On October 16, 2005 , The Nigerian Village Square and the Guardian on Sunday carried a report by Laolu Akande, the newspaper’s North America Bureau Chief, which was an exclusive interview with Dr Ikemba Iweala, husband to Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Nigerian Minister of Finance.

There are two issues addressed by Dr Ikemba Iweala, but first, let’s deal with the not so important one. I say “not so important” because anybody choosing to complain about the address of the Minister of Finance, a public officer, being “revealed” in a report really has no case. The fact that Messrs Jonathan Elendu and Omoyele Sowore published the address of the minister’s home in Maryland , USA in an article shouldn’t have been an issue at all. In fact, the energy expended in accusations and counter-accusations on this matter is diversionary. It is enough for the Iwealas to point out that they’ve bought their house before she took up public office; but to say their lives or the lives of their children have been endangered by the publication of their address by these persons is simply laughable. Such information is in the public domain already; Sowore and Elendu therefore did nothing extraordinary by mentioning or reproducing it in whatever article they published.

Of course, it’s quite a different matter if she was specifically being accused of acquiring the said property by corrupt means, in which case one would expect her to resort to the courts rather than get family members who are no public officials to engage Sowore and Elendu in a shouting match and, worse still, for the minister herself to be reportedly engaging Mr Elendu in the same manner. She is a public official, so she should expect that information as basic as her home address is something of public interest. If she feels that the mentioning of her name or her address in the same article exposing allegedly corrupt Nigerian government officials impugns her integrity, she should be in court to seek redress, not seek to browbeat Elendu and Sowore into a guilt trap.

Anyway, the more important issue in the report is the claim by Dr Ikemba Iweala that Dr Mrs Okonjo-Iweala has since June this year stopped receiving her salary in dollars. Quoting Dr Ikemba Iweala, the reasons were that she did this because she felt it was “hampering her job, and she felt if that will make people feel better then she can do it”. To be frank, it is depressing to hear these as her reasons. Why has she decided to go personal when the issue is simply one of propriety, constitutionality and the rule of law? Since February 22, 2004 when The Guardian on Sunday brought the story to the public domain via publication of the explanation for the payments by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Ufot Ekaette, the public expectation and personal responsibility/liability of Mrs Okonjo-Iweala and Ambassador Olu Adeniji under the Constitution haven’t changed. The currency issue is only one in a series of constitutional issues raised by the payments. In fact, we can look at four separate Sections of Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999), which is part of the Code of Conduct provisions, to see how these payments clearly infringe our laws.

Section 1 clearly states:

A public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts with his duties and responsibilities.

With regard to this section, it is fair to say that the idea of collecting dollars as salary runs contrary to the legitimate expectations of Nigerians that part of the duty of their Finance Minister must be to protect the naira. It goes without saying that the Finance Minister was brought in to put policies in place to stabilize the national currency; but obviously her personal interest in taking her pay in dollars runs contrary to this idea of making the naira attain better value. In fact, the overall effect of what she has done for that period of two full years she’d collected her salary in dollars can be properly labeled as economic sabotage. So on that count, she and the president who should know better are in violation of this section, ditto the Foreign Minister, whose duty as part of the cabinet must necessarily include avoiding actions that can be construed as economic sabotage as well. The fact that the national currency has been massively devalued under their watch does not help their case.

Section 3:

The President, Vice -President, Governor, Deputy Governor, Ministers of the Government of the Federation and Commissioners of the Governments of the States, members of the National Assembly and of the Houses of Assembly of the States, and such other public officers or persons as the National Assembly may by law prescribe shall not maintain or operate a bank account in any country outside Nigeria.

The Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Mr Ufot Ekaette and Mallam Nasir el-Rufai told the world that the money being paid the ministers are not being collected and used in the Nigerian environment, but, quoting Nasir el-Rufai, this “goes straight to pay children’s university tuition, medical insurance, mortgage and other financial obligations these ministers had when they were called”. This of course implies that the ministers, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, must have been operating foreign bank accounts outside Nigeria, if only to meet these needs. For Mrs Okonjo-Iweala, that means public fund has been unlawfully and unconstitutionally expended in paying her mortgage abroad, be it for the property earlier mentioned or/and any other we may not know about, at least to the extent of how much she’d been unconstitutionally overpaid within the period she was collecting the said dollar salary. In fact, the Washington house has since been identified by Nasir el-Rufia as the house for which the mortgage was being paid directly from the said salary. It therefore follows that despite having bought the house in 1994 as stated by her husband, the fact that paying the mortgage was part of the reason for her being paid this salary in dollars for at least two years indicates that public fund has been unlawfully expended towards maintaining her/their ownership of the property within the duration of the time she continued to collect the salary or as far as such mortgage is still being paid (if it’s still being paid) from Nigeria’s public coffers in whatever form.

Section 9:

A public officer shall not do or direct to be done in abuse of his office an arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of any other persons knowing that such act is unlawful or contrary to any government policy.

This Section strongly suggests the president may have abused his office and the ministers may have also done same by conspiring with him to do so. By arbitrarily arrogating to himself the power to make such salary deals, President Obasanjo has opened himself to that charge and by accepting and benefiting from such an act, and, considering their positions, the two ministers are clearly in breach as well. These acts, of course, are prejudicial to the rights of other cabinet members earning the lawful salary especially and also prejudicial to the rights of the ordinary Nigerian taxpayer who does not expect to be shouldering such burden by virtue of the fact that the amounts are far and above what the law has stipulated as salaries for all ministers.

Section 13 :

A public officer who does any act prohibited by this Code through a nominee, trustee, or other agent shall be deemed ipso facto to have committed a breach of this Code.

This Section talks about a breach if these prohibited acts are done through a nominee, trustee or other agents. This is exactly what is reported and admitted to have been done in this case as the money was/is being paid through the Nigerian Diaspora Trust Fund. That is a direct breach and it does not matter whether the UNDP or other donors are involved. The Constitution is very clear as to what constitutes a breach here and leaves no room for exemptions by emphasizing that there is a breach ipso facto, that is by that very act. It is the equivalence of a strict liability offence to which you cannot plead any defence. The very fact of the act done is conclusive proof of guilt. Thus, Okonjo-Iweala cannot say Obasanjo or the UNDP made her accept the deal; the fact that she accepted the deal, irrespective of how and why is enough to establish a breach. Same goes for Ambassador Olu Adeniji.

More crucially though is the direct infringement of the Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances, etc) Act No 6 2002, which specifically mentions the office of the Minister as entitled only to the sum of N794, 085 per annum as salary. This Act does not say they should be paid this money in another currency or any equivalence of the naira neither does it give room for them to be paid more. It simply says they should be paid that specific amount in naira as salary. Further, it should be noted that this particular law is a direct response to a constitutional mandate given the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) as a Section 153 (1) statutory body, whose powers are as contained in Section (32)(d), Part 1, Third Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999). This clearly gives the Commission the power to "determine the remuneration appropriate for political office holders, including the President, Vice-President, Governors, Deputy Governors, Ministers, Commissioners, Special Advisers, Legislators and the holders of the offices mentioned in sections 84 and 124 of this Constitution".

It is therefore not in doubt that Dr Mrs Okonjo-Iweala and Ambassador Olu Adeniji have severally breached our laws by accepting the payments of $247, 000 (two hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars) and $120, 000 (one hundred and twenty thousand dollars) per annum respectively as salaries from the time of accepting their appointments. They cannot claim any right to negotiate their salaries, because you do not negotiate a statutorily stipulated salary and they also cannot claim to have been forced or persuaded by the president to accept this, because the president has no power to grant the privileges he’s granted them. More importantly, each of the individuals involved here, whether president or minister, has personal responsibility and strict liability constitutionally.

So, the above are the constitutional liabilities of the president, Dr Mrs Okonjo-Iweala and Ambassador Adeniji as far as this dollar salary issue is concerned. If, as we are told, Dr Mrs Okonjo-Iweala has now stopped collecting her salaries in dollars, it does not vitiate the fact that for two years, she’s collected this in breach of the law. Whatever the reasons she puts forward for this change of heart, the ultimate reason is that it was and still is unlawful. If therefore she’s ready to make amends legally, she has to do so properly. It’s absolutely inappropriate that after the public uproar that greeted the revelations, she didn’t even have the courtesy to tell Nigerians with her own mouth, in a procedurally appropriate manner, about such a decision. Nigerians did not employ Dr Ikemba Iweala as Finance Minister neither is he the minister’s official spokesperson. The least the minister could have done was to tell Nigerians, rather than leave it to her husband to throw it in as some kind of by the way remarks in an interview mainly registering his displeasure at their address being reproduced by Messrs Elendu and Sowore in their report.

However, having done so, this revelation has raised more questions. There are actually two versions of Mr Akande’s report that I have read. The version published by The Guardian on Sunday on October 16, 2005 did not indicate that Mrs Okonjo-Iweala is now collecting the amount in naira constitutionally stipulated for her office. Anyone reading this very report gets the impression that all she has done was to convert her dollar salary into naira equivalent, which still leaves her well short of doing the right thing. However, reading Mr Akande’s report of this interview on the Nigerian Village Square , Dr Ikemba Iweala is quoted further as saying the minister is “now being paid the same amount that is being paid other ministers” and not the equivalent of what she was collecting in dollars prior to June 2005. The implication of this of course is that she is now being paid N794, 085 per annum instead of $247, 000 which is the amount unlawfully being paid to her before now. One would have thought this particular information is newsworthy enough for The Guardian on Sunday to include in its published version of Mr Akande’s report. Why they did not do so baffles me greatly, because clearly, that should have been the crux of the report, rather than reporting the mere “domestication” of her salary or the family’s anger at their Washington address being published.

Nevertheless, as the newspaper that brought this whole issue to the attention of Nigerians, The Guardian must once again beam its searchlight on this matter in order to properly inform the Nigerian people what is going on exactly. It is surprising that the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Mr Ufot Ekaette has not found it necessary to address Nigerians on the fact that Mrs Okonjo-Iweala is no longer receiving her salary in dollars and that she is now being paid in naira the same sum paid to the other ministers. The Guardian must let us know the effect of Mrs Okonjo-Iweala’s decision on the Nigerian Diaspora Trust Fund, which, according to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and Mallam Nasir el-Rufai was actually set up to pay Okonjo-Iweala the dollar salary. What is the effect of her present position on Ambassador Olu Adeniji, the other minister receiving the dollar salary payment? Does the claim that she’s now receiving the same salary as other ministers mean they are all receiving the lawfully stipulated amount of N794, 085 (seven hundred and ninety-four thousand and eighty-five naira) per annum? Are there or are there no separate deals outside the formal salary to continue to pay the “children’s university tuition, medical insurance, mortgage and other financial obligations these ministers had when they were called”, at least as these concern Mrs Okonjo-Iweala now that we’re being informed she’s given up the dollar salary?

The Guardian is aware that the new UNDP Administrator, Kemal Derviş visited Nigeria just over a week ago and in none of his meetings with the President, the Finance Minister, the Central Bank Governor or Mallam Nasir el-Rufai (who actually granted him the key to the city of Abuja in a ceremony) did any of the parties mention the so-called UNDP administered Nigeria Diaspora Trust Fund. Up till now, the UNDP and those who have spoken on behalf of the Nigerian government on this matter (the President, Ibrahim Mantu and Nasir el-Rufai) have been saying different and contradictory things about the UNDP’s role. Nigerians would like to know exactly what the UNDP’s role is in the matter. Are they merely administering the Trust as they claim (making no financial contribution whatsoever) or are they financial contributors as President Obasanjo and those who speak for the government are claiming? Who are the “development partners” supposedly also contributing and what are the terms of their contributions? Why has information about the Nigeria Diaspora Trust Fund remained outside the public domain, even after the UNDP had promised at the beginning of the revelations to make this publicly available? We have tried pursuing this matter with Mr Malloch Brown, the former UNDP Administrator, but he did everything to avoid addressing the issues raised in 19 straightforward questions posed to him about this affair. The Guardian must pursue this matter now with the new Administrator, Mr Kemal Derviş and the UNDP Resident Representative, Mr Tegegnework Gettu.

Of course, Mr Obasanjo’s penchant for lawlessness, unconstitutionality and impunity is well known and, without a doubt, this is what is being reflected in the actions of his ministers as well. But the Nigerian people should not relent in restating the fact that any proposed reform that first requires that implementers ride roughshod over our laws and Constitution certainly cannot be good for us. The argument that the president and these ministers have good intentions is patently ridiculous; after all, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions! Nigerians must continue to let Obasanjo and those who collude with him in this reign of lawlessness know that one day they all will still have to answer to the laws and the Constitution of our country. Yeah, they can play God as much as they want today, but the time will come when they all would answer to the law of the land. The Nigerian people may be exceptionally patient; but they are not afraid, because, as Shakespeare would say, it is only the eyes of childhood that fears a painted devil. The Nigerian people have grown in suffering and betrayal; the only thing left is for them to show those that are supposedly leading them that they’ve learnt.

On this very matter, The Guardian has taken us this far; it should see it through in line with its enviable tradition as a public trust.

Robot  # 1 | 20.10.2005 08:25

Link to the article is here

Yakub Tijani  # 2 | 20.10.2005 09:02

It is not an offence to have an unpopular opinion,but it is criminal if such opinion is biased. I personally disagree with the way Mrs Okonjo-Iweala reacted on phone,but anybody would have done similar thing out of provocation.She is paid in dollars,and so?This is ridiculously unfair to the personality of Mrs Okonjo-Iweala.For Christ\'s sake,who on earth expects this woman to abandon a position she has laboured to attain at the World Bank.....only to pick up less than 70,000 Naira per month...all in the name of patriotism...in the same country where you can not predict what happens in the next minute. Please,let us be fair in our analysis. null

Don Bebeyo  # 3 | 20.10.2005 09:43

Kennedy: This is exactly what we have all done in reacting to her outbursts. You have just hit the nail on the brain. There was never a time she was legally or morally right on the salary issue or on her outbursts against Elendu and Sowore. If she can\'t give the same sacrifices, that she inflicts upon Nigerians in the name of \"economic reforms\" she should quit and return back to POTOMAC or the World Bank, no biggie! Nigeria has not changed since she became minister of finance, so it won\'t make any difference if an armed robber is the finance minister. The Guardian newspaper reporter is playing a funny role in the on-going anti-corruption exposees. It was very obvious from the reports on Bafarawa and Iweala (let\'s not talk about the \"Prof. Gabriel Oyibo-dollar-for-Nobel-prize reports-Didn\'t see his name this year on the list of winners, I am I missing something?). Let them go back to her and ask her to reveal her salary and benefits in naira terms. -Don T. Bebeyo London

Guest  # 4 | 20.10.2005 09:50

Kenn, Talking to a dead horse is a waste of time. But though I think it is a waste of time talking about these issues, I will still thank you as if ever there was a thing as time well wasted, I think this is the closest on would come to that. Discussions should be sensible and I for one will not waste time in sensless discussions as (reported)abuse about the making public of already public information about a (suposedly) public fugure. I\'m glad you didn\'t waste your time too over this. If the reported address was false, this would have been seen in a different light. Concerning the issue of dollar Salary, we have already noted the crimes: -Overpayment above stipulations,conflict of interest outright breaking of the laws The crimes of the ministers in question have been well documented and I think the people that matter are already aware of these crimes being commited against Nigeria and Nigerians in the name of the World Bank, IMF , Harvard and other such foolishness. I have take consolation in the fact that one day of retribution is enough to correct the unrightousness of a lifetime. The Finance and foreign minister and the Government cannot pretend not to have known the implications of their actions, but they did these things anyway, because they think Nigerians are less than \"MUGUS\" and of course, many Nigerians are proving them right. The government and their officials definitely know their actions are wrong, they are also aware of the deadly possibilities of the consequences retribution, a.k.a, the Jerry Rawling treatment. However, most of them think that by maintaining homes and stupendous fortunes abroad, they have an escape hatch. They haven\'t been keeping up with the news. They should read up on what is happening to Pinnochet of Chile right now in his twilight years. Definitely, some of them will get away with their crimes, but many will not. Let them keep their mansions and passports at the ready

Guest  # 5 | 20.10.2005 09:58

\"All these jealousy and envy coming from my enemies\", apology to Tupac Shakur. Mr. Emetulu, who has been a jealous and jobless lawyer from time immemorial has found another energy to continue the show of envy against the Hon. Minister who is deserving of every cent/dollar received since assuming office. Mr. Emetulu does not have credibility here on NVS and after a couple of years wasted by trying to discredit credible people, he decided to lay low only for him to rear his ugly head again when the Hon. Minister\'s name was mentioned again. My only question for him now is, would he accept the same deal if he were the Hon. Minister and in the same circumstances? If yes, then shut up for good. If no, then, may be he should lobby hard for an appointment or elective office or even join or establish an NGO in promoting a better Nigeria, where he would give all of his energy and time for a pittance after having established himself and his family abroad like the Minister has done. I have said this to him before and I am saying it again now: Some Nigerians are penny wise and pounds foolish. I have no doubt in my mind that Finance Minister deserved every penny of the amount paid to her. It must also be said that Nigeria is not the only country the UNDP has assisted in bringing credible technocrat to play a role in her development, and definitely, Nigeria will not be last country so helped. myhotbrain.

Guest  # 6 | 20.10.2005 10:22

Yourhotbrain: Anytime, there is a contrary, suddenly toxi and vile comments pop up against the writer. The Iweala\'s story last week was the same. Her loyalists diverted attention away from her rudeness and the real substance of the story. It was attack galore against Elendu/Sowore. Kenn made really vital points. I don\'t care if he failed as a lawyer, afterall, Ngozi Iweala is a failed finance minister!

N.A.R  # 7 | 20.10.2005 10:32

I like they way that some of us in the Diaspora at times we set our “Nigerianess” aside and become very law quoting a law abiding citizens, it makes me laugh many times. Ken, there are several misleading or mute points about your article. Now ate the very beginning, you are very conveniently and expertly deviating from the crux of the argument, please refrain from that. The main point about her residential address is not the publishing of the address itself, that’s a minor issue, and this you know, its is the fact that without prior disclosures or corruptly enriching herself, by the Dymanic duo, insinuate that by her residence being in the same locality as the other allegedly corrupt politicians she herself is corrupt, you are a pretty smart lawyer, you cannot deny that was the crux and intent of their inclusion of her in that article. How, may I ask does the story gain from the mention of her name and address? If not but for the sole purpose of dragging her name and integrity into the discussion, and then probably into the mud. Please be realistic with your analysis. Secondly it is very convenient for you ask her to “behave” professionally when she spoke to Mr. Elendu, ah, she should not have engaged in a shouting match, fine, how can we fault you on that argument? Oh yes you are correct, that is when you again conveniently hold her up to the standards on the international community…again conveniently forgetting how such a disclosure in a place like Nigeria can grossly damage her reputation and intergrity. Then you suggest that she should have gone to court to seek redress and justice from the duo, HA! Really? Okay I have nothing to say to that. BUT, yes indeed maybe, (just maybe) she should not have exploded like that but she should now go to court! Okay sir! Now very quickly to you sectional arguments, I like your legal angle but that’s not the only way to look at it I think. Section 1. Completely mute! In what way does her salary in Nigeria in whatever currency present a personal interest conflict? Will her monthly dollar salary reduce the exchange rate of the Naira to the dollar? Will it prevent her from promoting sound economic policies for the country? The finance minister’s duties go far beyond the stabilization of the national currency; the national currency is not stabilized by the currency in which a salary is paid but by sound economic and financial policies, and economic transaction of the country. In fact if I recall some countries allow the dollar to be spent along side their local currencies for everyday use. Section 3: Hmm, I was a bit mystified by this explanation. Her Husband is resident abroad, her children are resident abroad, she herself has been resident abroad for over a decade, so because she ONLY is now resident in Nigeria, ALL family accounts must now be operated in Nigeria and naira? Does that even sound like it makes sense to you? And besides, have you forgotten that you can LEGALLY operate a foreign currency bank account in almost all Nigerian banks? Do you have any information that says she is being paid in dollars to a foreign account? If you do lets have it, even then, your argument again is mute! Section 9 and 13: The arguments above prove that the argument you make here will not hold water. You have not pointed out ANY section of the constitution that has said clearly and simply and strictly that to pay a government official in dollars is a breach of the law, you have not quoted any section that tells us that the federal government of Nigeria is forbidden to conduct transactions in any currency other than the Nigerian Naira. I strongly suspect that the president of Nigeria is not violating the constitution by conducting certain transactions in foreign currencies as the constitution to the best of my knowledge does not restrict him to do so. You have argued that they are not to operate foreign bank accounts now that is completely different from prohibiting them from engaging in foreign currency transactions, in case you have forgotten, the payment of a salary is the execution of a an agreement between two parties. It is a business transaction between the two parties. Again is the president prohibited from conducting business in foreign currencies? You have a point in section 13, but if the earlier arguments do not hold, neither does that one. Now when you say: …More crucially though is the direct infringement of the Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances, etc) Act No 6 2002, which specifically mentions the office of the Minister as entitled only to the sum of N794, 085 per annum as salary. This Act does not say they should be paid this money in another currency or any equivalence of the naira neither does it give room for them to be paid more. It simply says they should be paid that specific amount in naira as salary… I will say to you, I am not a lawyer, but I am sure it can be argued also to the contrary. Now indeed the act quoted above says that the salary should be paid in Naira, this is only normal as Naira is the nation’s official currency. Hence all its documents and computation and done in Naira. Now does that act contain a statement that’s says salaries should be paid in Naira and NO OTHER CURRENCY? From what you have written the act is SILENT on this issue as it was not expected to arise, hence it is not a clear and cut and dry as you try to make it look like. I will return to conclude my arguments.

Guest  # 8 | 20.10.2005 10:40

You are right that Jonathan Elendu and Sowore are pretty dynamic! Only you know why you\'re after these two. That informs all your blind arguments. Your argument above suffers from bitterness. There is really no point at all to it, otherwise. You started a thread on these two and most of the respondents told you to get over your inferiority, but apparently you are stuck. Good luck with your ego-issues. I am looking forward to your comments per the latest story on Ibori. I shall return too!

Guest  # 9 | 20.10.2005 11:35

Emetulu is a one trick pony. Having failed to bring down the finance minister on this dollar issue last year, he is back now, riding on the coat tails of his boys in the hood Sowore and Elendu. He lost my support from the 1st paragraph when he started by supporting those two noise makers. This is the kind of thing that he will use to make his name. Yet, like his colleagues Oronto Douglas and Ebenezer Babatope give him one chance and he will be changing the tune. Penny wise Pound foolish idiot.

EezeeBee  # 10 | 20.10.2005 11:40

my \'cold\'brain, You have demonstrated your fundamental inability to discuss substantive issues with your misplaced carping against the person submitting the write up rather than its contents. You ask a foolish question and follow it with an imbecilic suggestion: \"My only question for him now is, would he accept the same deal if he were the Hon. Minister and in the same circumstances? If yes, then shut up for good. If no, then, may be he should lobby hard for an appointment or elective office or even join or establish an NGO in promoting a better Nigeria, where he would give all of his energy and time for a pittance after having established himself and his family abroad like the Minister has done.\" You conveniently forget that the Honorable Minister was at NO POINT forced at gunpoint to accept the job. Since the era of slavery is past we EACH have the opportunity to assess what it will take to do ANY job and decide whether or not to accept it. The jobs we accept or turn down are an indication of our value system or particular circumstances at a given point. You may complain about corruption and other wrongs dotting the Nigerian landscape but in your myopia, it doesn\'t occur to you that there is anything wrong with requiring a special \'deal\' to appoint a minister. If there was nothing wrong with Nigeria, why would the Honorable Minister (or ANY other person) have to receive a \'pittance?\' Is there something special and unique about us because we are currently domiciled in diaspora? Do you think that you are suddenly more \'deserving\' of financial rewards than the Nigerian on the street because you happen to be abroad? If your answer to any of these questions is in the affirmative, you are part of the problem and vastly removed from the solutions to Nigeria\'s problems.

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---