02 Mar 2007 |
|
The Senate and the PTDF probe THE report of the Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba Committee on the Petroleum Technology Development Fund, had hardly reached the desk of the Senate President, before interested parties particularly the Federal Government began to use it to play politics, pointing to its one-sided declarations as a confirmation of the Federal Government/EFCC's earlier insistence that the Vice President, Atiku Abubakar and his close friends are guilty of diversion and embezzlement of public funds. {mosgoogle}The Senate ad-hoc committee, set up to investigate allegations of impropriety in the handling of the Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF), had in its report given three controversial rulings: (a) that President Obasanjo had acted outside the law but he should be advised to follow due process in the future, (b) that Vice President Atiku diverted and mismanaged public funds and should be sanctioned; and (c) that certain other persons, Adamu Maina Waziri, Ahmed Vanderpuye, Hussein Jallo, Hamisu Abubakar and Otunba Johnson Fasawe, should refund money to the Federal Government and face prosecution. There are other recommendations about the structure and management of the PTDF, its enabling Act, and the Marine Float Account, but these are not so controversial. The partisan discussion of the report was played up to the extent that the impression was soon created that the findings of the Ndoma-Egba committee represent the final position of the Senate in the matter. Indeed, the selfish manner in which the Federal Executive Council romanticised the report seemed designed to convey such an impression. However, the submission of a minority report by a member of the panel, Senator Titus Olupitan (AC, Ondo); the objections of the Vice President and his supporters, and general affirmations that the committee, dominated by PDP members, has questions to answer: questions about the integrity of its conclusions, and the composition of the committee, have laid this myth to rest. But for record purposes, it is worth reiterating that what has been done by the Senate Ad-hoc Committee on the controversial PTDF does not have much weight in terms of its present implications. The value of the Committee is derived from Section 62 of the 1999 Constitution which empowers the National Assembly to set up committees for the facilitation of its work; but such a committee can only make recommendations which would then be considered by the House (section 62(4). It is also properly within the powers of the National Assembly to inquire into how public funds are used (Section 80); the National Assembly is also empowered in law to conduct investigations (Section 88), and to collect evidence in the process (Section 89). In the PTDF matter, these are the powers that the Senate has so far exercised. But the Victor Ndoma-Egba committee report, and the Olupitan report represent only the beginning of a process; and not an end in itself. The Federal Executive Council is not in any position to suggest what should be done with the report, to do so would be utterly presumptuous. What is important is the treatment of the report (s) by the Senate. The Senate President's assurance that the Senate is interested in facts and figures, not emotions, is reassuring. Already, we have an Upper House that is radically divided on the matter. It is also clear that the Victor Ndoma-Egba report would be considered along with the Olupitan minority report. The handling of the PTDF matter will turn out, like the politics of Third Term, to be a test of the integrity of the Senate and by extension, the National Assembly. We are faced with a process, the exact end of which no one can predict. Unfortunately, all this is happening at a time when Nigerians are preparing for the 2007 elections. A crisis of confidence, such as has developed at the highest levels of government serves no redemptive purpose - the polity is now over-heated to a much higher degree; the people are distracted, not knowing what exactly is going on. In the PTDF scandal, the lines between the political and the legal, the moralistic and the constitutional are too dangerously blurred with the nagging fear that the resolution of the crisis can only further divide the ruling elite as they turn their private differences into the sub-text for national politics. The Senate, in the days ahead, will necessarily find itself being closely monitored. The options before it are as follows: it can adopt either the Victor Ndoma-Egba report as it is, or adopt the Olupitan minority report. It can also reject both reports, or set up another committee to take a second look at both reports, and make further recommendations. It can in fact, do nothing. A do-nothing approach would be in form of a long, open-ended discussion of the reports, with short interludes and adjournments, until the PTDF crisis and the politics of it are overtaken by time and circumstances. But should the Senate choose to be bullish, the only power available to it is as provided in Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution, dealing with impeachment of the President or Vice President. If the Senate finds the President or the Vice President or both of them guilty of gross misconduct, the best that it can do is to commence impeachment proceedings against one or the other or both. But this must be done according to law. Section 143 is detailed and unambiguous. The operative clause is defined in 143 (11): "In this section, gross misconduct means a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the National Assembly to gross misconduct". However, can the National Assembly reach a consensus on the definition of "gross misconduct"? Can the country afford the tension that this will bring? Would talk of impeachment at this time not derail the electoral process? These questions are relevant and my gut response is that the politics of impeachment, in this context, is an ill-wind that can bring no good. If either the President, or the Vice President or both are found liable, it would perhaps be wiser to censure them publicly, with a vote of no confidence in the government, and then recommend both men for prosecution as soon as they leave office. Beyond this, a review of the majority and minority reports now before the Senate draws attention to a number of certain broad deductions. The first is that there is a lot of lawlessness at the highest levels of government. The President was accused of acting outside the law, while the Vice President and others are accused of diverting public funds. The majority report had tried to present the President's conduct as excusable and the Vice President's as criminal. I share the view that such construction of degree of liability is questionable. Nothing can be more scandalous than a President acting outside the law. He took an oath to defend the laws of the land. When he violates the same laws, he places the country at risk, abuses his office and should be made to answer for that. Why would the Ndoma-Egba committee pretend to be acting in an advisory capacity to the President? And what kind of advice is that? It is well-known that the Obasnajo government has consistently been selective in its respect for due process. The two past Chief Justices of Nigeria (Uwais and Belgore) had cause to protest publicly about this. In the case of the Vice President, a lot has been said by his supporters about how the ad-hoc committee merely adopted the position expressed in the Federal Government's White Paper indicting him. There is no point repeating their objections. To an ordinary Nigerian, the entire episode reaffirms the fact that both due process and integrity mean little in the corridors of government. Second, the revelations that have attended the PTDF have been so squalid and incredulous. The ad-hoc committee report did not go far enough to investigate other matters that were thrown up by the Vice President in his presentation before the committee. In spite of all the revelations so far, also, there is still a lot that we do not know about how government business has been conducted in the past eight years. It seems to me that one task before the National Assembly is to examine other unanswered questions in the PTDF reports. The public's right to know should be protected. Besides, only God knows how many other categories of public funds have been similarly mismanaged. Definitely, a future government would have a lot to do, and reveal, if it chooses to probe the Obasanjo years. A third preliminary observation is how the entire government machinery in Abuja has been overtaken by politics for its sake. The conflation between morality and legality in the PTDF case owes largely to the fact that it is seen as part of a larger political subject, not the anti-corruption campaign but the President's personal war against the Vice President: his resolve to embarrass him, stop him from running for Presidency in the 2007 elections and possibly ensure that he ends up in handcuffs. This is the sub-text of it all; the processes that have led to this moment can be easily recalled. One, the EFCC had prepared a report on the PTDF which it made public and submitted to the Presidency for action. The substance of the EFCC report was its indictment of the Vice President and his associates. Two, the President promptly set up an Administrative panel headed by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice which upheld the findings of the EFCC. By now, the Vice President and his boss were at each other's throats, trading accusations. Three, the Federal Government issued a White Paper in which it endorsed the conclusion that the Vice President is guilty of corruption. Four, the President then wrote a letter to the Senate, with a copy of the EFCC report on PTDF, the Administrative Panel report as well as other documents, with the recommendation that the Senate should look into the matter. This was correctly interpreted as an attempt by the President to get the Vice President impeached. Five, the Senate in its wisdom, obviously to avoid the charge of partisanship, decided to conduct its own investigations; it then set up a 13-man committee headed by Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba. From the beginning, the composition of the committee was controversial. And while the committee carried out its assignment, the feud between the President and the Vice President got messier, with so many cases in courts; the display of dirty linen in the public; the emergence of the Vice President as the most prominent critic of the administration, if not a thorn in the President's flesh. The Vice President also left the ruling PDP and joined the Action Congress! The import of this background is that whatever the Senate chooses to do in the PTDF matter is bound to be read not as a contribution to the anti-corruption campaign, but as an extension of the Obasanjo-Atiku feud. Incidentally, the Senate finds itself in much the same position in which the national legislature found itself in South Africa in the Jacob Zuma case and in Malaysia in the Anwar Ibrahim case. Zuma, former Vice President of South Africa was removed from office on the grounds of immorality and corruption. Anwar Ibrahim, former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia fell out with his boss, Mahathir Muhammad; he was removed from office and later sentenced to six years imprisonment for corruption and sodomy...The National Assembly should act only in the nation's overall interest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.