Hose of reps boils over controversial $9.3m Nigerian tax payers’ money

 The house of representative is obviously still boiling over the issue of botched arms deal. The disunity in the House of Representatives boiled over again on Tuesday when a matter that should ordinarily receive the overwhelming support of all members was sacrificed on the altar of politics. 

It was the controversial $9.3m Nigerian tax payers’ money that was seized by the authorities in South Africa on September 5, 2014.

It is no longer news that on that fateful day (September 5), a Challenger 600 jet from Nigeria landed at the Lanseria International Airport, north-west Johannesburg, allegedly conveying the money in three suit cases.

Three persons, including two Nigerians and an Israeli, were in custody of the money when officials in South Africa arrested them and seized the cash. 

They were later to reveal that the huge cash of about N1.5bn was meant for the procurement of arms for the Nigerian Intelligence Services.

Following the international attention and criticism the cash movement generated, the Federal Government later owned up to having knowledge of the transaction. It did not end there. The House of Representatives, particularly members of the opposition All Progressives Congress, wanted the transaction thoroughly investigated.

Thus, last Tuesday, the mantle fell on the legislature’s Deputy Minority Leader, Mr. Suleiman Abdulrahman-Kawu, a member of the APC from Kano State, to raise the issue on matters of urgent public importance.

Surprisingly, the House turned down a request to debate the motion via a majority voice vote. The session was presided over by the Deputy Speaker, Mr. Emeka Ihedioha, a Peoples Democratic Party lawmaker from Imo State. This caused a rage on the floor with all APC members storming out in protest against Ihedioha’s ruling in which he gave the vote to the “nays.”

They were led out by the Minority Whip, Mr. Samson Osagie (APC, Edo State).

Abdulrahman-Kawu made some points in his stalled motion. Prominent among which was a request that the House should probe the alleged “attempt to smuggle $9.3m cash into South Africa” by persons claiming to be agents of the Nigerian government.

For example, Abdulrahman-Kawu said the fact that the money was not declared at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja, as well as the fact that the South Africa National Conventional Arms Control Committee denied knowledge of the transaction raised grave concerns.

The mover of the motion further argued that, “While many South African security agencies, including the National Prosecuting Authority, are involved in the matter because of its gravity, nearly all the relevant Nigerian agencies, especially Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria; Nigeria Airspace Management Authority; Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority; and Nigeria Customs Service do not have any information on the matter. The development will further tarnish the image of Nigeria in the eyes of the international community.”

The motion was “killed” to the chagrin of the APC members, who felt the House was using politics to sweep a very important issue capable of tarnishing the image of the country under the carpet. It turned out that the lawmakers seemed to have taken it for granted that as a result of the gravity of the issue, the motion would be overwhelmingly supported. They were wrong.

The House is guided by its standing orders and rules. It is interesting to note that if indeed, the PDP members deliberately threw out the motion for political reasons, they hid under the cover of the House rules to do so. The House rules stipulate that any motion “properly moved and seconded,” is put to vote by the presiding officer (in this case it was Ihedioha who presided over proceedings).

The result of the vote will determine the next line of action, i.e. rejecting the motion if the majority shouts “nays” or debating it if the majority shouts “ayes.”

When Ihedioha put the question on Tuesday, he ruled in favour of the “nays”, who shouted louder. Only a few APC members actually responded when he asked for the vote of the “ayes.” It was like playing into the hands of the majority PDP, who probably were in desperate search for openings to stall the motion. By responding weakly when he called the vote, the APC lawmakers handed Ihedioha an opportunity to dismiss the motion, to the delight of his PDP colleagues. The angry APC members had few choices left other than lick their wounds and protest to a PDP-dominated session which had no room to accommodate their rage.

What cost the APC members the important motion was the fact that they were caught off guard, forgetting for a brief moment that at this period of electioneering in the country, political considerations would have a decisive impact on issues in parliament. Probably, the APC lawmakers probably thought national consideration would supersede political considerations.

Some members who participated in the protest, were seen browsing, pinging and taking selfies (personal pictures) when Ihedioha called for the first vote. They only realised what was happening after the gavel hit the table.

The trickery of the gavel is that it conveys awesome powers on the presiding officer. He alone decides which side he considers to have shouted louder. There are days when the votes are manipulated to give it to the “ayes” when it should have gone to the “nays” and vice versa.

Perhaps, the APC members had expected that Tuesday would be one of such days. But, going their way was not convenient for the presiding officer; so, he strictly applied the rules.

To make matters worse, a sizeable number of APC members were absent from chambers. Many only arrived soon after the decision was taken and they merely joined their protesting colleagues.

Deputy Chairman, House Committee on Media Public Affairs, Mr. Victor Ogene, a member of the All Progressives Grand Alliance from Anambra State, inflicted more pains on the APC members when he justified Ihedioha’s ruling.

Ogene said, “No rules were breached. A motion passes for debate when it receives the support of the majority. The majority opposed the motion on Tuesday and it failed. That was what happened. In any case, equity does not reward the indolent. In this case, the motion did not even cross the first hurdle of admitting it for debate. So, in the end, there was nothing any more to debate because the motion didn’t make it.”

But, the APC would not accept Ogene’s position. Rather, the caucus insisted that a motion like Tuesday’s should pass any day because of the seriousness of the case in question.

For instance, Osagie described the cash movement as “a very scandalous, very disgraceful event” and an “illegal transaction” that must not be condoned under any guise. He explained that the reason opposition members sought to debate the motion was to ensure that necessary actions were taken to protect the image of Nigeria.

Osagie said, “We are disappointed and most shocked that the debate was denied. How would a matter having to do with corruption, financial crime and money laundering be denied debate? What are we hiding? In any case, what is sensitive about an issue that has dominated the public domain for days? This is an illegal transaction and the Federal Government must explain to Nigerians how this is not money laundering.”

The caucus posed a number of questions it asked the government to answer without delay as it sought to know whether it was faster to buy arms by ferrying cash from Nigeria to a foreign country or to transfer funds electronically to the intended suppliers. The caucus also asked to know why the authorities in South Africa were not privy to the transaction, nor were Nigerian security agencies involved in the movement of the money. The other question was why was an aircraft owned by “a religious leader known to be a very close friend of Mr. President” used for the transaction?

The Christian Association of Nigeria, had in a statement, admitted that its President, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, owns the aircraft but absolved him of complicity in the transaction. The association’s Director of National Issues, Mr. Sunny Oibe, signed the statement, adding that “all investigations about the plane should be directed to Eagle Air Company which leased the aircraft.”

In addition, the caucus queried the choice of a private jet when there are many airplanes, which could have been used, if indeed it was a government transaction. Again, the opposition observed that the same government promoting cashless policy back home was ferrying “$9.3m mint” to another country.

It went on to doubt whether it was actually a government transaction as it would appear that the government was covering up for some persons yet to be made known to Nigerians, whose money was used for the transaction.

Instead of addressing the posers of the APC, a jubilant Deputy House Majority Leader and PDP member from Delta State, Mr. Leo Ogor, had this to say, “Debating the $9.3m is a waste of parliamentary time.” Ogor argued that the issues involved had security implications, adding that the parliament would get nowhere debating it.

The same House had dabbled into manners of issues in the recent past, including matters already before the law courts, a move many see as prejudicial.

The APC lawmakers have learnt a hard lesson; these are no ordinary times. Every step, every mistake counts and can only help the opponent to have an edge over you. If a PDP caucus was desirous of “killing” the motion from the start, why make it easy for them by failing to open your mouths and shout when it mattered most?