Sunday, 3 November 2013

How Reps lost bite, spared embattled Aviation Minister Oduah vital questions

Published: 

Stella Oduah
After weeks of widespread anger over the N255 million armoured car scandal involving aviation minister, Stella Oduah, the minister finally stepped up to a personal defence Thursday, denying wrongdoing before a House of Representatives panel, and pushing the blames on her aides and the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority, NCAA.
Mrs Oduah denied requesting for, or being the beneficiary of two armoured cars purchased by the NCAA- a procurement neither listed in government budget nor executed in accordance with public procurement regulations.
She admitted, however, endorsing the purchase which has a total contract cost five times higher than her official approval powers.
While admitting the controversial cars existed, she rejected the “inaccurate and innocently misguided” admission by her spokesperson, Joe Obi, that the vehicles were for her; and the brash dismissal of the allegations as “mere rumour” by another spokesperson, Yakubu Datti; and the NCAA director general, Fola Akinkuotu’s threat against the whistle-blower.
“It is not true that the NCAA purchased two bullet proof BMW vehicles for the honourable minister of aviation,” Mrs Oduah told the House aviation committee. “My understanding is that what NCAA has done is to plan for the acquisition of vehicle for the next three years within the Medium Term Expenditure Framework through a lease financing arrangement with First Bank.”
Mrs Oduah harped on those denials in most of her testimony Thursday, and trumpeted what she called far-reaching aviation sector reforms under her supervision, achievements she claimed lifted Nigeria’s airspace to becoming one of the world’s safest despite multiple air accidents lately.
Those reforms, she said, were the targets of allegations against her, and rogue groups, dislodged from years of sucking the system, were responsible for the false charges.
But at her dramatic appearance Thursday, much-anticipated after the minster snubbed previous summons by the House committee, it was less of what she offered as defence that surprised many, compared to the response from lawmakers who thumped other actors of the contract, and severely criticized her ahead of an appearance.
Despite an array of loose details from Mrs Oduah, lawmakers limited their examination of her to whether the minister asked the NCAA to procure the two armoured BMW brands and took delivery of them, and why she approved an unbudgeted project at a cost far higher than the authorization threshold of her office. And when the minister fanned out essentially unsatisfactory responses to the two, she was left to be.
For the first, Mrs Oduah offered the basic argument long-bandied by supporters that her name was never on any document related to the purchase.
“There was nothing in the approved documents reflecting my name, when the budget was being made,” the minister said. “At no time did I request for any vehicle from the NCAA. It was the agency that had the need and made the request…”
The second response was even more baffling. The minister argued that the cars were included in the budget and that its sum was within her rights of approval. She cited a budgetary provision for the purchase of two “Security Inspection vehicles for safety/security purposes and inspection of perimeter fences”.
Concerns about using armoured cars to inspect a perimeter fence do not really matter since agencies may be at the liberty to interpret approved subheads, Mrs Oduah argued.
“The legislative process, including the process of appropriation, involves a lot of explanations by the beneficiaries of legislative powers in that regard; but when the explanations eventually find merit and is passed, all that happened preceding the passage of the law may not necessary recall,” she told the lawmakers.
The lawmakers didn’t take her up on this spurious and misleading claims.
Again, since payment for the cars is on a credit from First Bank stretching three years with monthly repay, the minister said the total refund for only one year-2013, was just N100 million, less than what is required for a higher approval authority that is the Federal Executive Council, FEC.
On the issue of due process, she heaped the blame on NCAA, or other officials like the permanent secretary. The catch was simple: on the approval letter, she wrote, “Approved”, followed by an all-encompassing imprecise directive of “do the needful”.
That phrase could mean anything, but specifically, should direct subordinates to initiate due process procedures the minister argued, and if they failed to do so, she took no blame not even as head of the ministry.
The arguments were barely new as they had all been stated by the NCAA at past hearings, but summarily rejected by the lawmakers. But this time, the panel backtracked to a point of defending the minister.
A member, Jerry Manwe (Taraba state), who had been one of the most vociferous against the minister’s “purported” actions, said Thursday that she (Mrs Oduah) may have been right as she would be busy with policy issues to attend to stringent dictates of the law.
He criticized the permanent secretary, George Ossi, for not stepping up as cover, and allowing the violation. mr. Manwe however spared the minister for approving illegality even when she knew that, as minister, she is the chief accounting officer for her ministry.
The committee also tackled the NCAA for even initiating a memo with a clearly inflated cost, minimizing the blame for the minister as though to imply that she only acted on a request before her.
The measured tone, even reverence, with which the committee treated the minister, for many, could go with far-reaching implication as to reinforcing deep-seated public distrust with investigations from a House many accuse of hardly yielding conclusive and deserved outcomes in past investigations.
“Even though nothing will come out of this probe, it is good to follow it to whatever end,” Dahiru Magaji, who wrote on Facebook.
If anything, the hearing only triggered more questions; questions the House committee failed, or refused, to ask the minister.

No comments:

Post a Comment