|
KWENU! Our culture, our future |
|
Thursday, August 31, 2000 Comments on the Kuta Committee's findings and recommendations THANK you for this opportunity to defend myself before the Senate as a whole on the charges and reprimands heaped upon me by the Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on Contracts. I plead that this Senate insists on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in the process of our collective review of the work of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Contracts, which had Senator Idris Kuta Ibrahim as its chairman. Let us remember the legal imperative that justice must NOT only be done, but must be seen to be done. May I stress that under the Rule of Law, there must be fair hearing and fair trial, which includes rational and judicious review of facts under the law of Evidence. For a start, I still plead my innocence, against all the charges, condemnations, and reprimands heaped upon me by the Kuta Committee, otherwise referred to as the Kuta Panel. May I humbly request this Senate to give me enough time to explain, to clear my name from perennial vilification, and generally, to re-assert the honour and integrity of the Fourth Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Terrible beginning You may recall that the so-called Senate Contracts Scandal began with the hoax that N600 million had been paid out to a contractor who in turn released a sum of N250 million to the then Senate President, Dr. Chuba Okadigbo, who then took a lion's share of the booty and shared the rest to his 'favourite' Senators and leaders of the House of Representatives! I told the Senators and the nation at large that this hoax was a product of mischief and a wicked ploy to de-stabilise the leadership of the National Assembly. I stressed that the figures N600 million and N250 million do not exist in any record of the National Assembly. Thank God, the Kuta Panel proved me right in that it did NOT at all discuss this perfidy, this deliberate game of mass deceit and character assassination. Anticipatory Approvals The next brouhaha was about Anticipatory Approvals, which some persons characterised as 'corrupt and illegal contract awards'. Thereby, what is normal in government and business was painted in monstrous colours. I shall return to this issue shortly. As you all know, I was overwhelming elected the President of the Senate on November 18, 1999. I did thank and I still thank Almighty God and my colleagues for this great honour. Consequently, I chose to toe the path of harmony and balance in the Senate and to enhance continuity with whatever I perceived as good under the regime of my predecessor, Chief Evan Enwerem. It does not now matter if my position was appreciated, knowing that the truth will vindicate the just. For the said reason, I made no changes of committee chairmanships and memberships until February 2000 and I treated with respect the decisions reached by the Body of the Principal Officers of the National Assembly (Senators and Representatives), as reflected in the Minutes of their Meeting held on November 16, 1999 - two days before I was elected as Senate President. I must note that there was no hand-over notes or exercise from the former Senate President to the new President of the Senate. Oral and written entreaties to my predecessor for such activity elicited no positive or affirmative result. Nevertheless, I was introduced to a variety of projects by the Clerk of the National Assembly, by way of a series of Memoranda were backed by the "Minutes Of The Meeting Of The Committee Of Principal Officers Held In The Senate Hearing Room 1 On The 16th November 1999" See Exhibit 1 of the Kuta Committee Report. For want of other words, the relevant minutes, along with the memoranda from the Clerk of the National Assembly requesting my Anticipatory Approvals, may be regarded, in retrospect, as the "Hand-Over Notes' from the former Senate President, Chief Enwerem and the NASS Bureaucracy to the new President of the Senate, Dr. Chuba Okadigbo. The November 16, 1999 Minutes show that Senator Evan Enwerem was the chairman of the relevant meeting. Those present included the following: Hon. Speaker Ghali Umar Na'aba, Deputy Senate President, Haruna Abubakar, Deputy Speaker, Hon. Chibudum Nwuche, Senate Leader, Abdullahi Wali, House Leader, Hon. Mohammed Wakli, APP Senate Leader, Usman Al-Bishir, APP House Leader, Hon. Mohammed Kumalia, AD Senate Leader, Senator Moji Akinfenwa, AD House Leader, Hon. Olaitan, Senate Chief Whip, Senator Rowland Owie, House Chief Whip, Hon. Bawa Buhari, APP Senate Whip, Senator Adamu Augie, APP House Whip, AD Senate Whip, Senator Gbenga Oguniya, Senate Services Committee Chairman, Senator A.T. Ahmed, Senate Committee Chairman of Appropriation and Finance, Senator Samaila Mamman, House Services Committee Chairman, Hon. Gabriel Suswam, House Appropriation Committee Chairman, Hon. Barau, Deputy Chairman, Senate Services Committee, Senator Gbenga Aluko, Clerk of the National Assembly, Alhaji Ibrahim Salim, Clerk of the House of Representatives, Alhaji N.I. Arab, Director of Finance and Supplies, Alhaji Umaru Sani, and Director of Planning and Research Services, Alhaji K. Umaru. Mr. President, Distinguished Senators, you may agree with me that it is difficult, if not rude, to treat as illegal or suspect the decisions taken by such galaxy of leaders of the National Assembly. And take note that the requests for such approvals hit my desk by December 2, 1999 - 16 days to the annual recess of the National Assembly and 29 days to the end of Fiscal Year 1999. A total of fourteen (14) projects upon which the former Body of Principal Officers agreed were proposed to me for Anticipatory Approval by the Clerk of the National Assembly. Take note that the projects were agreed upon on November 16, that the relevant Memoranda got on my desk by December 2, by December 18, 1999, the National Assembly was billed for recess, soon therefter the President of Nigeria may mop up all unspent monies, and that by December 31, 1999, the 1999 Financial Year will come to an end. The Clerk of the National Assembly advised me to grant the approvals, bearing in mind the potentials of lapse of funds and the consequences thereof to the well-being of the members, staff and properties of the National Assembly. To test this proposition, I went to the PDP Senate Caucus to inquire if I should probe the relevant projects or allow NASS funds to lapse. The Caucus resolved neither to probe the projects nor lapse the funds. Accordingly, Anticipatory Approvals were given - all as recommended. I Must Stress That No Approvals Were Given Without The Recommendations Of The Accounting Officers, Especially The Clerk Of The National Assembly. The Kuta Panel was so informed during my testimony. However, they chose not to 'believe' me. But an investigation is not a matter of believe for it is not a subjective affair. In addition, the Kuta Committee asserted that I continued to give Anticipatory Approvals in Year 2000. But it adduced no proof and no evidence to support this frivolous charge. As for Budget Y2000 and its Amendment, there has been little money to spend and yet much to pay as salaries, emoluments and sundry. Up till July 2000, President Obasanjo decided to dispense funds to the National Assembly in miserly trickles. Therefore, I neither contemplated nor gave Anticipatory Approvals in Y2000, contrary to the assertions, of the Kuta Panel. Approval Versus Contract Mr. President, Distinguished Senators, at this juncture, it is necessary to distinguish between an Approval and a Contract. By definition, an Approval is to provide or offer or accept services or goods, subject to further confirmation by a Principal or Buyer. On the other hand, a Contract is an agreement written for the supply of services or goods. In point of Law, a Contract must have the following ingredients: (a) capacity to enter into Contract; (b) intention to contract and offer or acceptance; (c) general agreement by all parties; (d) consideration (payment and terms) in a definite form; (e) legality of purpose; and (f) exchange of document. In the context of the inquiry of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Contracts, Anticipatory Approval is provisional, i.e. subject to ratification by the Body of Principal Officers. You may wish to know that the relevant Approvals have been ratified by this Body, as evidenced by the Minutes of this Body of June 6 and June 21, 2000. After such ratification, I submit that the question of apportioning blame to the Senate President simpliciter, to the exclusion of other Principal Officers of the National Assembly is discriminatory, if not void. It is the responsibility of the Officer signing the Contract to raise objections, if he considers anything to be abnormal. I wonder how contracts signed by the Clerk of the National Assembly can today be considered as "irregular" by the same Clerk! Because this Clerk is a civil servant assigned to the National Assembly under the title of Permanent Secretary, he is bound by Financial Regulation 3306 which requires him to consult with the Ministry of Finance on any matter of interpretation of principle on the financial aspect of any Contract and seek advise on any proposed departure from established practice and/or procedure. Contrary to some media procrastinations, the Office of the President of the Senate does NOT and can NOT award contracts and does not have the mechanism to do so. To the contrary, the office of the Clerk of the National Assembly, with all its departments and staff compliments, is the competent body to sign contracts at different levels and under different circumstances. The Office of the Senate President does NOT screen contractors, does NOT meddle and is NOT equipped to handle the registration of contractors in the National Assembly or the Corporate Affairs Commission. Such matters fall clearly on the desk of the Clerk of the National Assembly and his associates. The Kuta Committee members ought to know these facts and ought to lay adverse propaganda on these matters to perpetual rest. Similarly, the Kuta Panel identified 93 contracts awarded between June 4, 1999 and July 17, 2000. It did not care to differentiate the contracts given under authority of the Body of Principal Officers and those awarded by different but lower authorities in the National Assembly. Note that this Body deals only with matters of N20 million and above. I gave Anticipatory Approvals to the decisions taken by the Body of Principal Officers under the former Senate President Evan Enwerem, covering his era - June 3 till November 18, 1999. And no more! I must state that I do NOT know the contractors or beneficiaries of the Approvals given by me. As for Budget 2000 And its Amendment, there has been little money to spend and yet much to pay as salaries and emoluments for Members of the National Assembly, staff and sundry. Therefore, I have given no Anticipatory Approval in the Year 2000. Anticipatory Approval is a normal administrative device. Accordingly, the negative imputation attached to it is regrettable. For example, President Olusegun Obasanjo recently approved N38 billion (out of a contract value of N50 billion) on anticipatory basis for the development of Abuja Stadium. Note that in the Y2000 Appropriation Bill, this stadium was allocated only the sum of N2 billion. Note also that the Federal Executive Council meets every Wednesday. Yet, the approval was so 'urgent' that the President approved a N38 billion contract since the job could not wait for one week. The President had equally used Anticipatory Approvals to pay Julius Berger the sum of N7 billion and to provide N10 billion for the Poverty Alleviation Programme. There was no hullabaloo made about these. Contrarily, we of the Senate gave the Executive our usual support and understanding. We even provided for an additional sum of N4 billion for the Poverty Alleviation Programme and an additional N4 billion for graduate unemployment. Neither has President Obasanjo nor his agents been indicted for these and many other Anticipatory Approvals. However, the President of the Senate may be freely and roundly found guilty of giving Anticipatory Approvals for much less volume and quantum of money! Because I Am Involved. On the other hand, Chief Enwerem gave Anticipatory Approval for cleaning of the National Assembly at N90 million. Till date, this had not been ratified. Nevertheless, the Kuta committee did not indict him. Only Dr. Okadigbo was found wrong. Is this justice? Is this fair? Is this what lawyers and judges call selective indictment? 1. EXECUTIVE AND PARTY INTERVENTIONS After the presentation of Volume 2, without presentation of volume(s) 1, of the Kuta committee report, the Senate directed the Ethics, privileges and Public Petitions Committee to establish whether or not members of the Kuta Panel were influenced or biased by the PDP and/or the Executive Arm of government. The Report of this Committee is yet to see the light of day. However, it is established before the nation that: (a) Four PDP member of the Kuta Committee briefed the PDP Executive. (b) Senator Kuta and his Committee members discussed with President Obasanjo et. al. during, and after the deliberations of the Kuta Committee and (c) Senator Kuta told the world, on electronic and print media, that President Obasanjo had long ago found an axe to grind with Dr. Chuba Okadigbo. (d) The Kuta Panelists met with President Obasanjo after presenting their Report, as widely reported by the print media. (e) Volume 2 of the Kuta was published in the Tribune and on Internet before our Senators got the Report. Before his appointment as Chairman of the Ad-Hoc Committee, Senator Idris Kuta had condemned the past Senate Leadership. He even advocated the Sharia amputation of 'guilty' Senators. During the Public Hearings of his Committee, he made several prejudicial statements, such that Senator Olabiyi Durojaiye called attention of the Senate to the need for Ad-Hoc Committee members to discontinue judgemental pronouncements. Another member of the Kuta Committee, Sen. Femi Okurounmu, has been known for his virulent advocacy for the removal of Senate President, Chuba Okadigbo. Furthermore, Sen. Arthur Nzeribe has complained bitterly, openly and in the media that Ndigbo did not get contracts from the Chuba Okadigbo Presidency. See Exhibit 2, Press Clips. All these indicate the indisposition of some Kuta Committee members, especially Sen. Idris I. Kuta to fairness, equity and justice. The manner of presentation of the committee's reports is another case in point. It has been known that the Kuta Committee was indecently hasty and brash. For example, in presenting the report to the Senate, Vol. II (Findings and Recommendations) preceded Volume(s) I (Exhibits and Anneces). The latter were supplied two days after the presentation of Vol. II. Volume(s) 1 came after Senators insisted on knowing how the committee members reached the decisions given in Vol. II, without reference to Vol. I. Take note that whereas vol. 2 has 63 pages, Volume(s) 1 consists of 29 packs of Exhibits and Annexes with a total of 637 pages. Furthermore, Vol. 1 containing the findings and recommendation, are largely inconsistent with evidence given in Volume(s) 1. Therefore, the prejudice, was, and unfairness of the Kuta panel are patent. Similarly, the description of the Kuta Committee's judgments as exercises in witch-hunt, character assassination, and/or defamation have been established - beyond all reasonable doubt. Now, let me deal with the Kuta Panel's charges against me, one by one.
2. FAKE MINUTES It is most unfortunate that Exhibit 3 of the Kuta Panel report, i.e. the minutes of the meeting of principal officers held on June 21, 2000, on which the panel based its findings and recommendations, is fake. In the genuine copy, there is an item 9, which dealt with the ratification of the contract award for the furnishing of the Senate President's official residence at the cost of N37,211,570.00 This item was completely expunged from the fake 'minutes'. In its place, Item 10 in the genuine minutes appears as item 9, which deals with the approval for the installation of Satellite Dishes at Apo Legislative Quarters. I suspect that the Kuta Panel did not want it known that the body of Principal officers had ratified the furnishing of the Senate President's residence at the cost of N37,211,570.00. Perhaps, this is one way to cover up the facts that (a) Senator Enwerem collected N25 million for the same enterprise; (b) that Enwerem did not put any pin or furniture in the Apo residence of the Senate President; (c) that Enwerem paid his contractor only N8 million; and (d) that Chief Enwerem still has N17 million in his custody, despite correspondence from the Clerk of the National Assembly to the effect that he should refund the sum of N21 million. But at the end of this curious exercise, Dr. Okadigbo was indicted. On the other hand, the Kuta Panel claimed that Chief Enwerem had "ordered the furniture, which evidence shows he delivered, but were thrown out on orders of Senator Okadigbo". Which evidence? The TV video of Chief Enwerem's fancy? Take note that the National Assembly staff were NOT asked to verify Enwerem's claims. The Kuta Panel did NOT bother to question the staff of the National Assembly or FCDA who were still renovating the Apo Mansion when Dr. Okadigbo moved in. But the Kuta Panel recommended that Enwerem should pay the balance of whatever he owed his contractor, and thereafter "the furniture be taken over as Senate Property after verification". Subsequently, the Kuta Panel advised that Senator Enwerem should be "paid his approved entitlement of furniture as every other Senator"! See Page 52, Vol. 2 of the Kuta Committee report. On the other hand, the Kuta Committee recommend that Senator Okadigbo should "refund the sum of N12,211,570, "being the unauthorized excess expenditure on the furnishing of the Apo Mansion". It did not matter to the panel that the Apo Mansion was furnished for N33,828,700.00, while VAT and Withholding Taxes amounted to N3,382,870.00. Nor did the Kuta panel care to report that Dr. Okadigbo had made a minute to the Clerk of the National Assembly (which he tendered to the panel during public hearing) to the effect that the Senate limit of N25 million should be borne in mind. Exhibits Attached: (a) Relevant pages of the two minutes (Exhibit 3 of the panel's report vs. the authentic minutes); (b) Correspondence to Chief Enwerem from the Clerk and staff of the National Assembly and (c) Correspondence from Ozval Ventures. See my Exhibits 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D.
3. STREET LIGHTING CONTRACT Allegation: That the Hon. Speaker and myself were involved in the inflation of a N173 million street lighting project. The True Position: (a) Senator Mohammed Aruwa, as the then chairman of the Senate sub-committee on Transport and Security, was the initiator and promoter of this project before I became Senate President. He estimated that the job would cost N200 million. See Exhibit 7 of the Kuta Panel Report. (b) The body of Principal Officers at their meeting of 16th November 1999 (which was presided over by Senator Evan(s) Enwerem as the Senate President) duly considered and approved this project. See attachments MEMO/NASS/ACP/007, relating to Exhibit 1 of the panel's report. (c) The National Assembly bureaucracy analyzed the project papers, appointed a consultant for professional advice, invited and processed tenders from four companies and subsequently recommended the company that finally got the job (all in writing). The Enwerem-led Body of Principal Officers (involving the Senate and the House of Representtives) approved the use of Selective Tender for this project. (d) Based on professional reports, they increased or enlarged the scope of work beyond the FCDA menu. Take note that the same FCDA has since issued a certificate of completion to the relevant contractor. (e) Since the leadership of the Senate changed two days after the approvals given by the Body of Principal Officers on November 16, 1999, I gave authorization in order to activate the job as per earlier approvals and commitments. And no more. (f) The Kuta panel neither spoke with the speaker nor the contractor nor the FCDA before it reached its abrupt and unilateral decision. Nor did it assess or inspect the project. Exhibits: (a) Senator Aruwa's project analyses on his letter-head in his handwriting. See Exhibit 7 of the Kuta Committee Report. (b) Minutes of the 16th November, 1999 meeting of the body of principal officers (Exhibit 1 of the panel's report).
4. FURNISHING OF THE OFFICIAL RESIDENCE OF THE SENATE PRESIDENT Allegation: "That N37,211,570 for the furnishing of the Senate President's residence was above the Senate approved N25 million," and that consequently, I should refund the sum of N12,211,570, being the unauthorized excess expenditure on the furnishing of Apo Mansion". The True Position (a) As indicated earlier, the portion of the minutes of the Principal Officer's Meeting of June 21, 2000, relating to the ratification of this job at N37 million was expunged, whereas the Kuta committee peddled a fake replacement. (b) When my approval was sought for payment on this job, I minuted to the Clerk of the National Assembly and wrote clearly that the Senate approved amount was N25 million. See my Exhibit 3D. Furthermore, the body of principal officers ratified the sum of N37,211,570, given the extended scope of the residence and the status of the office of the Senate President, concomitant with the advice of the Deputy Senate President to this Body. (c) I have recently confirmed that the contractor was actually paid N33,828,700, whereas N3,382,870 represents VAT and Withholding Tax. See Exhibit. The contractor was paid directly by the National Assembly bureaucracy. No kobo was paid to me. Under these circumstances, how did the Kuta panel arrive at its conclusion? It is significant to mention that Chief Evan Enwerem collected N25 million personally for the same job during his tenure. But he did not furnish the residence at all. (d) He paid his furniture contractor N8 million. Where is the remaining N17 million? Where is the balance? He further claims that he delivered some furniture items on December 12, 1999 - 20 good days after his removal from the office of Senate President - and that such hypothetical furniture were purportedly rejected on my orders. Who told him this? Who saw the furniture? Who received the furniture and when? Who delivers or receives furniture by video, as Senator Enwerem claims to have done? Why did the Kuta panel not ask him to refund the money he took for a job he did not do and for which he was queried by the Clerk of the National Assembly? Why did the Kuta committee indict me and then free Enwerem? Exhibits: (a) Contract Award papers to Messrs. Ozval Ventures. See my Exhibit 3D N5 million Security Gadgets in the Senate President's residence Allegation: That N5 million was spent on "Security Gadgets in the Senate President's residence without authorization". This is a blatant lie. (a) The contract for this item was awarded and the gadgets were installed and paid for, during the tenure of Chief Enwerem as the Senate President. The documents on the award of this contract show the date. See Exhibit... (b) In spite of these facts which were available to the Panel, the Kuta Committee made adverse findings against me. I am totally innocent of this charge. As a matter of fact, the job was awarded before I was elected the Senate President, while it was completed before I moved into the official residence.
5. WELFARE PACKAGE Allegation: That although I was "not the approving authority I received it N22.95m for Sallah/Christmas without questioning." The True Position: I never collected a kobo for any welfare in December 1999 or at any time whatsoever. The Kuta Committee did NOT show how, when and where I received the said sum. The credit for the receipt must lie elsewhere. (a) I never solicited, initiated, approved or received N22.95m under whatever guise. (b) The Director of Financial Services made it known that the National Assembly bureaucracy followed established precedents, practice, and convention in the legislature, to provide this package through its own staff. (c) Therefore, it is unconscionable to claim that I received the said welfare package, without resort to any proof for document. (d) There is abundant evidence that a contract was awarded by the National Assembly (not signed by me) to Messrs. Owa Ventures, to supply various gift items to which the money was ascribed. I did not nominate this company and I do not know any of its directors or staff. I have no interest whatsoever in this company. Nevertheless, I understand that the funds were deployed towards the purchase and distribution of seasonal gift items to Legislators, friends, well-wishers of the National Assembly and other Nigerians. (e) Rather than castigate Chuba Okadigbo, I think that the least the Kuta Committee would have done was to engage in a full-scale investigation regarding the real original, circumstance and performance of this contract. Exhibits: Item 8, Table 3, Page 20 of the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Kuta Panel.
6. PURCHASE OF VEHICLES Allegations: (a) That have 32 cars in my fleet; and (b) That engineering the purchase of eight additional cars at N32m for the Senate President's fleet. The True Position: (a) The Senate President, his Personal Aides, Protocol Officers, Security (SSS and Mobile Policemen), Wife of the Senate President (and her Security Team(), Press Crew, Outstations in Lagos and Enugu, have a total of 20 cars, NOT 32. In my testimony to Kuta Committee, I enumerated the vehicles under my office. Surely, it is distressing that the Kuta Committee resorted to exaggerations just to indict me. Besides, a comparative analysis of the actual with what obtains in the executive would confirm our modesty. (b) Of the 20 vehicles, only 5 were personally used by the Senate President, viz. 1 Mercedez Benz 500 (staff car) and 1 605 Peugeot (back-up) in Abuja, 1 505 Peugeot (staff car) and 1 406 Peugeot (back-up) in Lagos; and 1 406 Peugeot and 1 505 Peugeot for the wife of the Senate President. All other vehicles were used by the Press, Protocol, SSS and Mobile Police. (c) I must note that, unfortunately and quite unusually, no staff in the office of the President had any car to his use, excepting 1 vehicle each for the Press and Protocol Departments, as indicated above. (d) I state categorically that I did not initiate any move for additional cars, as claimed by the Panel. As a matter of fact, it was the ADC to Chief Evan Enwerem as Senate President who originated a memo requesting for nine additional cars at the cost of N24.5m. This memo was addressed to then chairman of the Senate Services Committee, Senator A. T. Ahmed. All the necessary procedures were undertaken by him, Senators Aruwa and Ahmed, and the office of the clerk of the National Assembly. As a matter of fact, they entered into an arrangement with car dealers (as confirmed in writing by Senator M. Aruwa) for the supply of the cars. The Exhibits confirm these facts. Yet, the committee decided to indict me. (e) Senators Enwerem, Aruwa and A.T. Ahmed bought most of the other cars in the Senate. I neither knew nor negotiated car purchases. Significantly, though the Assembly lost money as a result, as the Panel noted, the same Panel did not indict them. (f) The business of storing cars or keeping the inventory thereof in not in the province of a Senate President, excepting the cars directly allocated to him. In my own case, Chief Enwerem handed over nothing to me, as I stated earlier. In the case of my successor, Sen. Anyim Pius Anyim, there has been a complete hand-over of practically everything that were under the office of the President of Senate during my tenure. Accordingly, it is wicked of the Kuta Committee to blame me for "8 additional cars (which could not be accounted for) for the Office of the Senate President bringing his fleet to 32. Such is abracadabra! I must say that the figure 32 is hypothetical. Take note that the Kuta Panel did not offer any shred of evidence to back-up its spurious claim. (g) It is noted that no other person, including NASS officials, excepting Dr. Okadigbo was asked to account for cars, missing or otherwise. One Senator who admitted selling his car to the Senate at an overlay inflated price was not indicted for this but merely asked by the Kuta Panel to "account properly for the vehicles he purchased for the National Assembly". See page 60 of the Vol. 2 in the Kuta Committee Report. Exhibit: (a) Copy of the memo written by Senator Enwerem's ADC, DSP Nwanedo Ndubisi, together with all the attachments. See my Exhibit 5.
7. INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING OF 100KVA GENERATOR AT AN INFLATED RATE OF N15 MILLION WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION Allegation: That I authorized this activity which the Kuta Panel saw as a scam. The Truce Position The truth is that the contract for the generator was initiated during Chief Enwerem's tenure as early as October, 1999, many weeks before November 18, 1999 when I was elected as President of the Senate. As such, the such, the Committee's Findings on this matter are completely erroneous. In addition, the committee fraudulently omitted the date of the contract award in this regard (see page 33 of Vol. II of the Report). Exhibits: (a) Contract award paper dated 15th November, 1999. (b) Page 33 of Vol. 2 of the Kuta Panel Report and my Exhibit 6.
8. ABDICATION OF RESPONSIBILITY Allegation: That abdicated my official responsibilities to Senator Gbenga Aluko. The True Position (a) I enjoy a very good relationship with distinguished Senator Gbenga Aluko, no more or less than with all other Senators. I never told the Kuta Committee that I specifically or unilaterally authorized Sen. Aluko to disburse contracts. How was the panel's decision reached? (b) Agreements reached at the meeting of the body of principal officers together with the Resolutions of the whole Senate were implemented by the Senate Services Committee. If there was any abdication, it was the whole Senate that abdicated its responsibility, not Dr. Chuba Okadigbo. Indeed, it was the Senate that suddenly dissolved the Senate Services Committee under Sen. A. T. Ahmed's chairmanship at a session over which Sen. Haruna Abubakar, Deputy Senate President presided. I understand that this committee was dissolved on grounds of general dissatisfaction of the Senators. And this dissolution was without my prior knowledge or consent. (c) Since the Panel accepted Senator Enwerem's position that he never gave Senator Aluko the authority to award any contract on his behalf, despite the numerous inconsistencies and half-truths in his testimony, why was it difficult for the same Panel to believe me, despite abundant evidence in support of my position? Exhibit: See Exhibit 7, State of Senate Accounts.
9. N 100M CONTRACT FOR COMPUTERS AND INFORMATION EQUIPMENT The True Position (a) The findings of the Kuta Committee on this subject are wrong. It was during the tenure of Chief Enwerem that the decision for the purchase of computers was taken. See page 5 of the minutes of the meeting of 16th November, 1999. (b) In any case, there was no explanation of my purported involvement. Yet I was unjustly held responsible for this. (c) For the avoidance of doubt, Chief Enwerem bought computers at N550,000.00 each. Subsequent procurements by Senator Aluko at N370,000.00 each (which were duly distributed to Senators) was assessed by the Panel to be inflated. Yet, Sen. Enwerem was not censored in any way. Under these circumstances, to hold Sen.. Enwerem as right and clean, and Aluko as wrong, dirty and condemned? This would amount to double standards and injustice.
10. CONTRADICTIONS The inherent injustice and contradictions in the Committee's Report are articulated in my formal Rebuttal, which has been circulated, titled, THE TRUTH WILL VINDICATE THE JUST. The catalogue of inconsistencies and varying parameters of justice for different Senators are pointers to the real motive of the Panel. Before, during and after my assumption of office of office as the Senate President, many Senators directly solicited jobs for designated companies in writing (in some cases, the companies belonging to them). Sample copies were given to the Committee by the Director of Financial Services and the director of Research and Suppliers. Many Senators were not indicted. Nor do I plead for their indictment. But why reprimand their colleagues who belonged to different groups? I suppose that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. As such, I suggest that the Kuta Committee's recommendation on this matter is grossly unfair and fundamentally un-Senatorial. Exhibit See my Exhibit 7.
11. CONCLUSION I cannot fail to comment on the decision of the Kuta Panel on my person. Rather unilaterally, it stated categorically that the Senate President (Okadigbo) must "resign honourably, failing which he stands removed." This wrongful arrogation of un-mandated power is one stroke that let the cat out of the bag. By this arrogant assertion, the Kuta Panel placed itself in the court of outright malice and odious contempt. The Senate should please take a hard look at the intentions and output of the Kuta Panel, having regard also to be doctrine of mens rea. Another sample of extravagance is to be found in page 62, Volume 2 of the Kuta Panel Report. I quote: "This entire report be forwarded to the Attorney-General of the Federation for further necessary action." All these in the name of what the Kuta Committee members referred to as "transparency and accountability," as in page 65, Vol. 2 of the Kuta Committee Report. May I humbly assert that this is outside the scope of the assignment given to the members of the Kuta Panel by the distinguished Senators of our Fourth Nigerian Republic. The implications of this diktat are obvious. Res Ipsa Loquitor (Let the facts speak for themselves), as the lawyers say. Mr. President, fellow Senators, this Senate is a law-making body. Therefore, it is expected to observe the Rule of Law, in all its ramifications. Right now, the extent of compliance of our distinguished Senators with the due process of Law is a matter of great, and perhaps grave public interest. Let us not fail or fall, by acting outside the Law, the due process and compliance with the Law of Evidence. May God guide this Fourth Senate and the relevant Senators, as we proceed to take decisions on the Report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Senate contract awards.
The Rt. Hon. Dr. CHUBA OKADIGBO
|
|
www.kwenu.com: Simply surprise yourself yonder! |