THE House of Representatives on Monday said the ultimatum given to President Goodluck Jonathan to either achieve 100 per cent budget performance by September or face impeachment procedures, was borne out of genuine desire to move the country forward.
The lawmakers condemned insinuations that the impeachment threat had to do with their desire for contracts and the fight to protect Farouk Lawan, a Rep currently involved a $620,000 bribery scandal.
Spokesman for the House, Zakari Mohammed, on Monday said such insinuations were wicked and a ploy to intimidate the lawmakers out of their genuine concern for the nation’s economy.
Mohammed said, “The 7th Assembly has distanced itself from the Hon. Farouk (Lawan) and (Femi) Otedola case as evident in the bold steps we took in suspending him (Lawan) as chairman of both the committees on fuel subsidy and education in addition to encouraging the law enforcement agencies to do their work according to the dictates of the law.
“To now conclude that our resolution for Thursday is borne out of selfish motives is terribly out of place.”
Otedola, a billionaire oil marketer, had recently blown the lid over an alleged $3m bribery deal between himself and Lawan. He said the deal was made in order to remove the name of his firm, Zenon Oil and Gas Limited, from the list of firms indicted in the N1.7tn short-changing of government during the fuel subsidy regime.
He confessed to have given Lawan $620,000 as part-payment but refused to pay the balance because, according to him, the lawmaker forced him into the deal. After initial denials, Lawan had also confessed that he collected the money but not as a bribe but as evidence that Otedola had tried to influence him unduly.
Mohammed said any attempt to connect the ultimatum given to Jonathan to the Lawan/Otedola case already under investigation would fail. He said the lawmakers would refuse to be intimidated.
According to him, lawmakers have a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the Executive takes the right decisions that will improve the lives of Nigerians.
He stated, “We will continue to raise our voices to the highest ebb where we sight injustice or impunity.
“No amount of blackmail or intimidation will cow us to abdicate our constitutional responsibility, which we signed with our employers (the Nigerian people) to stand firm and protect their interest.”
Mohammed said that the House moved against Jonathan because in spite of the impressive revenue posted by revenue-generating agencies, there was no commensurate performance of the budget in terms of the execution of capital projects.
He added, “We are aware that all revenue generating agencies have surpassed their annual targets by June this year.The House is worried that this positive development did not reflect the implementation of the budget for the benefit of the Nigerian people.
“This trend, if not arrested, will worsen the already fragile state of the nation, hence the need for our quick intervention.”
He denied that the impeachment ultimatum had anything to do with “pressure from a political party” or anger over constituency project contracts.
The House spokesman stated that the role of lawmakers in constituency projects was to nominate the projects, while it was the duty of the Executive to select and award the contracts.
Mohammed also denied that members were unhappy with the manner the Lawan bribery case was handled.
Meanwhile, the Senate on Monday said it should be counted out of the impeachment threat against the President.
Senate spokesman, Senator Eyinnanya Abaribe, told one of our correspondents in a telephone interview on Monday that the Senate never took any decision to join the House in the call on the President to implement the budget.
He said reports linking the Senate with the agitation in the House were false.
Alaribe said, “We never took any decision to join the House of Reps, the reports are false.
“If we have to take any decision it will be at plenary, but the Senate has gone on recess and no such decision was taken.”
Although senators have not threatened the President with impeachment, they had at different times criticised the executive for poor implementation of the various Appropriation Acts.
No comments:
Post a Comment