The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Senate

  • N600m rent allegation: Senate clears Saraki, Dogara, others

    N600m rent allegation: Senate clears Saraki, Dogara, others

    • Senate to seek review of Senate President’s building contract

    The Senate Committee on Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on Thursday said that presiding officers of the National Assembly did not receive any rent from the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA).
    The committee also said that the Senate would demand the review of the contract for the building of the residences of the Senate President and Speaker House of the House of Representatives.
    Chairman of the committee, Senator Dino Melaye at a media briefing in Abuja said that the review of the contract sum of the building became necessary due to the discovery of what he called “skyrocketed and over inflated contract prices.”
    Melaye said that the clarification of the “erroneous impression” that the National Assembly leadership collected over N600 million rent from the FCDA became imperative following a “false report by an online medium to that effect.”
    The Kogi West Senator noted that it is on record that the National Assembly leadership does not collect rent from the FCDA.
    Melaye said: “Our attention has been drawn to a story in an online medium, where a sponsored group called Citizen Action to Take Back Nigeria (CATBAN). Obviously, one of this briefcase Civil Society Group that are not registered even by law in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and hurriedly packaged to do assassin jobs on the social media.
    “This fake briefcase NGO called CATBAN claimed that the president of the Senate, the speaker and their deputies are using Federal Capital Development Authority to collect some amount of money as rent for their accommodation.
    “We want to state clearly that the four presiding officers of the National Assembly do not collect any money for rent, furniture and renovation from the FCDA or any federal government agency for that matter.
    “I as the chairman of the Senate committee on FCT, I put my integrity on test to say that no kobo was collected by any of the presiding officers from the FCDA and those who know how government bureaucracy works know it is practically impossible for any of the presiding officers to collect money directly from the FCDA.
    “It should be noted that while senators Bukola Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu as well as Rt. Hon. Yakubu Dogara and Lasun Yusuff are entitled to well furnished official accommodation by virtue of their positions just like the president, the vice president and the Chief Justice of Nigeria, they all live in their private residences.
    “They even insisted last year if you recall that the president of the Nigerian Senate insisted last year that the N10 billion which the FCDA put in the 2016 budget for the completion of the official residencies of the Senate President and speaker be removed from the budget to save cost in reflection of the mood of the nation and that money was removed from the budget because Nigeria is in recession, they sacrificed their own personal comfort for the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
    “It should be noted that this same group CATBAN on January 3rd, 2017 held a press conference where it cleared Mr Babachir Lawal, SGF who had been indicted by the senate for corruption in the award of contracts and utilisation of funds meant for the northeast humanitarian crisis.
    “Therefore, the same NGO that held a press conference and their name came into limelight for the first time on the 3rd of January is the same NGO now that is speaking trying effortlessly to indict the leadership of the National Assembly, therefore, we know where this is coming from.
    “We advise the sponsors of the group who are holding on to straw as they are drowning in the six pole of their corrupt practices to always check their information very well as they got it wrong this time.
    “I also want to use this opportunity to call on fake NGOs like this who propagate falsehood and lies all over the social media to advise themselves and do the right thing and I do expect that intelligence group before coming to the public will carry out even if they are been fed with lies.
    “I expect them to process this lies and check the veracity or otherwise of it before jumping into conclusion.
    “I challenge this group to provide evidence in terms of transfers or how in any manner any presiding officers have benefited financially from the FCDA.
    “I say it is a lie, it is not true, it is malicious, it is fallacious, it’s baseless and totally untrue.”
    On the review of the contract sum of building the Senate President residence, Melaye noted that as “Chairman of the committee, even if the Senate President had not asked that the money is removed from the budget we would have stopped it.”
    Melaye said that his committee went on oversight to the buildings and discovered that the contract was inflated.
    He said: “As I speak to you, the mosque that is occupying less than 100 square meters that are meant to be the prayer place for the Senate President and deputy senate president’s residence and even the Vice President’s residence was awarded for over N200million. And it is a three bedroom boys quarters less structure.
    “The gatehouse of the Vice President’s residence was also awarded at over N250million. We are going to call for a review of that contract and Julius Berger said they are going to build a concrete building.
    “I went there with a hammer and I hit the wall and I saw block. So, that investigation is ongoing. And we want to make sure that government is not being raped and shortchanged. So we are definitely going to call for a review of the contract because this is a rape of the taxpayers’ money.”

  • Senate, SGF rift deepens 

    Senate, SGF rift deepens 

    …Committee refuses to honour Lawal’s Perm Sec

     

    The bickering between the Senate and Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir David Lawal, over alleged abuse of office leveled against Lawal may be far from over.

    The SGF Thursday failed to appear before the Senate Committee on Federal Character and Inter Governmental Affairs to defend 2017 budget proposal of his office.

    The absence of Lawal did not go down well with members of the committee.

    Irked by the absence of the SGF, members of the Senator Tijjani Kaura led committee refused to honour the Permanent Secretary, General Services Office of the SGF, Mohammed Bukar, who was delegated to represent Lawal at the budget defence session.

    It was gathered that the Permanent Secretary informed the committee of the absence of the SGF minutes before commencement of the meeting Thursday.

    The SGF was said to have told the permanent Secretary at the last minute that he was going for the funeral of a relation who died some time ago.

    Members of the committee insisted that “the permanent secretary would not be allowed to represent the SGF.

    They particularly frowned at the failure of the SGF to inform the committee in writing about his inability to attend the budget defence.

    The lawmakers thereafter put off the budget defence and proceeded to brief the Senate President, Abubakar Bukola Saraki on reasons why it became necessary for the meeting to be postponed.

    A member of the committee told reporters that: “Much as we try to protect the SGF as a brother, there are limits to what he should do. What he ought to do is seek the understanding of the committee to reschedule the meeting, which is a normal thing.

    “As far as the committee is concerned, courtesy demands that he should call the Chairman. He did not appear and he did not show concern. Since he is not here and not ready, he should make contact with the committee to reschedule.

    “Why he is not here is not cogent enough. He said he went to condole with a family over the loss of a loved one, but here we have a colleague, a Senator for that matter, who is also supposed to attend the funeral of a loved one staying back to attend the budget defense.

    “As far as we are concerned, the excuse he gave of going for the burial a loved one is not a good one at all.”

    The relationship between the Senate and SGF became sour following the resolution of the Senate that President Muhammadu Buhari should sack the SGF over alleged abuse of office.

  • Magu: Senate and the element of fair hearing

    Magu: Senate and the element of fair hearing

    To Wahab Shittu, a law teacher at the University of Lagos (UNILAG), there is more to the rejection by Senators of Ibrahim Magu as the substantive Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Chairman than the Department of State Services (DSS) security report. The lawyer believes some members of the Red Chamber have foreclosed fair hearing for Magu to cover up their tracks as former public office holders.

    The proposed confirmation hearing of Mr Ibrahim Magu for the exalted position of substantive Executive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) understandably has generated uncommon controversy.

    In taking a position on the propriety or otherwise of the exercise, there are three perspectives. First, there are those who take the position that what is fundamental is the building of institutions and consequently, the emphasis on retention of Magu being just an individual in the equation is patently unnecessary. Secondly, there are those who insist on the retention of Magu on account of his sterling performance and accomplishments since he took the saddle in the EFCC, contending that strong individuals are central to building strong institutions and that it stands logic on its head to change a winning team. The third perspective are those who prefer to sit on the fence believing that it is immaterial whoever emerges as the EFCC chair so long as corruption is fought to a standstill in our country.

    This intervention does not favour a hardline position or the choice of sitting over the fence in the belief that revolutions of whatever kind is never fought miles away from the scene of action. The perspective favour constructive engagement around critical issues that some others may have chosen to sweep under the carpet.

    In taking this position, this writer is fortified by the sayings of Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of UNODC at a conference of the states parties to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption on 28 January 2008 in Nusa Dua Bali, Indonesia, to the effect that:

    “Corruption hurts us all…Fighting it is a shared responsibility.”

    The choice of the occupant of the exalted office of the EFCC chairman is critical to the potency of the war against corruption and this is the only motivation for this intervention.

    Let me start by declaring my interest in the subject matter. First, I don’t think it bears any further proof that I remain a retained private counsel of the EFCC who has been involved one way or the other in the crusade against corruption since the inception of the Commission. Secondly, I am on record as having publicly made a case for the retention of Magu as the EFCC chair on account of his sterling performance in that position to the extent of proposing that the gentleman should simply be allowed to take a bow by the distinguished Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Thirdly, I have enjoyed a cordial working relationship with Magu leading to mutual respect and esteem by both parties.  Before him, I also enjoyed similar cordial relationship with Messrs Nuhu Ribadu, Mrs. Farida Waziri and Ibrahim Lamorde respectively. This background notwithstanding, I owe a duty as a citizen of the country obsessed with the theory of fighting corruption, to speak out my mind on issues that would affect me and the generality of Nigerians including the image of our dear country.

    Based on the foregoing, we would examine the following fundamental issues.

     

    DSS reports on Magu

    Sources close to the stakeholders including the Senate and the EFCC reveal that two security reports signed by the same person and dated the same date were reportedly addressed to the Senate President ahead of the confirmation proceedings of the nominees to the board of the EFCC, including Mr. Ibrahim Mustapha Magu as the Executive Chairman of the Commission. These reports had been widely circulated and now in the public domain. Copies of these reports may have revealed manifest conflict on the recommendation or otherwise of Magu for the exalted office. In one of the reports, the Senate was reportedly urged by the DSS not to confirm Magu on account of certain unproven allegations.  The second report reportedly urged the Senate to confirm Magu on allegedly on account of his sterling performance since assumed office in an acting capacity.

    The contention that the two separate reports were forwarded to the Senate on Magu has not been denied and it is curious why the Senate would find it convenient to act on the content of one of the reports ignoring the recommendations contained in the other allegedly written by the same person and allegedly proceeding from the same organisation.

    The second issue that is critical on the issue of the security reports on Magu is the element of fair hearing. Reports available at the public domain is to the effect that Magu was never confronted with the content of the security reports and given any opportunity to respond to the allegations or defend himself. This negates the principle of fair hearing.  The importance of fair hearing has long been established and in the case of Ezeji v. Ike (1997)2 NWLR (Pt 486) 206 at 224, per Okezie JCA stated as follows:

    “The right of fair hearing is the foremost of the basic rights of the subject so important that even ‘the worst of criminals is entitled to a fair hearing according to rules of law’”

    This principle of fair hearing was recognised in the case of NAB Kotoye v. Mrs F.M. Saraki (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 357) 414 where it was stated that it recognises the right of a party to be given an opportunity to present its case before the court in line with constitutional provisions.

    The question is why was Magu denied fair hearing concerning the contents of the security reports? This may have dealt a fatal blow to the entire proceedings for in the words of Pats-Acholonu, JCA in Ude vs A. G. Rivers State (2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 756) 66 at 79:

    “The fairness of a trial is judged by how an ordinary man in the street or in the court would assess the proceedings in the court and how the court final arrived at its decision.  A decision of a court in which one of the parties complained that it could not put its case forward because of the manner the court foreclosed it, renders such judgment suspect and I dare say otiose”.

    So much for the security reports and the needless reliance placed on same without hearing from the other party directly involved.

     

    Alleged issues

    of moral burden

    I think it is also useful to make reference to the impartiality or otherwise of the current leadership of the Senate to preside over the confirmation hearing of Mr. Ibrahim Magu in the light of current realities, precedence and case law authorities.

    Impeccable sources close to the EFCC may have revealed that a significant number of senators (details of which are stated hereunder), including the Senate President, are either under investigation or standing trial on account of investigations conducted and orchestrated by the EFCC under the leadership in an acting capacity of Mr. Ibrahim Magu.

    The following examples will suffice.

    • At the instance of one Barr. Ekpeyong as the complainant, Senator Godswill Akpabio is currently under investigation for alleged abuse of office, diversion of public funds and alleged embezzlement since June, 2015.
    • At the instance of one Honourable S. K. Daniel as the complainant, Senator Jonah Jang is under investigation on allegations that he allegedly awarded various contracts running into several billions of naira without due process and alleged diversion of N2 billion SME-CBN loan since 2015.
    • Senator Aliyu Magatakarda Wamako and other government officials are under investigation for alleged abuse of office, misappropriation of public funds and money laundering while serving as governor of Sokoto State since 2015.
    • At the instance of one Ken Asogwa, the complainant Senator Stella Adaeze Oduah is under investigation in respect of contract awarded by ministry of Aviation to I-Sec Securities Nigeria Ltd for N9.4 billion, N5.6 billion including payments in the said sum disbursed to the contractor and allegedly diverted to various companies where the Senator has interest.
    • At the instance of Save Abia Initiative for change as the complainant, Senator Theodore A. Orji & others are under investigation for alleged misappropriation of N10 billion loan from First Bank Plc for rural infrastructural development, including alleged misappropriation of N2 billion SME-CBN loan for rural dwellers since 2015.
    • Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso & others are standing trial since 2013 for alleged abuse of office and misappropriation of public funds.
    • Senator Danjuma Goje is also standing trial with others and the Federal High Court in Gombe, Gombe State, sitting in Jos and for obvious reasons, this writer is unable to comment on the details.
    • Lastly, the Senate President, Abubakar Bukola Saraki, expected to preside over Magu’s confirmation proceedings, is to public knowledge, standing trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) in respect of allegations in which the EFCC played a significant role during investigations. The merits of the trial are yet to be determined.

    With this background, are we to expect impartiality and fair hearing in confirmation proceedings on Magu, presided over by Senator Saraki?

    Closely related to this poser is whether senators, under investigation or standing trial under the watch of Magu, will endorse the candidacy of Magu as the substantive EFCC chair?

    This writer is not in a position to speculate on such possibility but, it is useful to raise questions on the propriety of some of the senators participating in the confirmation hearing of Magu without raising concerns on the element of bias or otherwise.  I will not go as far as suggesting that the Senate will be bias because that may be judgmental rather; I will prefer to leave such judgment to the public space preferring instead to take the public on a journey through the cases on what constitute bias or the likelihood of bias.

    What is the attitude of cases in such circumstances as described herein?

     

    Interest sufficient

    to raise bias

     

    Per Fabiyi JSC in Anosike vs. Igbeke (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 696)686 at 695 had this to say:

    “It is the general principle of law that magistrates and judges, and in fact, all those exercising be it a quasi-judicial authority, ought to be quite clear of any interest on the case brought before them. Pecuniary interest is the commonest and most offensive type of disqualifying interest.  But it is not the only one. It has been held that foreknowledge, a previous knowledge of the facts of the pending case is something reasonably likely to bias or influence the mind of a judicial officer a judge or magistrate in a particular case.”

     

    Test of determining

    real likelihood of bias

     

    Per Fabiyi JSC in Anosike vs. Igbeke (supra) stated the principles for determining  likelihood of bias as follows:

    “With the fact of this matter, a reasonable man standing aloof and watching the whole drama must come to the inevitable conclusion that there was a real likelihood of bias on the part of the chairman of the election tribunal at Awka against the 1st respondent/appellant. As judge at Abuja Federal High Court he made preremptory orders, which he perfected against the appellant at Awka as chairman of the election tribunal. The chairman of the election tribunal, on reaching Awka and seeing the bottleneck created by him, should have disqualified himself to protect his own image and the intuition represented by him. He is, no doubt, disqualified as Chairman of the Tribunal, which heard the petition in the first instance.”

    In the case of Tim Orugbo & Anor vs. Bulara UNA & Anor (2002) 13 SCM 153, the Supreme Court stated as follows:

    “An allegation of bias or real likelihood of bias is not to be based on mere conjecture or speculation.”

    In the case of Rafiu Womiloju & 6 Ors vs. Mr. Fatai Ogisanyin Anibire & 4 Ors (2010) 4 – 7 SC (Pt. 1) 1 the Supreme Court stated as follows:

    “The allegation of bias is a very serious attack on the person and integrity of a judge.  A counsel who decides to launch such attack on a Judge must be prepared to show by concrete evidence in support of his allegation which I have been able to enumerate above.”

    In the said case, the court elaborated further on the applicable principles as follows:

    “If it can be reasonably interfered by a reasonable person sitting in court, from the circumstance that there is a real likelihood of bias against one of the parties on the part of the court, it must follow irresistibly that the party’s right to a fair hearing had been contravened and the decision on the issue between the parties by the court in such circumstance should not be allowed to stand.”

    In the case of Yabugbe vs. Commissioner of Police (1992) SCNJ 116, the Supreme Court pronounced on the test of bias as follows:

     “The test to be applied in determining what constitute bias which can be implied to a court or any tribunal is not actual bias but a real likelihood of bias.”

    In the case of Okachi Azuokwu vs. Tasie Nwokanma & Anor (2005) 6 SCM 58, it was stated that:

    “In a case where bias is being alleged against a court or judge, it is not the real likelihood that the court or judge could or did favour one side at the expense of the other that is important, it is that any person looking at what the court or judge has done, will have the impression in the circumstances of the case, that there was real likelihood of bias.”

    On the strength of the foregoing authorities, it is doubtful whether the possibility or probability of the element of bias by Senators under investigation or currently standing trial by virtue of investigations orchestrated by EFCC may in the circumstances be real indeed.

     

    The way out

    Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides as follows:

    “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.”

    The question to ask at this stage given the circumstances highlighted above, is: What will amount in the circumstances to fair hearing and denial of fair hearing?

    The Supreme Court pronounced on this very important issue in the case of Otapo & Ors v. Sunmotu & Ors (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 580) 587 as follows:

    “A hearing can only be fair when all parties to the dispute are given a hearing or an opportunity of hearing. If one of the parties is refused a hearing or not given an opportunity to be heard, the hearing cannot qualify as fair hearing.  When, therefore, the represented parties were not heard or given an opportunity of being heard in the appeal, the hearing by the Court of Appeal cannot come within the category of fair hearing…”

    Arising from the above, is the need for the Senate to properly conduct a confirmation hearing not executive or closed door session to enable Mr. Magu take questions on the floor of the Senate at a plenary, respond to whatever allegations raised against him and generally given the opportunity to show case his achievements including his competence, character and capacity for the assignment. This will enable the Senators assess his qualities and the generality of the Nigerian public of which he is expected to serve measure and determine his profile for the job. It will also enable the international community assess the character and credibility of the aspirant of the exalted office of the EFCC Chair.  This will satisfy the element of fair hearing as envisaged by cases including pronouncements by the Supreme Court the highest court in the land.

    The next question is who preside over such confirmation proceedings?

    I think the Senate President ought to demonstrate to the whole world that he does not have any vested interest by graciously offering to step aside to enable a neutral person preside over the proceedings. This will show a great sense of character and statesmanship in line with the fundamentals of the democratic tradition. I expect the Senate President to take this advice in good faith because of the impression by a reasonable man in the society standing aloof and watching the proceedings with the mindset that the presiding officer was either investigated at a time by or standing trial at the instance of the investigations conducted by the EFCC at all material times in which Magu, the aspirant being screen by the Senate play some significant role. It does not matter whether in fact whether Senator Bukola will not be biased as he is likely to argue by his actions or pronouncements but the impression that such possibility or probability exists is sufficient to satisfy the element of bias. Taking the argument further, what impressions are likely to go on in the mind of Magu as he fields questions from a Senate presided over by Senator Saraki, a person he had investigated directly or indirectly in the past? Will Magu be convinced in his mind that he would get a fair hearing from a body presided by such a person?

    The safe option is for the Senate President and those under investigation or standing trial to excuse themselves from the confirmation proceedings.

    This will be the path of honour.

    This writer is not to be understood as saying that persons under investigations or standing trial are by virtue of such circumstances culpable. Not at all as the presumption of innocence of every suspect is guaranteed by our constitution and it is for the court ultimately to determine the guilt or innocence of anyone standing trial in any criminal proceedings.

    However, this writer should be understood as saying in line with legal authorities that where there is possibility or probability of bias, the presiding officer should step aside to restore public confidence.

    I will therefore humbly request that proper confirmation proceedings to determine the suitability of Magu should hold. I will also request that the possibility or probability of bias should be removed from the proceedings by enthroning the elements of transparency and fairness in the said confirmation proceedings as Magu takes a second bite at the cherry in his quest to serve his fatherland.

  • Senate may reconvene for Buhari’s $1bn EURO bond request

    Senate may reconvene for Buhari’s $1bn EURO bond request

    The Senate may cut short its three weeks suspension of plenary to consider a Presidential letter requesting approval of $1billion Euro bond, it was learnt yesterday.
    Sources said the Presidency is asking for approval to enable government conduct a road work show.
    It was gathered that the letter, which might have been endorsed by Acting President Yemi Osinbajo, was received in the Senate last Thursday after the close of session.
    Senate President Bukola Saraki last week suspended plenary for three weeks to enable committees conduct 2017 budget defence sessions.
    The request for approval of $I billion Euro bonds by the Presidency might have been informed by the rejection of Buhari’s plan to borrow $29.960 billion for the execution of infrastructural projects across the country between 2016 and 2018.
    Last November, the Senate rejected the presidential request for external borrowing of $29.960billion for execution of key infrastructural projects across the country between 2016 and 2018.

  • Senate meets on smooth 2017 budget passage

    Senate Leader, Senator Ahmed Lawan, on Monday assured Nigerians that the 2017 budget will be smoothly and promptly passed.

    Senator Lawan told reporters in Abuja that the Senate leadership will meet committee chairmen on the need to ensure a seamless budget process.

    He noted that it is obvious that Nigerians are waiting anxiously for the 2017 budget to be passed.

    He said, “The leadership will meet tomorrow (Tuesday) with committee chairmen on the way forward for the budget. After the meeting, committees will begin the budget defence. We don’t envisage any issues. Everybody has learnt his lesson. We are all working for the smooth passage of the budget.”

    Lawan said the meeting with committee chairmen would pave the way for the committees to do their job of passing the budget as soon as possible.

    Senate President, Bukola Saraki, had on Thursday announced that the Senate Leadership would meet with committee chairmen after plenary but the meeting was shifted to Tuesday.

    It is expected that the meeting would lay the template for the budget defence with Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs).

    The meeting will also draw the time table for the budget defence.

  • Buhari, Babachir, Magu and Senate

    SIR: President Muhammadu Buhari’s re-nomination of Ibrahim Magu for Senate confirmation as chairman Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and his letter asking the Senate to reconsider its stance on Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Engr. David Babachir Lawal is a good opportunity for the Senate and the executive arms to reset their relationship. Equally, it has presented to Bukola Saraki, the Senate President a unique opportunity to further cement his relationship with the President.  Furthermore, it is also an opportunity for the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC) and new Senate Leader Ahmed Lawan to initiate a new bi-partisan approach for smooth approval of any request by the executive.

    Many Nigerians are in support of Magu because in him, they see the zeal to employ international multilateral technical co-operation on corruption to develop a mechanism that will help Nigeria have a system that discourages outright stealing of public funds, and develop an anti-corruption war that relies on forensic evidence, well-trained personnel and free of unnecessary controversies.

    The Senate needs to accept President Buhari’s request on Magu in good faith, while encouraging him to drive the anti-corruption war in a new approach that is multifaceted, multidisciplinary and knowledge-driven; an approach that would assist all institutions of government in re-establishing norms and standards of governance, assist the public, NGOs and even the legislature in monitoring of compliance with the standards. The core of the ‘new’ EFCC should be centred on restoring social order especially to governance; and promoting advocacy and capacity building among genuine whistle-blowers.

    For Babachir, the Senate should as a matter of new legislature-executive relationship, reconsider its December 15, 2016 recommendation. This is for Buhari, not for Babachir. Buhari is a man that keeps his confidence and trust in people until such a person exhausts all avenues of trust. But Buhari is sometimes unlucky, some of the people he trust, betray the trust and the friendship he bestows on them.

    However, Babachir should amend his way of relating with other arms of government and his style of politics- it is pathetic that Babachir failed to get any meaningful public sympathy nor concrete defence from the political class, even his primary constituency- the north, northeast and Adamawa State, let alone other parts of the country. This is a big lesson for Babachir. You cannot be the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and behave like the secretary of a hamlet’s cultural association.

    The whole scenario is a challenge to the ruling APC. The party must work hard to enjoy the fruits of it being majority in the Senate. It is also a test for Senate President Saraki’s capacity to harness senate-executive rapport in a critical situation. For the new senate leader Ahmed Lawan, it will be his first litmus test in his ability to consolidate on bi-partisan approach to important national issues. For Magu, it is an opportunity to further win the hearts of more Nigerians and convince the Senate of his capacity to lead the EFCC in line with senate’s expectation of anti-graft war. While for Babachir, it will be of great help to him for the senate to overlook one of his 2016 lows. For President Buhari, this is a proof that the Senate still sees him in high esteem.

     

    • Zayyad I. Muhammad,

    Jimeta, Adamawa State.

  • Before Senate swings the hammer on MTN

    Ahead of a potential pronouncement from the Senate concerning the lingering illegal money transfers allegation slammed on MTN, Nigeria’s Minister of Communications, Abdur-Raheem Adebayo Shittu, has screamed out to the hallowed chamber to look before leaping. In what can be described as an astonishing turnout, Shittu wished for the Senate to troubleshoot unemployment deluge as well as preserve Nigeria’s attractiveness to Foreign Direct Investors (FDIs) by guarding against emotional pronouncements that will scare away MTN.

    Only a few days ago, the minister reportedly told the news agency, Reuters that, “Nobody will say that MTN is not important to Nigeria – we must encourage them, we must not scare them away from Nigeria.” Such comment from a serving minister is tacit policy stating the intent and position of the government in a season of seething recession. And for a drowning man, any grip is a lifeline.  Categorically, these are the government’s first statement on the latest investigation into MTN, indicating the government does not want to see the South African company punished unduly in Nigeria, its biggest market, should the latest allegations prove to be true.

    Recently, it can be recalled that MTN is seemingly building a bank of offensive records in Nigeria; the latest alleged illegal repatriation of $13.92bn profits from Nigeria between 2006-2016 is following closely on the heels of a dispute over unregistered SIM cards where top-shelf mediations and deliberations influenced the government to agree to a reduced settlement on the issue by nearly 70% from $5.2 billion to $1 billion. As a result of this, MTNN CEO, Sifiso Dabengwa, resigned in the wake of the record fine in November 2015. A fourth issue is the hangover of Nigerian consumers’ repugnance towards MTN over the telco’s “unapologetic” poor service delivery. Despite the “elite attack” from the Senate, the support for MTN from the masses is infinitesimal.

    To the ongoing repatriation saga, the duo of Paschal Dozie, Chairman of MTN Nigeria Communications and substantive CEO, Ferdi Moolman both told the Senate during a hearing session that MTN did not break Nigeria’s currency transfer rules. And Adebayo Shittu’s sympathy for the MTN eggheads was unwavering when he said, “They have a right to repatriate their profits as long as it is legitimately done. Any time MTN is suspected of breaking the law it will be investigated, though the facts against them must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Everyone who is in business will have ups and downs. You don’t throw away the baby with the bathwater. The presumption is that they are innocent and we pray they remain innocent.”

    Concluding, perhaps, with a tone of finality, Shittu said, “They (MTN) must stay.”

    Interestingly, “FDI must stay” is the gospel of President Muhammadu Buhari on his frequent globe-trotting missionary journeys. Specifically in Nairobi, Kenya, last year, at a bilateral meeting with Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, on the sidelines of the sixth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) in Nairobi, President Buhari reassured that, “Existing and prospective foreign investors and investments in Nigeria are secured and would be fully protected.” The president outlined several steps taken by his administration to secure the country and ease doing business in Nigeria. He also told the Japanese leader that, “As a government, we know our responsibility, which is to secure the environment and all local and foreign investments. “It is clear to us that lenders and investors will not fund projects in insecure environments. We realize that we have to secure the country before we can efficiently manage it.’’

    Already, it is public knowledge that MTN has invested over N3.2 trillion in our economy and thus deserves much respect especially as a corporate citizen. Since 2001, MTN is officially recorded to have contributed over N1.6tr to government coffers through taxes, levies and regulatory payments, providing jobs for nearly 1,000,000 Nigerians, directly and indirectly. Also, the MTN Foundation has spent over N18bn through CSR in almost every local government in Nigeria. They’ve disbursed over $3.5bn worth of businesses through adverts and sponsorships, and patronage of Nigerian hospitality industry and contractors.

    Ruminating on the impact a shock decision by MTN could have on the nation, its people and the economy, many experts have warned on the possible treatments to be meted out to the telco. Bismarck Rewane, a frontline economic analyst, has warned about the implication of the continued ‘harassment’ of Nigeria’s leading telecommunications provider, MTN Nigeria by the federal government, adding that this could discourage inflow of foreign investments into the country. He said this as the Guest Speaker at the Media Independent Practitioners Association of Nigeria (MIPAN) 2017 Business Outlook session which held at the Renaissance Hotel, GRA Ikeja.

    “Since we are harassing MTN, nobody is going to invest. Hounding of MTN is not a good thing, because it is sending a negative signal. We need to ensure that we send the right signals to encourage investment rather than to discourage investors”, Rewane who is MD/CEO, Financial Derivatives Company Ltd, said.

    More so, from Rotimi Fawole’s position in his opinion piece in The Guardian of Tuesday, January 24 – “The issues seem fairly clear and free of controversy…at this time when the Presidency is working hard at improving FDI flows…. It is hoped that…the current quiet around the MTN matter is a permanent one” – it seems various commentators on television, radio, newspapers and social media are in spiritual kinship with the Minister of Communications, Adebayo Shittu, President Buhari and Rewane.

     

    • Adulugba, a public affairs commentator writes from Lagos.

  • No judge is owed salaries, says Senate

    THE Senate yesterday debunked the information that federal judges were being owed four-month outstanding salary arrears.

    Chairman, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters  David Umaru, who spoke on the alleged inability of the Federal Government to pay federal judges, told the Senate that federal judges have been paid up-to-date.

    Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah had informed the Senate that information available to him indicated that federal judges were being owed four-month salary arrears.

    After the troubling information, the Senate mandated its committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters and Finance to investigate the matter.

    Senator Umaru, who reported back to Senate in plenary yesterday, told his colleagues that the December salary of federal judges was paid on January 17, 2017.

    The Niger North lawmaker said because of the seriousness of the matter, he with the Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance, Senator John Enoh, met officials of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and Ministry of Finance to confirm the authenticity of the information that judges have not been paid for four months.

    He said: “We have carried out the assignment given to us by this hallowed chamber. Myself and distinguished Senator John Enoh jointly and severally consulted with the National Judicial Council, a body charged with the responsibility to collect, control and disburse all monies – capital and recurrent – for the judiciary.

    “Also, the Federal Ministry of Finance that is responsible for the allocation and disbursement of funds to MDAs was also consulted.

    “We found as a matter of fact that the judges had actually not been paid for the month of December. And that the judges were not owed in arrears for the remaining months. We have confirmed that the December payment was actually effected on January 17.

  • Judges not owed salary arrears – Senate

    The Senate on Thursday debunked reports that federal judges were being owed four-month outstanding salary arrears.

    Chairman, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Senator David Umaru, who spoke on the alleged inability of the Federal Government to pay federal judges, told the Senate that federal judges have been paid up-to-date.

    Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah had informed the Senate that information available to him indicated that federal judges were being owed four -month salary arrears.

    After the troubling information, the Senate mandated its committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters and Finance to investigate the veracity of the information.

    Senator Umaru, who reported back to Senate in plenary on Thursday, told his colleagues that the December salary of federal judges was paid on January 17, 2017.

    The Niger North lawmaker said because of the seriousness of the matter, he in company with the Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance, Senator John Enoh, met officials the National Judicial Council (NJC) and Ministry of Finance to confirm the authenticity of the information that judges have not been paid for four months.

    He said, “We have carried out the assignment given to us by this hallowed chamber. Myself and distinguished senator John Enoh jointly and severally consulted with the National Judicial Council, a body charged with the responsibility to collect, control and disburse all monies – capital and recurrent – for the judiciary.

    “Also, the Federal Ministry of Finance that is responsible for the allocation and disbursement of funds to MDAs was also consulted.

    “We found as a matter of fact that the judges had actually not been paid for the month of December. And that the judges were not owed in arrears for the remaining months. We have confirmed that the December payment was actually effected on January 17.”

     

  • Sagay slams Sani over ‘deodorant’ comments

    The Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), on Wednesday faulted a statement credited to the Kaduna Central Senator, Shehu Sani, saying the President Muhammadu Buhari administration is treating corruption in government with “deodorant.”

    Sagay said Sani’s comments were a political statement.

    He accused the Senator of fighting his own political “battles” which influences his views.

    Sani had dismissed as “false” President Muhammadu Buhari’s claims on a Senate report indicting the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir Lawal, of corruption.

    Speaking at the Senate on Tuesday after Senate President, Bukola Saraki, read Buhari’s letter absolving Lawal of fraud, the Senator suggested the President’s defense of the SGF smacked of double standards.

    Buhari had reacted to the Senate’s demand for Lawal’s sack and prosecution, having accused him of corruption in the handling of a grass cutting contract awarded by the Presidential Initiative on Northeast (PINE).

    The President in his letter said he could not act as demanded by the Senate because the report of the Senate Ad hoc committee was signed by three of nine members.

    He also said the SGF was not given fair hearing.

    Sani, who chaired the ad hoc committee and presented the interim report last December, said seven members, not three as claimed by the President, signed the report.

    He also said Lawal was invited to appear before the committee, adding the SGF’s secretary received and acknowledged the invitation.

    Sani said advert was placed in three newspapers for Lawal and other parties involved in the matter to appear before the Senate committee.

    “Corruption in the judiciary and others is treated with insecticide while corruption in the government is treated with deodorant,” Sani said.

    But, Sagay said while he does not have much facts regarding the allegations against the SGF, he should be given a fair hearing by the Senate before being condemned.

    “With regards to the SGF, I don’t really know much about that. My own view is that they should give him a hearing and if at the end of it, they consider that he’s liable, then they should come to the conclusion and condemn him if they want. But they should give him a hearing. That’s all,” Sagay said.