Senator Suleiman Adokwe is the chairman, Senate Service Committee. He represents Nasarawa South in the Senate. He speaks on the Sovereign Wealth Fund, fuel subsidy removal, amendments to the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation ( NNPC) Act and sundry issues. Group Politics Editor, Taiwo Adisa, brings the excerpts:YOU were once a commissioner in the administration of former Nasarawa State governor, Senator Abdullahi Adamu, who is now in the Senate like you. What is the relationship like now'The former governor and I have come a long way. I knew him even before he became a governor. I knew him when he was chairman of the then National Republican Convention (NRC); his antecedents were in the NPN and NRC, while I was of the leftist side. Most of my life, I was in the PRP and all the leftist parties, but we had a good rapport right from day one. I was one of his key campaigners when he wanted to run for the Nasarawa State governorship and we have continued to have that close relationship till today. I'm happy that he's in the Senate with me because I know that he has a passion for the state. So, between the two of us, I believe we should be able to represent the state very well.As a lawyer and lawmaker, what's your view on the decision of governors to challenge the legality of the Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) which is already an Act of the National Assembly'My first reaction to that is that they have to be very careful over something that is popular with the people because, regardless of the provisions of the law, the law is made for man and not man for the law. If Nigerians want a certain percentage of their wealth preserved for the future, you have to be careful how you go against it. As a matter of fact, there is a Supreme Court ruling as to how the wealth of Nigeria should be divided in terms of the revenue accruing to the federation as in the case of Attorney General of Abia and the rest where the Supreme Court ruled that every revenue accruable to the federation must go to the table and be split among the three tiers: the federal, state and local governments.Notwithstanding that, the various tiers of government that are stakeholders in the revenue accruing to the federation can agree to save a part for the future. But where there is no such agreement, of course, fundamentally there is a flaw in whatever is going to be done.As I said, it's not everything that is legal; there are some things that would be political and you have to be very careful there. If there is political and economical sense in saving certain funds accruing to the federation for the future, then there is no reason why anybody should kick against it. There are other jurisdictions like Botswana, Sweden where they do not 'eat'' the main money; they live on profits therefrom. The money made from diamonds in Botswana is not spent; it is what is invested from accruals in diamond mining that is used for budgeting. The main money is always there. It is the same with Sweden; all the money accruing to them from oil exploration and such stuff is not touched. It is what is invested from the revenues got from the profit that is used for budgetary purposes. I believe that saving our wealth for the future should not be a matter for contention.But the governors turned around after the elections to oppose the idea, which they initially supported. We understand that the Presidency is negotiating with them. What is the essence of such negotiation when the law is already an Act of the National Assembly' Don't forget that Section 3 of the constitution is very explicit. It states that any law that is made, either by the National Assembly, state or bye-laws of the local government, that is inconsistent with the constitution, is null and void to the extent of that inconsistency. The fact that a law has been made is not sacrosanct in itself. It is the constitution, which is the ground norm, that is sacrosanct. Anything that veers off from the constitution is a nullity to the extent of that inconsistency. If, in a court of law, up to the Supreme Court, it is proved that the law we have made and which was assented to by Mr. President has some inconsistencies with the constitution, certainly, those parts that are inconsistent would be a nullity. So, if by constitutional provision, the states which were supposed to have been consulted before any part of the revenues accruable to the commonwealth is set aside were not so consulted, it stands to reason that to the extent of that non-consultation, whatever decisions were arrived at are a nullity. I believe that's the position of the law as we have said, but as far as I'm concerned, there is politics and economic sense in the decision that has come about.Can the governors seek redress in court' Oh yes! They can go to court. You can negotiate and go to court. But for me, the most sensible thing to do is for the governors to go to court and get the matter settled once and for all. I believe so because let's assume that they agree today, in five, 10 years' time a new set of governors may not agree. But once it is settled in the court of law, it becomes very clear that, that is the position of the law.Why did the National Assembly go ahead to pass the SWF' It can happen in error; even the Supreme Court reverses itself; we are human. I remember vividly certain senators who pointed to the position of the law, Supreme Court rulings and constitutional provisions. The constitution itself needs to be amended, as far as I'm concerned because it doesn't make for good governance and for preservation of wealth for generations to come. The present constitution says you have to split everything you have. It doesn't make sense. There's no government, there's no community, there's no religion that would encourage total spending of its revenue! As a Christian, my Bible is very clear about savings; savings is a part of your religious obligation.The basis upon which Joseph became prominent was because he saved for the rainy day; otherwise, the entire history of Israel and Egypt would have been written upside down. And so, there's no community, no faith, no organisation that can live on total expenditure of all its revenues. You must save because the difference between investment and revenue is consumption. If you consume everything and you don't have savings, you cannot invest. I believe that the constitution needs to be looked into, not because of the law we have made. If there's a need for everybody to be brought in, why not do that'What's your opinion on the proposed removal of oil subsidy in 2012' Number one, I have not seen the proposals you mentioned. Right now, as I'm seated before you, I don't know how they are proposing to remove the subsidy. I know that in the last Senate, I served on the Petroleum Resources Committee (Downstream) and I had a position, which was that the major issues were how to manage the subsidy. There were speculations here and there that the subsidy was getting into the wrong hands; it wasn't getting to the real people who actually needed it. We tried to ask so many questions, to find out what was happening.My biggest grouse then was that the NNPC's activities are shrouded in so much secrecy and nobody knew what was going on there. It's a fundamental error that the activities of a major organisation like this, which is responsible for the generation of our wealth and the expenditure of it too, are not open and its budget is not subjected to scrutiny by the National Assembly. The military made the NNPC Act in such a way that they are answerable only to Mr President. Other than our normal legislative duty to oversee anybody working in Nigeria, any organisation, whether private or public, they owe some duty to the public. That is the best we can do. And I've always said that the NNPC Act ought to be amended to make it responsive to Nigerians. In particular, its budget and total revenue and expenditure need to be properly scrutinised.And if you are doing that, you would now know how they are managing the subsidy because in spite of the fact that you are paying trillions of naira for this subsidy, the pump price still remains exorbitant in the far areas they are supposed to be bridging; particularly in the North-East and the North-West parts of the country. There's still continuous shortage of petroleum products there and you wonder really who is being subsidised. We really need to know how the subsidy is being managed. If we know how it's being managed, probably there may be no need to take it off. If we know how it's being managed, probably there may be need to take it off. So, it's not a straightforward answer I can give except I am availed of the real facts of the matter and then you can make an educated submission.Is it not possible for the NASS to amend the constitution to compel the NNPC to submit its accounts and budget to the Assembly'As I said, when I was in the Downstream Committee; several times, we had to invite the Oil Minister and anytime you have upheavals in the downstream sector, you call them to order. As I said, the NNPC Act does not make the NNPC to put its budget before the National Assembly, and what we really need to do now is to amend that Act, and that would make them submit their budget to the National Assembly.I think the introduction of the PIB interfered with that process, because that was going to be a holistic approach to the oil sector. But the bottom line of it all is to amend that Act, as far as I'm concerned. As I said, if you are talking about the constitution, the same constitution asked the president to annually submit budget estimates to the National Assembly and it is what he has submitted that you look at, isn't it' Now, he doesn't have a duty under the NNPC Act to submit the NNPC budget to the National Assembly.Are you saying that NNPC failed to comply with the directive to submit its budget in line with Fiscal Responsibility Act'They did not and I will also remind you that recently, the Senate President made it very clear that this time around, it would not be business as usual. The 2012 Budget would only be considered alongside the budget of those agencies. So, we will get to that point. I hope so.In other words, you don't support the removal of the oil subsidy' I've just told you I cannot give a straightforward answer until I get all the facts because some of us need to scale the major implication of removing the subsidy to the whole country.
Click here to read full news..
