House hearing on power sector lacks credibility - Balarabe

Balarabe Musa

In this interview with Northern Region Bureau Chief, Hassan Ibrahim, Chairman of the Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP), Alhaji Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa speaks on the on-going probe of the power sector and other sundry issues: Excerpts:

How would you comment on the on-going public hearing on the power sector by members of the House of Representatives?
Well, the hearing lacks credibility even though it is desirable. It lacks credibility because the National Assembly is probing others when itself is probable and it has not probe itself, and even when it tried to probe one of them, the whole thing ended up as a kind of show. For example the House of Representatives investigated the contract for renovation of the residence of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker and found the Speaker guilty. All that they did was to remove the Speaker, the Speaker remains, still a member of the House of Representatives. They ought to have gone further by probing the former Speaker for possible commitment of fraud but they failed to do that and buried everything. Now if they were not able to probe a situation which was directly under their control, how do you expect them to probe a situation which is not under their control? for instance the mismanagement ,corruption, stealing or whatever it is of Obasanjo or his government, cannot enable the National Assembly to take direct action on it because their responsibility is oversight responsibility, they can only expose they cannot punish. In their own case, in the case of allegation against their Speaker, they could investigate and they investigated, they could probe but they couldn’t robe, they could punish but they actually didn’t punish besides removing her as Speaker and she still remains a member. So in other words what I am saying is that the oversight function of the National Assembly with regards to the activities of government lacks credibility because the National Assembly was unable to probe itself and therefore has no moral authority to probe anyone. But all the same, their action is desirable but it is being undertaken by a body that cannot do anything, in other words, you can regard their action as just a show, a drama.

Many Nigerians are skeptical of how the public hearing would end; they fear that those who benefited from the scandal may go unpunished. How do you see this Sir?
Yes, I agree, and there are proofs of this. For example, the Senate investigated the misuse of PTDF Funds by the former President and they found him guilty of a number of offences but they didn’t do anything about it.

How would you comment on the assertion by President Yar’Adua that he will fight corruption head on?
I don’t believe that Umaru Yar’Adua can fight corruption head on for two main reasons. The first is that he has not been able to explain the discrepancies in his assets declaration between 1999 when he became the Governor of Katsina State and 2007 when he became the President. In 1999 his declared assets was N64 million, in 2007 his declared assets was N900 million.

There is a difference of N836million within the period of 8 years when he was governor of Katsina State; he has not been able to explain how he came about this difference, that is one. Secondly, he was rigged into office as President of Nigeria by people who are alleged to be the worst corrupt leaders in the history of Nigeria such as Obasanjo and they installed him as President of Nigeria so that they can use him to cover up for themselves. Because of these two reasons, Umaru Yar’Adua cannot deal with this disabling level of corruption, stealing and waste in the country and the proof of this is the determination of Yar’Adua to kill the present anti corruption campaign, and he did, because this anti corruption campaign as we know it now, under the Code of Conduct, ICPC and n EFCC etc, is now dead like it was killed on two previous occasions. The anti corruption campaign now in the country has been killed, it remains only in hypocrisy.

Now because of this, how can you say Yar'Adua can credibly claim to be committed to anti corruption campaign and he would deal with it head on? He cannot for the three reasons I gave. The issue of his assets declaration, the issue of how he became President of Nigeria through rigged election and those who made him are there and they want him to protect them and thirdly the mishandling of the anti corruption campaign as signified by the mishandling of the issue of the leadership of the EFCC.

Election Petition Tribunals are upturning the elections of many governors, those affected are mainly of the PDP but you recently said the President will intimidate the judiciary…….
He has already intimidated the judiciary because he first of all, within a few months of the assumption of power as President, warned the judiciary over their judgments. Secondly, while his election petition was before the Federal Court of Appeal, i.e. the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, he promoted one of the judges to be a member of the Supreme Court under suspicious circumstances and this is quite clear. Thirdly, as President of Nigeria he ought to do more than what he is doing unless he is hampered by some moral problems.

Nigerians are complaining daily of rising cost of living especially that of food stuff…….
Yes, it is logical because this country is controlled by a socio-economic and political system based on the supremacy of self interest as opposed to the supremacy of public interest particularly in matters of the economy. In other words, there is a free for all in the economy; there is no control which means everybody can produce what price he likes without public control. We are in the seller’s market, while the income of the people is static, doesn’t move, prices of essential commodities are rising without control.

As it is today in Nigeria, there is very very limited price control if there is any. A seller can fix any price, it is not as it was in the past particularly during the colonial times and even during the First Republic when there was some restrain. When the government had a system particularly with regards to its servants where income was reviewed in the light of the rising cost of living. There is nothing like that now.