Presidency is seen as hostile to National Assembly — Rep

Akinderu-Fatai

In this interview with MUDIAGA AFFE, the Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on Legislative Compliance, Mr. Maruf Akinderu-Fatai, speaks on the challenges of getting the executive to comply with House resolutions, among other issues.  Excerpts:

 How has the relationship been with the executive arm in the implementation of National Assembly resolutions?

It has been a challenging situation especially as there have been a lot of resolutions coming from the House. My Committee’s mandate is to ensure compliance by ensuring that resolutions are carried out. But one of the major challenges we are faced with at the moment is that of the Securities and Exchange Commission and we have ensured that a budget is not approved for the commission for 2013 because the executive arm refused to act on our earlier resolution that the Director-General of SEC, Ms. Aruma Oteh, be relieved of her position. The leadership of SEC has no right to spend or receive any fund until that resolution is carried out. The president himself cannot avail the commission any fund. It is unfortunate that we have found ourselves in this situation. In reality, the President should be seen to be above this kind of sentiment. For there to be growth in this country, the

executive and legislative arms of government must work together. If the House has come up with a resolution on the director-general of SEC, the President ought to have relieved her of her duties in order to maintain a harmonious relationship. But the position of President Goodluck Jonathan seems to have pitted him against the House and he is seen as being hostile to legislators. We frown on situations where the executive tends to pick on few resolutions that favour them for implementation and ignore the majority which matter to the generality of Nigerians. The resolutions, for the removal of former Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority boss, Dr. Harold Demuren, a director in the Pensions Board, Mr. Abdulrasheed Maina, and Oteh (SEC D-G) were joint resolutions of both chambers of the National Assembly. Unfortunately, the executive went ahead to implement that of NCAA and Pensions Board but blatantly refused to implement that of Oteh. We had pointed out when we recommended her removal that her appointment violated provisions spelt out for someone occupying that position. One of them is that you must have been a practising operator in the system for at least 10 years before you can be appointed into that office, unfortunately she did not meet that criterion.

Now that the President has decided to stand his ground on the matter, what is the position of the House?

If the President really wants to leave any legacy behind, he should do the needful. He should not be seen to have this kind of teething problem with the National Assembly, not even when we have a Stock Exchange that is trying to win back investors’ confidence after a lull. Outside that, it is a criminal offence to spend un-appropriated funds, especially when the National Assembly has passed the resolution. Under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, spending unbudgeted funds is a criminal offence. As of now, April, no money has been appropriated to SEC in the 2013 budget, so, any money spent is a violation of the constitution. The next step now that the President has remained heady on the matter is for both chambers of the National Assembly to seat again and agree on the next line of action. The National Assembly has bluntly refused to look into the 2013 budget proposal submitted by SEC and to that extent, the commission has not right to spend any fund until the resolution is vacated.

Over the years, issues of respect for National Assembly resolutions have always generated controversies between the legislature and the Presidency, how can we overcome this?

You should note that the leadership of the National Assembly, especially the House, for which I am a member, has a firm grip of duties expected of them and we operate under the ambit of the constitution and we, by extension, are representing all the nooks and crannies of the country. Invariably, whenever we come out with a resolution, it must be seen to be that of the whole country. It is, however, unfortunate that the executive has not really sat down to critically look at its functions. At every point, the executive had tended to resort to blackmail, especially when they had a lot of interference from “powerful” members of the public. Look at the power probe, oil subsidy probe, among others. However, we would continue to have this kind of problem until the “powerful” members of the public understand the workings of the legislative arm. Look at the 2013 budget for instance, we made sure the proposal was submitted in October, which was early enough, and we passed it before the end of 2012, unfortunately, it took the executive almost two months to endorse it and even when they did, it came with a query and blackmail. What the executive is trying to do with the queries raised in the budget is to continue to have more money to control, thereby cheating other arms.

Do you think the President has the will power to tackle corruption, especially considering the recent pardon granted to some questionable Nigerians?

I think that act by the President is impeachable. What kind of example is he trying to set? It is an issue he would have just allowed to lie low no matter the kind of debt he thought he owed the former Bayelsa Governor, Diepriye Alamieyeseigha. I do not know the kind image we are projecting to the world; unfortunately his action is too late. There are a lot of speculations that President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration is promoting corruption because under his leadership there have been a lot of issues that tend towards that. Look at the petroleum subsidy scam, there are insinuations that those behind it are the people that sponsored his election. So, the Alamieyeseigha issue has fundamentally proved that speculation right. To that extent, I am convinced that this government lacks the will power to fight corruption.

What is your take on the amnesty being considered for members of the Boko Haram terrorist group?

There is no right thinking Nigerian that will not be worried at the present condition we find ourselves in terms of insecurity. I believe the problem is fundamental and granting amnesty will not solve the problem. How do you grant amnesty to someone who has committed a crime against humanity. Are you going to start granting amnesty to those who have destroyed lives and property through massive bombings? Before you do that, you should sit down to agree with those who have lost relatives as a result of the terrorist attacks to find out if they agreed to let bygones be bygones or we will just start with the issue of granting them amnesty like that? I do not believe in that though. In my mind, I think we do not really believe in ourselves as a nation because we have yet to agree on whether we want to stay together as one. If we have agreed to be one and a region wants to be run by Sharia laws, so be it. If other areas choose traditional beliefs or Christianity, so be it. From 1914 till date there had been distortions within the system. If someone emerges as President of the country, he should be seen truly as the President of the whole country, not that of a section where he comes from. So, I believe it is time for us to agree to stay together, if we cannot do that then we should stop forcing this marriage. I believe that if the atmosphere is right, every right thinking person would want to be part of Nigeria, so, why are we forcing it by shutting people’s mouth? On the other hand, if we agree that we want to be one, we should determine how we should be governed — that scale is still left hanging. We have a very powerful Federal Government that is lording it on other arms and its citizenry. The Yoruba are fundamentally different from the Igbo; the kind of system that is run in the Yoruba land is different from that of the Igbo, and same goes for the Hausa. Why not let us see how we can marry all these different cultures together instead of adopting strange ones. If it is federalism we should be able to determine and agree on how it should be practised. You see a situation where each ethnic group is trying to outdo the other; it is so because we have not agreed on how the system should be run. It is for that reason that the issue of indigenisation is still endemic. If we agree to be one, all these thorny arguments will not arise