President Muhammadu Buhari’s decision to purchase Super Tucano Aircraft from the United States Government has raised a lot of dust as both chambers of the National Assembly have threatened him with impeachment. In this report JOSHUA EGBODO traces the genesis of the controversy.
From the beginning, controversy had dogged the insurgency fund since the idea was first mooted last December. First, the suggested was made at the National Economic Council(NEC) on March 17, 2017, when National Security Adviser, retired General Babagana Monguno had briefed the meeting at Aso Rock. Specifically, the briefing had centred on the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East, cattle rustling, ethnic militias/security outfits, kidnapping, armed robbery, militancy in Niger Delta and the proliferation of small arms across the country. Thereafter, the council had resolved to convene a Security Summit to discuss these issues. On August 17, 2017, the Security Summit held but details of the deliberations were not made known to the public as no communiqué was issued at the end of the meeting. However, on December 14, NEC approved the withdrawal of $1 billion from the Excess Crude Account to combat Boko Haram insurgency.
Expectedly, reactions came thick and fast as the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP), the largest opposition party, led the cavalry charge, accusing the federal government of being economical with the truth. Thereafter, the decision has been severally criticized and defended in equal measure. Similarly, Mr Peter Ayodele Fayose, the Ekiti state governor, had rushed to court in order to reverse the decision. Simultaneously, the matter raised some dust at the senate chambers as it was not listed on the order paper at that time. Thereafter, the dust settled and there was temporary calm.
PDP kicks
In a statement, a day after the approval, PDP said that NEC’s decision didn’t follow due process. Specifically, the party wondered why the federal government, instead of going through the National Assembly, had approached NEC for the approval in order to avoid the direct constitutional appropriation channel. In any case, the federal government had claimed, according to PDP, to have defeated Boko Haram but curiously, the administration wants money to fight the same insurgency. “Nigerians would recall that the APC-led federal government had claimed that it had since defeated the insurgents. If it would take a billion dollars from a nation’s savings to kill what they long claimed was dead, then we challenge the APC government come clean and tell Nigerians the whole truth,’’ the statement pointed out.
This duplicity, according to PDP, has rubbished the integrity of the current administration and the government should apologise to Nigerians, especially for lying about the fight against insurgency. The false claim, PDP had argued, gave Nigerians ‘’a false sense of security, resulting in their vulnerability to attacks by terrorists.” According the statement, ‘’ PDP supports the fight against insurgency. We hold our officers and men confronting the terrorists and securing our territorial integrity in high esteem, but we are concerned about the manipulative tendencies connected with the approvals as well as the veracity of the claimed purpose of the fund.’’
In addition, the statement warned against misinformation as ‘’the era of lies and propaganda is long gone and Nigerians now know the truth.’’ Above all, the opposition called on the National Assembly ‘’ to interrogate this proposed disbursement and subject it to a thorough but rapid interrogation.” In summary, PDP alleged that the government, under the pretext of fighting insurgency, fritter away the nation’s savings.
APC hits back
Specifically, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party’s National Publicity secretary, had dismissed PDP’s claims as baseless. In addition, he alleged that PDP was trying to accuse APC of what it did in 2014. According to Bolaji, ‘’we can understand why it is easy for the PDP to arrive at its ludicrous allegation. A similar approval in excess of $2bn was granted to the PDP government when they were in power. They knew what they did with the money. It is a classic case of a serial killer who sees even a table knife as a murder weapon.’’
Furthermore, the APC went down memory lane as it accused PDP of presiding over a government, where money meant for weapons was diverted to paying marabouts and all manner of political jobbers ahead of the 2015 elections. According to the statement, “PDP thinks the same thing is about to happen. They have not realised that it is a new day and President Muhammadu Buhari will not play politics with money meant to protect the lives of innocent Nigerians or allow anyone to engage in such brigandage that Nigerians suffered under the PDP.’’ The APC spokesman argued that Boko Haram has been technically defeated but more weapons and training are required for the military to win the peace. For this reason, there is no contradiction, Bolaji pointed out, in saying that Boko Haram is technically defeated and requesting for funds to fight the insurgency.
Ekiti councils rush to court
Unimpressed, 16 local governments in Ekiti state have gone to court, challenging the insurgency fund. Specifically, the chairmen dragged the federal government and governors of 36 states of the federation to court over the approval of $1billion to support the ongoing war against insurgency in the north east. The plaintiffs, in the suit filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja, are seeking order of injunction restraining the federal government and the governors, their agents, servants, privies, representatives in interest, howsoever called, from giving effect to the appropriation and/ or approval of appropriation of the $1 billion or any other sum whatsoever, from the Excess Crude Account of the Federation, as contained in the decision made on December 15, 2017. According to them, the only exception is by means of statutory allocation by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission. In addition, the plaintiffs want the court to declare that the approval of the $1 billion, purportedly to execute the constitutional duty of the federal government, which has been sufficiently funded from the Federation Account, without their consent, was ultra vires, unlawful, null and void.
Controversy resumes
Somehow, the matter had receded from public glare until recently, when Minister of Defence, retired General Mansur Dan Ali spoke on April 4. The minister revealed that President Buhari had approved the release of the fund for the procurement of military equipment to fight sundry security challenges. Specifically, there was discrepancies between what Dan Ali said and Senior Special Assistant on National Assembly Matters(Senate), Mr Itan Enang’s clarification that followed later. In addition, there were discordant tunes as to whether or not Buhari can unilaterally approve the release of the money, without going to the National Assembly.
Enang disclaims Dan Ali
Speaking to State House correspondents, the presidential aide said that the proposed $1 billion insurgency fund will not be spent without appropriation by the National Assembly. According to him, the president had merely received NEC’s and afterwards, met ‘’with the Minister of Defence, Service Chiefs and the Inspector-General of Police, among others to collate the need of each of the services and the money available for appropriation.’’ Thereafter, the collective needs will be presented ‘’ to the Federal Executive Council (FEC) for detailed consideration, or in exercise of presidential powers, may communicate same to the National Assembly for appropriation.’’
Before them, Buhari must have consulted with the leadership of the National Assembly, before originating the communication to the federal legislature, Enang had clarified. According to the aide, the process of approving the fund was still undergoing executive standard operating procedure before laying same before the National Assembly for appropriation. ‘’As at today, Mr. President has not approved the release of the cash in whatever form,’’ Enang had said on April 10.
Buhari’s aide defends the approval
Significantly, President Buhari’s Personal Assistant on Social Media, Lauretta Onochie, said there was no illegality in the $1bn that was approved for the procurement of military equipment. According to her, the release was approved by the National Economic Council and the state Houses of Assembly. The presidential aide pointed out that “NEC, made up of state governors, approved the $1bn given to th e military to purchase arms. The state Houses of Assembly approved same. There is no illegality in the release of the fund to the military. “No one should play politics with the security of Nigerians.” Somehow, Onochie was silent on whether or not the president ought to have reverted to the National Assembly before the approval.
President needs N’Assembly approval – Reps
However, without mincing words, the Chairman, House Committee on Army, Hon Rimande Shawulu, said the fund could not be released without the approval by the National Assembly. Shawulu said the President does not have the sole power to approve money for arms procurement without the mandate of the legislature. According to him, ‘’there are processes for money coming into the federation accounts and for the money being used. And we must note that a lot of times, pronouncements are policy statements. It is not that when the announcement was made, the federation account was debited immediately.’’
Reps threaten impeachment
Last Tuesday, the House of Representatives received the president’s letter but Buhari was not asking for approval to withdraw $1 billion from the Excess Crude Account as Enang envisaged. Instead, the president was notifying the law makers that he has spent $496,374,470.00 to purchase Super Tucano aircraft from the United States. Dated April 13, 2018, the letter was titled “Supplementary input to the 2018 appropriation Bill: Purchase of Super Tucano Aircraft from the United States Government”. In the letter, Buhari drew ‘’the attention of the House of Representatives to the ongoing security emergencies in the country.’’
The president also recalled that ‘’these challenges were discussed with the state governors and subsequently at the meeting of the National Economic Council on December 14, 2017, where a resolution was passed with the council approving that up to US$1 billion may be released and utilised from the Excess Crude Account to address the situation.’’ According to the president, he has granted anticipatory approval for the release of $496, 374, 470.00 , “in the expectation that the National Assembly would have no objection to the purchase of this highly specialized aircraft which is critical to national security.’’
Significantly, House Speaker Yakubu Dogara had barely finished reading the letter when the House went into uproar. Specifically, Hon Kingsley Chinda from Rivers State raised a Point of Order, saying ‘’there is no language on the presidential approval. The expenditure has already been secured without any approval. We cannot sit down and do nothing. National assembly is not a rubber stamp. Today , it is as if we are like dogs that cannot bark. It is an impeachable offence”. After his submission, shouts of “yes, yes” rent the air and the atmosphere became charged.
Similarly, Hon Aliyu Madaki supported the call to impeach President Buhari, urging an immediate action from the lower house of the National Assembly. “My brother and colleagues, Chinda made some explanation which is very clear and we should follow suit,” he stated. Likewise, Hon Sunday Karimi said Buhari had breached the law and must face the consequences. According to him, ‘this is the time to tell Mr. President that we are prepared to serve our people. He has broken the constitution and should be ready to face the consequences. He has spent public money without approval”. In his submission, Deputy Minority Leader Onyema Chukwuka said the leadership of the House should reply Buhari’s letter, detailing how he had breached the law.
However, Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Business, Hon Emmanuel Orker-Jev said Chinda was putting the cart before the horse. According to him, Speaker Dogara’s reading of the letter was the first reading, going by the House rules. Afterwards, debating the president’s letter should come during second reading, Orker-Jev had clarified. At this point, Dogara asked members to heed the Orker-Jev’s advise Bu this was greeted by mixed deafening shouts of “yes” and “no” greeted his suggestion. For some time, there was confusion on the floor of the House.
When normalcy retuned, Hon Tajudeen Yusuf urged his colleagues to put away sentiments of political party affiliations and speak the truth. “What we have here is a letter telling us what he has done. We should drop the idea of being partisan. It is about Nigerian people. The public don’t know whether you are PDP or APC when they go out there to write about us. It is about all of us”, he argued. Similarly, Samson Okwu urged caution, advising that the issue ‘’should be politicised and tribalised”.
After all the submissions, Speaker Dogara deferred further debate on the matter, saying it was a matter of procedure, which the House should debate before taking a position. According to him, ‘’sometimes a breach of procedure is as substantive as breach of the extant rule itself, so we are going to slate it for debate”.
Senate follows suit
Similarly, the senate described Buhari’s action as a total breach of section 80 of the constitution. Likewise, some members of said that the action is an impeachable offence. Significantly, Senate President Bukola Saraki came to the rescue of the President, when he said that the arguments raised on the matter were valid. Subsequently, Senator David Umaru- led Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal matters, was mandated to investigate the matter and report back at plenary next Wednesday.
However, Malam Yakub, an Oxford-trained Economist and a public affairs analyst, has argued that President Buhari is covered by section 82 of the constitution. According to him, the section states that ‘’if the appropriation bill in respect of any financial year, the president may authorize the withdrawal of moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation for the purpose of meeting expenditure necessary to carry on the services of the government of the Federation for a period not exceeding months or until the coming into operation of the Appropriation Act, whichever is the earlier: provided that the withdrawal in respect of any such period shall not exceed the amount to be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federationunder the provisions of the Appropriation Act passed by the National Assembly for the corresponding financial year, being an amount so authorized for the immediate preceding financial year.’’
- Next week, the hot air that has been ventilated over the constitutionality or otherwise of the president’s action will subside and reason will prevail over emotion.
