Senate, Ribadu and the anti-corruption drama

By Taiwo Adisa

Nuhu Ribadu

IT was quite predictable that the goalpost shifting exercise going on at the Economic and financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) will not miss the attention of the Nigerian Senate when it eventually resumed for the plenary session after the chamber’s yuletide break. On Wednesday January 23, barely a week after their resumption, the Senators picked up the gauntlet and debated the EFCC matter. Senator Sola Akinyede (PDP Ekiti South) who moved the motion co- sponsored by 14 other Senators expressed the worry of the Senators at the recent developments in the EFCC.

The motion indicated that the Senators were, “Concerned that there was a growing concern by the Nigerian public and the international community about the signals emanating from the recent developments at the EFCC “Observes that this concern relates to the tempo and direction of the war on corruption and financial crimes “Observes that virtually all our major partners in the international community including Transparency International and the United Nations have expressed their concern.

“Observes that recently, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes stated that it requires re-assurance before it continues with a $30 million anti-corruption facility which it has planned for Nigeria. “Observes that the increase in Direct Foreign Investment in Nigeria and the delisting of Nigeria from the list of Non-Cooperating Nations and Territories by the Financial Action Task force (FATF) is a direct result of the action of the EFCC against the perpetrators of Advance Fee Fraud (419) and related offences, and a direct benefit of the gains Nigeria has made in the fight against corruption and economic and financial crimes.”

The motion also indicated that it was important that the Nigerian public and the international partners are reassured about the tempo and direction of the war against corruption and that the war would not be mooted. Senators who contributed to the motion largely supported the need to strengthen the anti-corruption war. Though the motion was not about the Chairman of the Commission, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, who is proceeding on a year study leave at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, it was difficult not to mention the man who has personalized the nation’s war against corruption during the deliberations. Senate President, David Mark, who presided over the sitting acknowledged the fact that when he declared that “this motion is not about Ribadu but it has become difficult to discuss the war on corruption in Nigeria without talking about Ribadu. I think it also shows that Ribadu has done his job very well.”

The Senate is a chamber ruled by politics and Senators hardly speak without displaying their political dispositions. Thus in discussing the motion, some Senators betrayed the fact they may not be at home with Ribadu’s tactics at the EFCC. But a majority of Senators spoke in favour of the EFCC boss while others expressed the fear that some elements of the President Umaru Yar’Adua’s administration might be plotting to derail the anti-corruption war by scheming Ribadu’s exit from EFCC. While seconding the motion, Senate Deputy Minority Leader, Senator Olorunnimbe Mamora, said that Nigerians are feeling that the tempo of the war on corruption is going down. To him, the government has to show that it is committed to the war on corruption.

“The war must go on because the effect of corruption is very enormous,” he said. Senator George Sekibo who also linked the tempo on the war on corruption to Ribadu’s fate at the EFCC said: “This motion is not about any individual. It is about an institution. Nigerians see the transfer of the chairman of the EFCC as an attack on the war on corruption. We should do everything possible to ensure commitment of the executive to the war.” A Senator who is noted for his hard stance on issues, Senator Uche Chukwumerije told the Senate that he believed that the greatest achievement of Nigeria since independence is the creation of EFCC. “It brought the fear of God into the heart of our leaders. Because of EFCC, I have begun to have some soft heart for the Obasanjo administration in spite of all the atrocities,” he said. Senate Minority Leader, Senator Maina Maaji Lawan accused elements of the Yar’Adua of attempting to derail the war against corruption by the way Ribadu is being shoved aside. “The issue is that Nuhu Ribadu made a great mark, he may have his mistakes but it doesn’t mean that you throw away the baby and the birth water. We should correct his mistakes and let things move on. The war on corruption was taken to irreversible level during the tenure of former President Obasanjo with Ribadu as the arrowhead. “There are fears that a reversal of these strides is being engineered by some elements in Yar’Adua administration. I know that the President wants to fight the war on corruption, but he needs the support of all of us. With due respect, some of the utterances of the Attorney General can be seen as aimed at frustrating the war on corruption,” the Senator said.

His views were backed by Senator Bassey Ewah-Henshaw who chronicled the series of events leading to the announcement of the study leave for Ribadu. He said that sequence of events including the termination of an on-going EFCC trial of a governor by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the declaration that all EFCC trials must originate from the AGF and the discovery that the AGF wrote a London court clearing a governor who is now being tried by the EFCC ,are signals that certain moves were being orchestrated within the administration against the EFCC boss. “If Nigerians and foreigners are raising objections and fears about the happenings at the EFCC there is something to it,” the Senator said. He also wants a firm declaration by the Senate that it is only the President with the confirmation of the Senate that can appoint the chairman of the EFCC and not the Inspector General of Police (IGP).

According to the Senator, the President should first make up his mind whether he want to re-appoint Ribadu as EFCC chairman and if he decides to the contrary he should send him back to the police before the IGP can assign the EFCC boss on course. He called for a strengthening of the EFCC Act to shield it from executive interference. Senator Joseph Akaagerger however cautioned that in praising Ribadu’s good works at the EFCC, attempts should not be made to discourage the Acting Chairman of the EFCC, ACP Ibrahim Lamorde or make him to feel that he was incompetent to hold the seat. He said that the man needed the support of the legislators and Nigerians. Senator Lee Maeba’s contributions caused some stirs on the floor. Three attempts to stop him through points of Orders raised by the Senators were ruled out of order by the Senate President who held the floor for the Rivers state Senator. Although his submissions were a harbinger to the one by Senator Nuhu Aliyu, which threw the house into frenzy, Maeba said that several segments in the country have not taken the war against corruption seriously.

He questioned the penchant of the judiciary to grant long adjournments to ex-governors who are being tried by the EFCC on corruption charges. “When you grant a 90 day adjournment to a man who has been accused of embezzling N10 billion of his people’s money, what you make of that, you want to help him to run away,” the Senator said.

Reps as mediator in crisis over Port Management

Idowu Samuel, Abuja

Deji Bankole

There have been copious theories on how the foundation of a sound economy could be built by a nation. The most basic and practicable is the one that advertises the private sector as an enabler in all logics of economic growth and development. For many years, Nigeria was at a loss on the correct logic to apply for making her economy to take a leap out of its doldrums. The problem in Nigeria is that the government has always been the ultimate formulator of economic policies and the main implementor. The government owns everything and ends up being the sole manger. But not for too long, it became apparent that the government is a bad manager, more so when the issue of economy is involved. Hence, the thought about devolving the government from the task of economic management began to sound plausible and compelling more so with proofs of its failures to make any good thing out of the best of economic policies, Programmes and logics.

About two decades ago, reason began to prevail on Nigeria and her economic planners that the economy of the country could easily take a leap in the event that the private sector is allowed be the engine to propel the growth. The idea sounded plausible given the failure of past policies like the Austerity measure, the structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), Vision 2010, NEEDS and others to produce the desirable results. Against this background, the past civilian government of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo took up the challenge to re-invent the economy of Nigeria by opening the space in economic activities for wider participation by the private sector. The result was almost instant as evidenced in the revolution that the GSM operation has activated in the Nigeria’s telecommunication sector. From then on, there was no looking back for the government which resolved to yield its hold on other key sector of the economy to the private sector through Privatisation policy. Many of the government holdings were privatized one after the other, whereas the motive was to guarantee efficiency and good returns with their management.

It was in this spirit that the government in 2003 embarked on the Concessioning of the Lagos seaports to private investors for proper management. The need for such step was unarguably long overdue with consistent reports about decaying infrastructure at the port, terminal congestion, corruption and weak administrative system. The step by the government towards privatizing the Apapa Port Terminals started when the government called for expression of interest from prospective bidders for the Container Terminal, Terminals C and D in the Port Complex, and got not less than 110 responses. Two of the bidders were eventually considered for the concession transaction. The two are ENL Consortium and Michelle Nigeria/Gold Star Line.

In Concessioning the two Port Terminals, the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) took consideration of the competence of each of the bidders, measuring such through organizational ability and experience, reliability of the business plan both in marketing/operations and human resources, investment plan and most essentially financing plan. It was in this regard that ENL Consortium and Michelle Nigeria were shortlisted as the most preferred bidders. According to reports, during the Concessioning process, the ENL Consortium came top by bidding for Terminal C and Terminal D of the seaport with the sum of US$21,974,996 and US$20,736,140 respectively. However, Michelle Nigerian bidded lower by offering the sum of US$4,555,428 and US$7,678,167 for Terminal C and D respectively. According to the terms of Concessioning, any preferred bidder would manage the terminals for a period of 10 years. The National Council on Privatisation (NCP) and the BPE thus resolved to score the ENL consortium as the preferred bidder for the terminals, while Michelle was put on standby against possible default by the preferred bidder.

To underscore the transparency of process of port Concessioning by the BPE, the bidding was broadcast live on television and radio networks in Nigeria on March 10, 2005, and all done, the ENL took over the management of the Terminal C and D in 2005. But then, a snag which threatened the essence of the terminal concession soon ensued. That was when the reserve bidder, Michelle Nigeria raised a strong complaint that it was shortchanged in the Concessioning process by both the BPE and NCP in favour of ENL Consortium. Michelle on that basis went to court with prayers that Terminal C be conceded to it in keeping with the bid principle of fair play and that the BPE should pay it the sum of N1billion to cover the losses it incurred its involvement in the bidding process. The Company’s Chairman, Peter Eloka Okocha in addition took the issue before the House of Representatives in his desire to get quick result.

Okocha had petitioned the House, stating that his company had emerged the preferred bidder for terminal D given an earlier declaration by the BPE, adding that from the on set, the Choice of ENL, the preferred bidder was only terminal D. Okocha anchored his protest to the House on the ground rule 7 made for the financial bids. The ground rule, which states that “In Apapa Port Complex, no single bidder will be awarded more than on concession” was read only to the bidders on the day of opening bid for the terminals. ENL had protested against the rule on the basis that it was not included in the request for proposal issued to bidders before the bidding took off.Okocha in his petition drew the attention of the House to a recommendation by the Chairman of the NCP, former vice president Atiku Abubakar that his company be given the Terminal C, and the subsequent approval by the former president Olusegun Obasanjo to that effect. He expressed dismay that the NCP could override the order by the former president by eventually conceding the management of the terminals to the ENL Consortium. In was on the basis of the petition that the House raised a public hearing which took place during the week to examine what really went wrong.

Interestingly, the Public hearing only succeeded in strengthening the chance by the ENL to hold on to the Terminal C and D. The BPE which was summoned by the federal lawmakers stormed the venue of the Public Hearing anchored by the House Committee on Privatisation and Commercialisation to affirm vehemently that nothing went wrong with the bidding process. The Director General of the BPE, Mrs. Irene Chigbue minced no words in declaring that ENL was from day on the preferred bidder for the two terminals having met all requirements and the set standard for bidders. She told the Committee that the former president had since rescinded his decision on approving Terminal C for Michelle Nigeria, having been convinced by the NCP that ENL won the Concessioning bid for Terminal C and D purely on merit. The NCP in addition made it known to the former president that Michelle could not have been favoured for the Concessioning of any of the terminals based on its glaring incompetence. According to her, both the former president and his Deputy never raised any issue in respect of the position by the NCP.

Chigbue explained the reason for that. She told the committee that the view of either president or his Deputy in the Concessioning transaction could never have superseded that of the NCP which she said was the last approving authority based on rules. She drew the attention of the House to the rules and guidelines for the bidding, alluding to section 24.1 and Section 24.1. Section 24.1 states, “The government will (in its sole discretion) select as the preferred bidder, the bidder who has provided technically acceptable bid who offers the highest financial bid” Meanwhile, the authority exercised by the NCP to give ENL pass mark and order to take over the terminals in question came from section 24.2 which read, “Notwithstanding paragraph 24.1 above, the BPE reserves the right in its sole and absolute discretion to accept or reject any proposal, to waiver minor informalities in proposals received, and to annul the Request For Proposal (RFP)process and reject all proposals at anytime prior to award of the lease without thereby incurring any liability to the affected bidders or any obligation to inform the affected bidders of the ground or the BPE’s action.”

Meanwhile, the Michelle Nigeria had unknowingly obfuscated its case before the House with the litigation it filed against the BPE and NCP on one hand and the ENL Consortium on the other hand. It filed the case with Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/192 in October 15, 2007. Okocha when testifying on behalf of his company had denied ever instituting a court action on the case. It was an indication of his perceived eagerness to avoid discouraging House from intervening on his behalf, although he admitted doing so moment after realising the implication of his denial.