Ndubuisi Orji, Abuja

In the immediate past 8th Assembly, the House of Representatives’ Committees on Public Procurement, Pension, Health Services, as well as the Ad-hoc that investigated the activities of the National Pension Commission (PenCom) were on the spot.

Oversight functions embarked upon by the committees in the exercise of their legislative duties were marred by controversies. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) empowers the National Assembly to carry out the exercise of oversight over Ministries, Department and Agencies (MDAs). It is through this role that the legislature checkmates the executive and holds them accountable to the people.

In the exercise of this constitutional function, the two chambers of the National Assembly, through their relevant committees apart from visiting MDAs to scrutinise their activities, also hold investigative hearing on sundry issues. However, since the inception of the present democratic dispensation, the oversight function of the National Assembly has been a source of friction between the parliament and the executive arm of government, with controversy and scandals often time trailing investigative hearings and oversight visits to MDAs.

Recently, it has been more of a case of one week, one controversy as an oversight visit embarked upon by the House Committee on Health Services to the National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) in December, 2017, as well as efforts by the joint Pension and Public Procurement Committee and an Ad-hoc Committee to probe the activities of PenCom were all trailed by controversy.

Pension probe palaver

Repeated attempts by the House to investigate the activities of PenCom have been marred by controversy, as  stakeholders accuse the heads of the probe panels  of being interested parties in the issues they are investigating. Firstly, revelations that the daughter of former chairman of the Ad-hoc committee probing the activities of PenCom from April 2017 to May,  Ehiozuwa Agbonnayinma; Deborah, was fired from the agency  for allegedly securing employment in the agency with fake certificate,  had raised concerns as to whether the lawmaker could continue to preside over the panel.

Agbonnayinma, who was accused of pursuing a vendetta against PenCom over his daughter’s sack eventually, resigned his chairmanship of the committee.

Announcing his resignation at an investigative hearing, the lawmaker accused the then House Committee Chairman on Public Procurement,  Wole Oke of colluding with PenCom to undermine his committee, a charge the latter denied.

After Agbonnayinma’s resignation took the sail off the ad-hoc committee probing activities of PenCom, the then House joint committees on Pension and Public Procurement commenced a fresh probe into the activities of the agency.

The new pension probe was to cover the activities of the agency, especially alleged procurement abuses from October 2014 to 2017.

However, the investigation has hardly kicked off, when allegations against the chairmen of the two committees surfaced.  Some of the firms invited to appear before the committee had accused Oke of shielding some companies allegedly linked to the members of the House, which are also doing business with PenCom, from appearing before the probe panel.

Specifically, Oke was accused of having interest in Debra-K Ltd, one of the companies said to be doing business with PenCom, as well as running his school, Lead British International School with funds from the agency.

However, Oke dismissed all the allegations against him as untrue.  The lawmaker told Daily Sun that invitations to companies to appear before the Pension/ Public Procurement joint committees were passed on based on documents submitted by PenCom. While denying link with any company doing business with PenCom, Oke said he is not aware of any member of the House with any business dealings with the agency neither has any of his colleagues approached him over the probe.

He said those behind the accusations against him are out to thwart the pension probe, because they think they could escape scrutiny as the 8th Assembly was winding up. However, the lawmaker noted that anybody trying to subvert the pension probe is only wasting his or her time.

“Nobody, nobody will bungle the investigation of PenCom. Initially, they said I wanted to help PenCom to bungle the investigation (of the ad-hoc committee). Where do I stand in all of these? How do I bungle what I am investigating? We acted based on submission from PenCom. No lawmaker has approached me that they have interest in PenCom; I don’t have any interest in PenCom.

“Is there budgetary allocation in PenCom to fund Lead British? What is the nexus? Or is there any pension official that has equity in Lead British School. It is untrue.

“We have Freedom of Information Act. You can go to CAC, you can find out who owns Debra-K. I don’t know of any lawmaker, who has transactions with PenCom. I don’t know of Debra-K. Our duty here is to work pursuant to the provision of our rules,” he stated.

Oke added “What they are hiding under is that they are thinking that this parliament will soon come to an end and they are trying to cause delay tactics to divert the attention of parliament from these issues.

Related News

“They have forgotten that the ninth Assembly will soon be inaugurated. The incoming assembly will also look at it. There are so many windows. They are just looking at Wole Oke. It is not me.”

NAFDAC vs House Committee on Health Services

Before the controversy dogging the probe of PenCom, the Director General, National Agency for Food Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC), Professor Mojisola Adeyeye, had accused the then House Committee on Health Services, of soliciting for gratification during an oversight visit to her agency in December 2017. The NAFDAC boss, during an interview on a national television stated that the lawmakers allegedly threatened her for refusing to give them money for “welfare”.

“When I came to NAFDAC, there were a lot of things that were wrong. Take oversight function or whatever, that is done; I was shocked when I was told to give money. I said money for what? … money, to the committee that visited us- the Health Care Services Committee of the House of Representatives? I said I cannot. For just the visit? I couldn’t believe my ears, because it saddens me. Yes, it can be referred to as them asking for a bribe. It saddens me. This is an organisation that was bleeding profusely. It wasn’t taken well at all. I was threatened and I couldn’t believe that too…” she said.

Regardless, the then chairman, House Committee on Health Services, Chike Okafor dismissed Adeyeye’s allegation as unfounded. The lawmaker told Daily Sun that it is curious that the NAFDAC boss, who claimed that the incident took place in December, 2017, would   wait until 2019 before speaking.

The lawmaker insisted that no member of his committee asked Adeyeye for money during their oversight visit to NAFDAC in December, 2017, and challenged the latter to name the particular person that solicited for gratification from her.

“We went for oversight. We finished our duties and assignment and we left.  There was no altercation. There was no discussion. That was the last time I saw her. That was in December 2017. I challenged her; no member of the committee spoke to her. I don’t want to talk about myself. Nobody approached her. Nobody spoke to her, nobody asked her for anything.

“If in 2017, I visited your agency and left and the committee intimidated you, asked you for welfare and you didn’t give, according to you, why did you keep quiet the whole of 2018? Quote me, nobody approached her for anything. I challenged her to name the person who spoke to her and what the person ask for,” he said.

Okafor stated that the allegation against his committee may not be unconnected with the queries, the Health Services Committee raised about the 2018 budget of NAFDAC.

He explained that when the agency appeared before his committee, recently for a review of their 2018 budget, the committee had discovered some anomalies and raised queries accordingly. The lawmaker said it was in the aftermath of those queries that NAFDAC boss went on air to accuse his committee of soliciting bribe.

“She was before the parliament, the Director of Finance was put on oath, when he lied that the budget he was reviewing was presented to the National Assembly when it wasn’t presented to us. We unanimously agreed to adjourn sine die; and to invite her again. The next thing we saw she was on (national television) raising issue of 2017, what do you make out of it?”

Past controversies

Controversies over oversight functions by lawmakers is not new.  Since the inception of the present democratic dispensation in 1999, there is hardly any session of the National Assembly that has not been confronted with controversies and scandals arising from performance of oversight functions by lawmakers. Will it be different in the ninth House?

In the sixth House for instance, the efforts by the House   Committee on Power headed by Ndudi Elumelu  to probe the power sector under the former President, Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration, was marred by controversy.

Similarly, in the seventh House, investigation of payment of petroleum subsidy during the former President, Goodluck Jonathan’s administration was equally marred by bribery allegations against the chairman of the probe panel, Lawan Farouk.

Also, in the seventh House, at a public hearing organised by House Committee on Capital Market, the former Director General of Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), openly accused the committee chairman, Herman Hembe of soliciting funds from her agency to organise the event.

Analysts say one of the challenges of oversight functions of the National Assembly is that it is usually commercialised. Severally, committees have been accused of passing on the cost of organising public hearing to MDAs, as well as soliciting for sponsorship of foreign trips and seminars from agencies they supervise.

Regardless, Okafor said accusing the parliament of commercialising oversights is akin to giving a dog a bad name in order to hang it. For him, the major challenge is that Nigerians have a very poor perception of members of the legislature and its duties.

“I think it is a case of giving a dog a bad name to hang it.   These things are a function of perceptions. The Nigerian public seem not to have a good perception of the legislature. I don’t think that is going to change anytime soon,” he declared.