between 2011 and 2016.

    The Commissioner for Education, Science and Technology, Prof. Adeniyi Olowofela, spoke at the weekend in Ibadan, the state capital, while receiving the state executives of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN).

    The commissioner said part of the recommendations of the visitation panel, led by a legal luminary, Chief Wole Olanipekun, was that the accounts of the school and its workforce must be audited.

    He said: “We are not too comfortable with the accounting process or procedure of the institution. That is the least we can say now.

    “Part of the recommendations of the visitation panel was that the accounts of the school must be audited; not only the accounts but the workforce too must be audited such that we look at the best practices on how to run this particular institution.

    “The bursary departments still rely on analogue mode of operation with its attendant challenges and risks.

    “When the government said you must have a single account, in that visitation panel’s report, you have various accounts. If you have various accounts, you have not been accused of any financial difficulty, but we must know the truth so that at the end of the day, we will know whether something is wrong with the management, administration or the accounting process.

    “The visitation panel observed that the university opened 97 different bank accounts in almost all the commercial banks in the country. Some of the banks have closed shop due to restructuring, merger or outright delisting by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).”

  • Minister takes oil workers’ case to arbitration panel

    Minister takes oil workers’ case to arbitration panel

    Minister of Labour and Productivity Chris Ngige has referred the case of striking workers of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (MPNU) to Industrial Arbitration Panel.

    By the minister’s action, the workers cannot continue with the strike as statutorily provided by the law.

    A letter to the Managing Director and lead Country Manager, MPNU, dated May 12 and signed by Mrs. M.O. Ike of the Trade Union Services and Industrial Relations Department of Labour and Productivity Ministry on behalf of the minister, indicated that Ngige has invoked the powers conferred on him by law by taken the dispute to the Industrial Arbitration Panel.

    The letter reads: “I am directed to inform you that the Honourable Minister of Labour and Employment in exercise of the power conferred upon him by Section 9 (1) of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap T8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004, has referred the trade dispute now existing between the management of MPN and PENGASSAN to the Industrial Arbitration Panel.

    “The Registrar of the panel will address further correspondence to you in due course.

    “You are hereby reminded of the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act, which stipulates inter alia, that there shall be no strike or lockout where a trade dispute has been referred to the Industrial Arbitration Panel. You are, therefore, advised accordingly.”

    The striking Mobil workers had shunned a mediatory meeting called by the minister last Thursday without an explanation. They also rejected a directive by the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Dr. Ibe Kachikwu to suspend the strike.

    The action of the oil workers was considered as discourteous. The workers rather pledged loyalty to the national body of PENGASSAN and every position it takes on the matter.