The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Security votes

  • Should security votes be banned?

    Following reports of billions of naira monthly allocated to state governors as security votes and the position of the government that such provision cannot be subjected to the public scrutiny, Nigerians, describing it as illegal and source of grand corruption, are calling for the abrogation of the practice, report Associate Editor, Sam Egburonu and Assistant Editor, Jide Babalola

    FOR some years now, there have been calls for abrogation of security vote for state governors and the president. Way back in 2016, for example, Chief Robert Clarke, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, told newsmen that there was no law that sanctions the payment of security votes to Mr. President and state governors. Describing its continuous release as impunity, Clarke said: “When you look at the history of security vote in Nigeria, you will not find anywhere in the 1999 Constitution that allows security vote to be enjoyed by anybody.”

    Many other prominent Nigerians, like Tanko Yakassai, have, at one time or the other, publicly condemned allocation of a special security fund to Nigerian President and state governors, mainly because of the refusal of the governments to subject the said allocation to the usual appropriation and accountability.

    The call to ban allocation of security votes generated serious controversy when the Boko Haram attacks became very severe before the 2015 General Election. State governors, after a crucial meeting on the security situation in the country, had demanded for increased security votes to enable them handle the situation. While that call elicited support from some Nigerians, many others said the allocation must be subjected to appropriation and accountability.

    The old controversy reemerged recently, when Transparency International (TI), a global watchdog, was quoted as reporting that the Federal Government of Nigeria and state governments together allocated about N241 billion annually under security vote heading. Entitled ‘Camouflaged Cash: How Security Votes Fuel Corruption in Nigeria,’ the report reportedly said the votes surpassed annual combined budgetary funding for the Nigerian Army, Nigeria Air Force and Nigerian Navy. Since then, many unconfirmed figures, ranging into hundreds of millions of naira as a governor’s monthly allocation have been published in various online news media, eliciting outcry and criticism. Even most of the supporters of allocation of special funds to chief executives for security are of the opinion that such fund should be under public or official scrutiny.

    But besides insisting that the allocation cannot be subjected to any public audit, because of the nature of the exercise it is used for, Nigerian state chief executives have over the years continued to demand increased security votes, citing increasing violence and high crime rate as justification for the demand. From a meagre one hundred thousand naira (N100,000) during the Nigerian Second Republic, the monthly allocation of security vote for state governors is today in hundreds of millions of naira.

    The controversy over the necessity of the allocation received fresh attention following recent unconfirmed media report that the allocation for some state governors may be up to N6billion yearly.

    Responding to the development, Second Republic Governor of Kaduna State, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, told The Nation that “it is sad that in spite of continuing criticism, the federal and state governments across Nigeria have continued a very robust sustenance of corruption with the monthly multi-billion Naira security vote allocations along with its opaque disbursements and arbitrary expenditures.”

    He informed that in his time as governor, “the entire monthly allocation for security vote was N100, 000 (One hundred thousand Naira Only) which was judiciously disbursed and later accounted for by the office of the Secretary to the State Government.

    He lamented that today, “the amount set aside or used as security vote has become very huge and reasonable thereby providing a non-accountable channel for governors to indulge themselves instead of spending it on security.”

    Dr. Kingsley Uchenna, a retired civil servant now in private security practice in Lagos, in his response said yesterday that it is the responsibility of the legislatures to ensure that all illegal financial allocations are disallowed. “To me, the blame should be on the laps of our lawmakers. Why should we have any special funds given the state governors to do the same work the police, army and other security agencies are being funded to do? It all amounts to corrupt duplication. Who is fooling who? Nobody is saying that the government should publish their security expenditures on the pages of newspapers. No! But there must be a way of accounting for such a large sum of spending. If there is no way of accounting for it, then, it is really a slush fund which hungry Nigerians must say no to,” he said.

    An Abuja-based lawyer, Mr. Kayode Ajulo, in his response said there is nothing in the nation’s constitution to justify allocations for security vote. He re-echoed Alhaji Balarabe Musa’s submission that such humongous funds would have been more productively utilized to provide more personnel, equipment and other resources for the police.

    He alleged that the huge security vote allocations have become slush funds that governors use to indulge themselves, their friends and families.

    Emphasising that there is nothing in the entire constitution to validate the non-transparent disbursement of funds as security vote, Ajulo, who was the former National Secretary of the Labour Party described it as an “anti-democratic accommodation of corruption.”

    As he puts it: “Under Nigeria’s laws, there is nothing like security vote; it is just an issue of nomenclature and I believe that it is a systematic way of hiding under the guise of providing security to create some myth around what those in power are actually doing.

    “Now, there is no expenditure that is too big for government to hide under what they call security vote.

    “In corporate practice, they hide it under a term called miscellaneous but that is okay because there are some sundries or petty cash expenditures.

    “But government makes huge expenditures, including those that were budgeted for and those that were not and there are some that are more of an emergency response but there should be no need to hide any huge expenditure under what they call security vote.

    “Even if a governor wants to perpetrate bribery or other serious illegality against democracy and the law, he can make big expenditures under security vote,” he said.

    Explaining further, Ajulo said great democracies across the world would find it difficult to accommodate such expenditures to justify governors’ near-whimsical disbursement of huge sums of money in a non-transparent, non-accountable manner.

    “All over the world, including the United States from which we pretend to be copy democracy, every expenditure of government, including the coffee that the President of the United States takes in his office, is budgeted for and properly accounted for.

    “Despite the highly covert nature of the operation that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden which took years of planning, expenditures were budgeted for and approved; it was under the country’s defense budget.

    “It is only here in Nigeria that government hides things under an opaque, secretive security vote because of our corrupt tendencies.

    “It is certainly justifiable for Nigerians to rally against continued use of security vote because democracy is about transparency and accountability; once you take those two out of it, there is no true democracy again.

    “Our leaders hide under the guise of defending democracy only when it is convenient for them but the greatest test for Nigeria’s democracy today is the non-transparency and non-accountability going on in the name of spending security vote,” the lawyer said.

  • Security votes or slush funds?

    Security votes or slush funds?

    The war of words between Governor Nasir El-Rufai of Kaduna State and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Yakubu Dogara over security votes, has re-opened an old debate, reports Assistant Editor, Dare Odufowokan, 

    On November 12, 2007, many national newspapers reported an alarm raised by former Governor of Oyo State, Raheed Ladoja. The erstwhile governor had made a passionate plea to the effect that the Federal Government should stop allocating security votes to governors. In his argument, Ladoja submitted that the practice of drawing ‘security votes” by governors was encouraging corruption in many ways than one.

    For many Nigerians, especially those outside government circles, Ladoja’s alarm was the first time they were really getting to take a closer interest in the fund called security votes. Although many have heard and used the terms before then, a good number really did not understand what exactly it was and how it was being drawn or allocated.

    But when Ladoja, a man who in the opinion of many, should know; a former governor at that, described it as a “corrupt practice”, many became interested and what followed was a barrage of interests and questions. The former governor, in the several interviews he granted to explain his sudden objection to security votes, which he also enjoyed while in office, said his prescription would reduce corruption.

    According to the former Oyo State helmsman whose term as governor witnessed a messy fight between him and his then political godfather, the late godfather of Ibadan politics, Lamidi Adedibu, over whether the monthly security votes accruing to the state should be expended, the deployment of the so called security votes by governors, once it is in their coffers, is pretty scandalous.

    It would be recalled that the late Adedibu had publicly demanded that he be handed a good fraction of Ladoja’s security vote because, according to the garrulous politician, “he was the security of Oyo state.” He wondered why Ladoja would continue to sit on the huge sum alone while he, Adedibu, had to ensure that there is no security breach anywhere in the state.

    Ladoja’s refusal to agree to Adedibu’s terms over the sharing formula of the security vote led to his eventual impeachment by the members of the state House of Assembly who were largely loyal to Adedibu. He was replaced by his then deputy, Adebayo Alao-Akala. Afterwards, Adedibu never complained about not having access to security votes and many political observers assumed that Akala must have been wiser than to prevent the late “security of Oyo” from getting his “fair” share of the monthly largesse.

    And if Ladoja’s plea sent tongues waging, the revelation by the then Speaker of Edo State House of Assembly, Hon. Zakawanu Garuba, that Governor Adams Oshiomhole drew N911million as security votes in just a month, caused an uproar, as Nigerians, high and low, called on those in authority to give detailed explanations about the fund called security votes.

    Many of those who spoke described security votes as slush fund being used by governors and other public officials to enrich themselves corruptly. Expectedly, the then Special Adviser to the Governor on Public Affairs and Strategy, Eric Osagie, described the allegations  as spurious, baseless and a storm in a tea cup.

    According to him, “We view the allegations as an orchestrated attempt to blackmail the governor and distract him from his people-oriented policies. It is very curious that these allegations are coming at a time when issues are being raised on the House of Assembly’s slashing of the 2009 budget.”

    But Garuba insisted that, “between November 12th to 31st December, 2008, the Comrade Governor of Edo State removed N911 million and put it in his pocket. He removed that money as security vote. In governance, you do not challenge how security vote is spent. He removed N911 million and the documents are with us. And meanwhile, when he removed the money, the killings, kidnappings, cultism are on the increase every day. What did he use the money for? Nothing?”

    To further etch the term ‘security votes” in the minds of Nigerians, albeit in a negative way, tales of how security votes were drawn and subsequently mismanaged, pilfered or brazenly misappropriated in government circles emanated from other parts of the country. From Bayelsa where a commissioner was hunted by the Economic and financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for pocketing a large chunk of the governor’s security vote entrusted to him, to Abia where the then Governor Orji was alleged to have raised his monthly security vote from N450million to N700million, the tales raged.

    But somehow, the dust raised by the above developments back then settled without a categorical pronouncement on the fund called security votes either from the presidency that was challenged to act by Ladoja and Garuba, or any other quarter. Nigerians wailed and warned, eventually, the dust settled and the governors continue to enjoy their benefits.

    Renewed interest

    Few weeks back, security votes was thrusted back into the consciousness of Nigerians when Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, engaged themselves in a war of words over the emoluments of public office holders, especially governors and federal lawmakers. The two gladiators dared each other to make public their financial renumeration for Nigerians to see.

    In response to Speaker Dogara’s request, El Rufai published details of his state’s budget, including his official security votes and personal pay slip.

    However, the House again replied the Governor of Kaduna State, Mr. Nasir el-Rufai, accusing him of cleverly publishing the “security budget of the Kaduna State Government”, which was different from the “security vote of the governor”, being the issue in contention.

    Chairman, House Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Mr. Abdulrazak Namdas, again drew the attention of Nigerians to the controversial fund when he insisted that the Kaduna Governor needs to publish his security vote, not the funds budgeted for security projects by the state government. The lawmaker declared that the Governor’s security vote is quite different from budgetary allocation for security.

    “The Kaduna State governor chose to give headings of its budget on security related matters. Maybe he will give further details of actual security expenditures at the appropriate time. He claimed that the state’s accounts have been audited. No grounds have been broken here. The response by the Kaduna State governor completely missed the point,” Namdas said.

    In a swift reaction that further called attention to the topic of their face-off, El Rufai faulted the allegation by the Speaker, House of Representatives that he only disclosed the security allocation in the budget and not “security votes”. The governor, in a statement by his Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Samuel Aruwan, said the state did not operate a similar system like the National Assembly when it comes to security votes.

    “What was presented represents the only security vote for the entire government. As the figures show, there is no security vote for the Governor of Kaduna State. This may be a shock to those used to the notion of security votes as barely disguised slush funds, but we do not operate such a system in Kaduna.

    “Our budgets specify what is voted as assistance to security agencies, and its expenditure is properly recorded and accounted for. These are not monies given to or spent by the governor. Our security spending does not operate like the NASS system of sharing public funds in such an opaque fashion that even NASS members do not know how their entire budget is broken down or what the leadership gets as its ‘running costs,” the governor said.

    But just as it seemed the matter was coming to another stalemate, Senator Shehu Sani, representing Kaduna Central Senatorial District, put a lie to Governor El Rufai’s claim when he said the governor lied over the security votes he released days ago. Sani said that Nigerians should not believe the governor and insisted there was no way Mr. El-Rufai would be earning less than half a million naira in a month.

    The senator said, “the general public should not be deceived by Kaduna Governor’s stunts and public presentation of his work of fiction he calls security vote. Whoever can believe that a state governor lives on less than half a million monthly is either hypnotised, dazzed or high on an inebriate. If you are convinced that Kaduna Governor transparently spent his security votes on CCTV camera visit Kaduna if you will ever see one security camera. If you are convinced that the Kaduna Governor transparently spent his security votes on the police, please ask him from which of the votes does he pay the Herdsmen?”

    And with Sani’s expository submission, Nigerians were once again forced to ask unending questions about how public officers draw security votes and how such funds are spent. The notion that the money is not accounted for by these chief executives as raised by Garuba and Sani, also renewed the desire of may Nigerians to find out more about the fund.

    How did we get here?

    It could actually not be ascertained how the nation’s political class came about the practice of drawing security votes. But many of those who attempted to give insights into the origin of the fund pointed fingers in the direction of past military administrations as the source of the controversial practice for governors and other helmsmen, including local government chairmen, collecting huge sums of money that are purportedly spent on security matters without being accounted for.

    Major Bodunrin Lawson, Secretary of the National Association of Security Services Providers (NASSP), is a retired army officer. The Lagos-born security expert recalled that the practice of drawing security votes emanated from the activities of past military rulers, who brazenly drew money from government purse to attend to security related matters without recourse to any bureaucratic process.

    “The urgency and importance we in the military usually attach to security matters resulted in the practice you now know as security vote. During the military era, whenever there is a security related development, the need to prevent the situation from getting out of hand usually lead to monies being drawn by fiat and military like directives.

    And usually, such funds are hardly accounted for afterwards. The practice gained ground so much in those days that in became institutionalized from the Presidency down the line to Governors and even L.G.A administrators. And when politicians came, they merely continued with the practice, even giving it some form of legitimacy,” he said.

    Ambassador Rufus Aiyenigba, the Director-General, Pro-Nigeria Group (P-NG), while explaining what security votes is, said while the idea of drawing such money is not a bad one, the way and manner it is spent need to be looked into. According to him, the practice of setting aside funds for security reasons is a global practice.

    “Issues of security are always taken seriously by serious nations, and no amount of fund expended on enhancing their security architecture, especially in developed climes that is ever considered a waste. Ours should not be an exception. As much as one does not approve of recklessness and abuse of the usually huge security vote by those entrusted with such; it is important for the public to exercise restraint and not be too quick in generalised condemnation of our governors on the matter.

    Also, most of the donations that our governors roll out in humanitarian crisis situations to support victims usually come from such votes. To ensure accountability, the National Assembly should consider a bill for setting up the ‘National Security Commission’ which will be domiciled in the presidency, and will be statutorily empowered with the responsibility of superintending security funding at all levels of government,” he said.

    Looking beyond the country, a 2012 report titled: “Plugging the Security Vote Leakage” observed that: ”Some schools of thought believe that security vote had its origin in United States of America, (USA), particularly under President Richard Nixon. The report revealed further that after the assassination of President John Fitzgerald  Kennedy in 1963, “the US Congress started to include in the country’s annual appropriations, large sums of money for presidential protection (Nigeria’s example of security votes for president and governors).

    When Nixon became President, he converted part of the allocation to develop his country home, including the provision of an exotic, state-of-the-art swimming pool. Following allegations of corruption levelled against him, Nixon argued that the President could not be said to be protected if his country home was not fortified. Sensing that Nixon had beaten them to their own game, the US Congress quickly went to work and the end result was the promulgation of the Impoundment Act of 1974, which makes it mandatory for proceeds of the crime to be impounded if found guilty. This, in America, has since ended such squander mania.”

    Checks by The Nation revealed that currently, the security vote is drawn by governors and other beneficiaries, straight from the allocation accruing to their state from the centre as an unappropriated allowance which in turn neither be audited nor accounted for. The amount, it was discovered, varies from state to state.

    According to very reliable sources, it appears no state in the country is free from the practice of drawing security votes. Rather, there is a growing desire among governors to have the amount they could draw increased in the face of what they see as the rising wave of insecurity across their various constituencies.

    “I doubt if there is any state currently drawing less than N300million monthly as security vote anywhere in the country. I am also sure that there are states drawing as much as N1billion as security vote. The question is not whether they are drawing the fund, the question is actually “what are they using it for. In a democracy, it is actually the part of not having to account for such huge amounts that is criminal,” Lawson said.

    “As a security expert who has worked with some states of the federation, I can tell you that some state governors in the south-south and southeast draw as much as N1billion every month as security votes. I am also aware of a state governor in the southwest who has been owing salaries since last year, yet he draws N500million monthly as security votes,” he added.

    Also, popular columnist, Okey Ndibe once noted; “bad as it is to put so much cash into the unaccountable hands of the President and governors, the security vote culture has since festered. How does anybody justify this ludicrous notion? Like many other facile ideas that take root in Nigeria, the only justification is that it makes the nation’s so-called “stakeholders” happy”. The money that is yearly allocated to ‘security votes’ is yearly being salted away in foreign bank accounts in Mauritius, Saudi Arabia, London and Isle of Man. Why, then, did the nation’s editorial writers and columnists not take up Ladoja’s suggestion and orchestrate the call to outlaw the use of security votes? His call seemed to have had little or no traction?

    Renewed agitation?

    As it is, the altercation between El Rufai and Dogara may have reopened the argument over how best to describe the huge funds governors draw from state accounts monthly. Is it really security vote or slush fund? How beneficial is the practice to the people? Should the practice be stopped, modified or allowed to continue unabated?

    Amidst the raging debate over the fund, a Lagos-based  lawyer, Adedokun Makinde, last week filed a suit before Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of the Lagos division of the Federal High Court, seeking an order to stop the payment of security votes to the President, Vice-President, governors and deputy governors. Makinde is also requesting the court to declare the payment as well as drawing on funds in the shape of security vote from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or states as illegal.

    Joined as respondents in the suit (FHC/L/CS/220/17) are the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Senate President, House of Representatives Speaker, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister, 36 state governors and speakers of the 36 state legislatures.

    In the affidavit he deposed to in support of the suit, the lawyer averred that the President, Vice-President, governors, and deputy governors are in the category of executive political office holders and are thus ineligible to receive any remuneration as approved or determined by the  RMAFC, the fifth respondent. He further averred that the Constitution does not provide for the payment of security votes, as part of the remunerations, to the President, Vice-President, governors, and deputies by the RMAFC.

    Makinde added that funds paid and received as security votes are not captured in the Federal Appropriation Act or states’ appropriation laws. The amounts of money drawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund,  which is unknown, represents a huge drain on the country’s resources, reduces the money available for development and therefore violates the constitution.

    Also, the lawyer stated that payment to or withdrawal of security votes by the respondents constitutes an illegality and should be stopped henceforth. Hearing in the suit has been fixed for 26 April by Justice Olatoregun.

    Throwing his weight behind Makinde’s quest is a governorship aspirant in Anambra State on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Chief George Moghalu, who described security vote which are disbursed to state governors monthly to be spent at their discretion as glorified stealing. He said it was criminal for the governors not to account for the money.

    “Why should I take the people’s money without accounting for it? It’s criminal and fraudulent to do so. In fact, a state that is peaceful had no reason to apply for security vote. A state like Borno, for instance, needs security vote. But it is stealing for a state that is peaceful to ask for security votes. It’s glorified stealing,” he said.

    Similarly, the Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Ike Ekweremadu has declared support for the abolition of security vote. Speaking on the growing debate through his media aide, Uche Anichukuwu, Ekweremadu said “is it not also possible to abolish the Security Vote and replace it with Contingency Vote so it can be appropriated and accounted for.”

    For Obiamaka Egbo, a Lecturer in the Department of Banking and Finance, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, the practice of drawing security votes under whatever guise is  steeped in ambiguity and secrecy and as such, not healthy for a democratic system of government.

    “The practice of misappropriating and stealing huge sums of public money under the guise of enhancing national security has come under increasing scrutiny in Nigeria. The ambiguity and secrecy associated with the concept of national security has helped institutionalize unaccountable governance at all levels of government.

    The misappropriation of security votes has expanded in recent years. The problem is rooted in the rentier nature of the Nigerian state, not in the inadequacy of fiscal rules, and concludes that it will remain difficult for citizens to hold their leaders to account as long as the country continues to depend on oil rents.”

  • El-Rufai declares salary, security votes public

    El-Rufai declares salary, security votes public

    •Governor’s monthly takes home is N470,521.74 •N4.556b for security votes this year

    Kaduna State Governor Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai yesterday dared House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu Dogara by making his salary, allowances and security votes public.
    He insisted that the National Assembly budget lacked transparency.
    El-Rufai, according to his pay slip obtained in Kaduna yesterday, receives a monthly salary of N470,521.74.
    Dogara last Friday threw a challenge to El-Rufai’s request to the National Assembly to provide further details on the N115 billion 2016 National Assembly budget.
    The governor, in a statement by his media aide, Samuel Aruwan, said the 2016 National Assembly budget for its 469 members was larger than the capital budget of Kaduna State, with close to 10 million inhabitants.
    El-Rufai said his security votes for this year, which he broke down into procurement & installation of CCTV cameras for monitoring and surveillance, procurement of geo-position interceptor and location of GSM UMTS system to check the trends and intercept/locate kidnappers’ GSM calls and procurement of drones/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) is N4.556 billion.
    He said: “Our attention has been drawn to a challenge by the House of Representatives Speaker, calling on Kaduna State to make public its security votes and local government expenditure.
    “Malam Nasir El-Rufai welcomes this challenge as a necessary step to improve and strengthen our democracy and would like to respond as follows:
    “The budgets of all state governments in Nigeria are detailed out and presented at least under the headings of: personnel cost, overhead and capital expenditure.
    “This is unlike the budget of the National Assembly, which is a single line item of over N100 billion that divulges zero information or details.
    “NASS can at least break down its own single line budget into the hundreds of line items that are detailed in every state government budget in Nigeria. It is disingenuous to respond to every request for transparency by casting aspersions.
    “On our part, the Kaduna State Government has consistently made public all its budget details. In 2016, in an unprecedented step, the state published not only its own budget, but also that of all the 23 local government councils online on the www.openkaduna. com.ng website…
    “El-Rufai is today making publicly available his pay-slip as Governor of Kaduna State. In February 2017, the Kaduna State Government paid the governor a net salary of N470,521.74, with the following details: Income Basic Salary: N185,308.75, Hardship Allowance: N370,617.50, Gross Pay: N555,926.25, PAYE: N85,404.5, Total Deduction: N85,401.51, Net Pay: N470,521.74.
    “The amount may appear puny, but it reflects what the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission approved as the salary and allowances of every state governor adjusted to reflect provision in-kind of accommodation and transportation.
    “El-Rufai would like to reiterate his call for the National Assembly leadership to do the same and disclose the details of the National Assembly budget and the salaries and allowances of its leadership.”

  • Dogara to governors: publish your security votes, LG funds

    Dogara to governors: publish your security votes, LG funds

    House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu Dogara has a task for the 36 state governors as part of the fight against corruption.

    He wants them to publish their security votes and how they utilize local government funds channelled through them.

    Dogara threw the challenge yesterday in Kaduna in response to a remark by Governor Nasir el-Rufai of Kaduna State that the National Assembly should make its budget public for the sake of transparency and accountability.

    The duo spoke at a retreat for management of the National Assembly

    “I will like to challenge him (el-Rufai) to champion this cause for transparency in the budgetary process from the National Assembly to other arms of government,” the Speaker said.

    “We want to see clearly how chief executives of states… how they are paid. What do they spend monthly as security votes. And if they can publish what happens to local government funds under their jurisdictions. That will help our discussion going forward.”

    Dogara described the legislative arm as the most misunderstood institution, arguing that no parliament in the world could win a  popularity contest.

    “When, for instance, public discussions on funding of the legislature are being made, the entire bureaucracy is often completely discountenanced, neither is any consideration given to the fact that this is a special bureaucracy saddled with a multitude of ‘masters’ who must be equally served in addition to service to the nation,” he said

    Dogara also made a case for the rejuvenation of the civil service, pointing out that it would only start making progress the moment it evolved a new way of performing its responsibility.

    He called for innovation in the sector and said this could only be made possible by motivation of staff.

    “As leaders, you must be prepared to motivate the workforce. Motivation is the key to innovation anywhere. For far too long, the bureaucracy in Nigeria has failed to innovate because it is locked in a tradition that defines boundaries that must not be crossed,” he said.

    “A tradition that says we have always done it this way and apportions sanctions for those who dare doing it the other way, even if the outcomes are better. These are chains that bind the bureaucracy in Nigeria from within.”

    Governor el-Rufai believes that the National Assembly, particularly the Senate, is  opposed to the fight against corruption being championed by President Muhammadu Buhari.

    He said:”The National Assembly is seen as an opposition to the fight against corruption.

    “The National Assembly, particularly the Senate, is seen as one of the fighters of the war against corruption and that image has to be worked on.

    “Now that we are going towards election year, the leadership and members of the National Assembly have to do something about the narratives.

    “I don’t believe that it is entirely true?, I also don’t believe it is entirely false, but it is important that the National Assembly do something about its image”.

    On the budget of the NASS, the governor said: “No transparency in your (NASS) budget; nobody knows your budget, how much you get paid.

    “Publications are made about your salaries and allowances that I don’t believe are true, but cannot be defended because there is no transparency about your budget, personal cost? and so on and so forth. I think you can do something about that to clear all the rumours and remove all the evil stories that are largely untrue.

  • On real issues arising from abuse of N32b security votes

    On real issues arising from abuse of N32b security votes

    Former President Goodluck Jonathan has a case to answer regarding his role in the sordid matter. It should not be swept under the carpet.

    The nation has been stunned in recent weeks by intense media revelations on the security funds disbursed by the former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd), as slush funds to prominent members of the former ruling party, the PDP. The estimated total of the slush funds is N32billion. It is probably more. In addition, it has been alleged by the EFCC that the sum of $2.1billion meant for arms purchase has simply disappeared. It was allegedly diverted into private pockets, principally those of Dasuki to purchase choice properties here and abroad.

    There is a palpable feeling of public outrage in our country over the cavalier manner in which the slush funds were handed over to some prominent leaders of the PDP. Dokpesi, the owner of DAAR Communications, got a hefty N2.1billion of state funds to spruce up the image of the party for the general elections. The former vice president, Sambo, got a hefty N20million monthly from the funds. Not to be left out, Obaigbena collected a cool N700million on behalf of some newspapers for damage to their vehicles and newspapers by overzealous security agents of the Jonathan PDP federal government. As the trial of the principal actors in this disgusting event begins, we shall learn more about the full extent of the abuse of the security votes under the direct control and authority of former President Jonathan.

    Col. Dasuki, the former national security adviser, was at the centre of this financial scam in which such vast sums of money were shared out to the PDP chieftains ostensibly to facilitate the re-election of Jonathan as President through outright bribery of the electorate. State funds were used in a partisan manner to serve the political interest of the PDP. In a true democracy this is unacceptable. It was Dasuki who, pleading security considerations, asked for and obtained a postponement of the May elections. This, and the use of slush state funds to fraudulently secure Jonathan’s electoral victory was, subversive of the democratic process that we are trying to develop in our country The plan failed completely as he suffered a woeful defeat in the presidential elections. The slush funds probably never got to the voters. They were simply diverted into the private pockets of the PDP leaders. If Jonathan had been re-elected, nothing would have been known by the public about this gross abuse of power by the Jonathan PDP federal government.

    What is even more galling about the whole sordid affair is that even after President Jonathan’s defeat, Dasuki continued to hand out state funds to the PDP hacks without any caution at all about the possible future consequences of his action. In a statement issued yesterday by the EFCC, it said Dasuki was being tried because ‘he was involved in various activities that bordered on economic sabotage, a compromise of the nation’s security, and endangering the lives of Nigerian soldiers involved in the anti-terrorism fight with Boko Haram’. In other words, this man who had primary responsibility for the nation’s security was busy subverting the nation’s security and the fight against the terrorism of Boko Haram. Some soldiers who refused to fight because they could not cope with the superior fire power of the insurgents were tried and convicted for mutiny. It was only the change of government that saved them from summary execution.

    There is some justifiable media speculation that the funds involved in this financial scam were from the recovered Abacha loot, recovered mostly from some helpful foreign countries and warehoused in the Central Bank. The foreign countries involved demanded and obtained from the PDP federal government assurances that the recovered funds would be spent on useful public projects. Instead, and in effect, the funds stolen by Abacha and recovered were stolen again and shared out to the leaders of the PDP, the ruling party at the time. This is very damaging to our country’s foreign image and our integrity as a nation. At the time this vast amount of money was being shared by the PDP leaders, the federal government could hardly pay its workers’ salaries and pension. This year it borrowed about N1.5tr to meet its financial obligations to its workers. It had no funds to fix our decaying social and physical infrastructure. It is this kind of massive corruption at the highest level of government that makes it difficult for the government to meet its basic obligations to the people. It is why that vital road, that vital bridge, those useful and necessary schools and hospitals, cannot be built. It is the massive theft of vast sums of public funds that has deepened mass poverty in our country.

    So far, former President Jonathan has remained studiously silent about the whole sordid affair, and his role in it. But his silence is deafening as the nation needs to know who fraudulently authorised the diversion of the arms purchase fund as well as the abuse of the security votes. It is not possible that this vast financial scam took place without his knowledge. Specifically, Dasuki has claimed that Jonathan was aware of the slush funds and that he acted on President Jonathan’s instruction. Of course, even if this was the case, it does not exonerate him. A public official is not under any moral or legal obligation to carry out the instructions of his principal, including the president, if he considers such instructions illegal. President Jonathan cannot legally claim immunity from prosecution for an act or actions that were clearly illegal. Presidential immunity does not cover criminal activities. He must be made to account for his action in the court of law. He is reported to be seeking a meeting with President Muhammadu Buhari on this disgraceful matter. But a meeting with President Buhari over this matter is not necessary. It is for the courts to determine his innocence or guilt. He should be invited by the EFCC to account for his actions regarding the slush funds.

    In the light of this unprecedented official financial heist at the highest levels of the Jonathan presidency, it is time for the National Assembly to enact a law that will put an end to the so-called security votes which are being enjoyed and grossly abused by the governors, and even council chairmen. In some cases, it is even being used to finance private armies that pose a direct threat to our national security. It is the major source of official corruption in our country. All funds intended for our national security should be handled directly by the security and intelligence agencies, and not the president. As we have seen in recent years, it is subject to abuse and is subversive of the democratic process in our country.

  • Stop security votes

    I AM appealing to the delegates to the National Conference to come up with decisions that will stop the obnoxious security votes. This money is not being used to provide security in the strict sense of the word. Those who are managing the votes are largely using them to benefit themselves and their families.

    The votes should be used to provide housing for the poor in this country. This is highly necessary because most of the masses are homeless.

    The delegates should stop impunity; make Senate membership part time; make education free up to the basic level; provide health insurance to orphans and widows; and attract massive industrial investments to create jobs.

    Uche A C,

  • Security votes: Court strikes out suit against governors, FCT minister

    A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday struck out a suit seeking to stop the 36 state governors and the FCT minister from deducting monies from statutory allocation as security votes.

    Justice Adamu Bello threw out the suit while delivering judgment in a case filed by a constitution lawyer, Chief Nkereuwem Akpan, against the governors and the FCT minister in 2010.

    Akpan had urged the court to determine, by virtue of sections 16(2) and 120 of the 1999 Constitution Cap C 23, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, if the governors had the power without lawful authority, to deduct monies as security votes from the Federation Account.

    In his judgment, Bello held that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

    He said the governors and the minister of the FCT were neither the Federal Government nor its agencies and the court had no authority to determine the case.

    He held that if the defendants were the Federal Government or its agencies, the court could entertain the case.

    “Though the plaintiff has the locus standi to institute the case against the defendants, the court can only entertain a suit involving the Federal Government and its agencies,’’ the News Agency of Nigeria quoted the judge as saying on Tuesday.

    He said the suit involved state governors and the minister of FCT which had their own jurisdictions.

     

     

  • Court picks December 23 for judgment on security votes

    Justice Adamu Bello of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday adjourned judgment in a suit challenging the authority of state governors to make deductions as security votes to December 23.

    A Human Rights activist, Chief Nkereuwen Akpan, had filed the suit against the 36 state governors.

    Akpan is asking the court to declare that the sums deducted from statutory allocation by governors for the purpose were illegal, fraudulent and unconstitutional.

    He named the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) as defendants.

    Bello, who had initially reserved Wednesday to interpret Sections 16 (2) and 120 of the 1999 Constitution which formed the fulcrum of the suit, said that the judgment was not ready.

    “I am indeed sorry for my inability to deliver this judgment today, it is simply not ready,’’ he said.

    The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Akpan is seeking the court to interpret sections 16(2) and 120 of the 1999 Constitution and determine whether state governors have powers to deduct monies from statutory allocation of states.

    He also prayed for an order compelling the AGF to order EFCC and ICPC to investigate the deductions

    He urged the court to determine whether the policy of security vote was recognized either by the 1999 constitution or any other law in the country.

    However, the governors had jointly raised objection on the competence of the plaintiff to institute the action.

    They urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the court and “locus standi of the plaintiff.