Ayodele Olalere
The succession battle is still raging in Lagos State, more than five months after the change of mantle in the Centre of Excellence. The battle, which started in the middle of 2018, ensured that Mr. Akinwunmi Ambode became the first governor in the history of the state to be denied a second term ticket, not on the basis of non-performance, but that of high octane politics.
In that succession battle, the state House of Assembly played a pivotal role. And, it seems that there is no let up yet in the face-off between the lawmakers and the immediate past governor.
The lawmakers were also at loggerheads with the former governor over the 2019 budget. Ambode was not allowed to present the Appropriation Bill in December and had to wait until February before doing so. Even so, the governor, who transmitted the bill in writing, was ordered to present himself on the floor of the House to present it personally.
And although, the Appropriation Bill was passed in April, it was not transmitted to the governor to sign into law, with the lawmakers apparently waiting for the new governor, who was to take over from Ambode to begin the implementation of the budget.
Last week, the battle ground shifted to the judiciary. Ambode was ordered by the House to appear before it to answer to allegation of misappropriation of the state fund in the purchase of 820 buses during his tenure, which the House claimed it did not approve. The lawmakers had also threatened to issue warrant of arrest on the former governor if he failed to appear before it.
READ ALSO:http://PDP, Atiku and the Supreme Court verdict
In his bid to halt his appearance before the House, at least temporarily, the former governor rushed to an Ikeja High Court and instituted a suit, by filing a motion ex-parte against Obasa.
In the suit, Ambode accused the House of “bias and misrepresentation of facts” and sought restraint from the summons
The former governor also contested the constitutionality of the probe of the buses which, according to him, “were procured based on budgetary approval, as part of the Bus Reform Project of the state government designed to revolutionise public transportation in line with global best practices.”
In an order dated 29th October, 2019 issued by Justice Y.A Adesanya after hearing a motion ex-parte moved by Ambode’s lawyer, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, the court ordered the House Clerk, Mr. A.A Sanni; Chairman of the Ad hoc Committee set up to probe the procurement, Fatai Mojeed and members of the Committee; Gbolahan Yishawu, A.A Yusuff, Yinka Ogundimu, Mojisola Lasbat Meranda, M.L Makinde, Kehinde Joseph, T.A Adewale and O.S Afinni, to appear before it.
According to Ambode, in his Statement of Claim before the court, he accused the House of “deliberate misrepresentation of facts by the lawmakers,” claiming that “the procurement of the 820 buses was well captured in the 2018 Appropriation Law which was duly approved by the House.
“In section 1 of the Bill, the 1st Defendant (House of Assembly) authorized the total Budget for the year 2018 to be One Trillion, Forty Six Billion, One Hundred and Twenty One Million, One Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Naira (N1,046,121,181,680.00) comprising the sum of Three Hundred and Forty Seven Billion, Thirty-Eighty Million, Nine Hundred and Thirty-Eight Thousand, Eight-Hundred and Seventy-Two Naira (N347,038,938,872.00) only and Six Hundred and Ninety-Nine Billion, Eighty-Two Million, Two Hundred and Forty-Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty Naira (N699,082,242,808.00) only as the Recurrent and Capital Expenditures respectively.
“Part of the items authorized by the Bill under Capital Expenditure was: “LAGBUS Public Transport Infrastructure (MEPB); Part financing of 820 buses” which was item 8 under schedule 1- Part C of the Bill,” the former governor averred.
The former governor accused the House of witch hunting him, saying his ordeal before the Assembly was in bad fate as he had not been giving fair hearing.
He accused the House of breaching his constitutional rights to fair hearing.
“On August 27, 2019 during proceedings of the Assembly, some lawmakers thoroughly vilified and disparaged him as having purchased the buses without budgetary approval and that the procurement was a waste of public funds, while at the end of the proceedings, the House resolved to constitute an Ad Hoc Committee to probe the procurement.
“It was surprising that the very lawmakers who contributed actively in vilifying, disparaging and denigrating him constituted the bulk of the members of the committee, which was a clear derogation of his right to fair hearing,” the suit claimed.
He also denied receiving any invitation from the House.
“On Thursday 10th October, 2019, the 4th and 5th Defendants (Mojeed and Yishawu) who are chairman and member of the Committee respectively set up by the 1st Defendant pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Constitution again raised on the floor of the House an allegation that the Claimant (Ambode) was invited to appear before the committee but that he failed to do so whereupon the 2nd Defendant (Speaker) ruled that a warrant of arrest would be issued against the claimant if he refuses to appear before the committee.
“No letter of invitation was delivered to him before the 4th and 5th Defendants made the false allegation against the claimant which was widely reported by various national newspapers in the country.”
He added that the House committee and indeed the entire members of the House “had already adjudged him as having committed wastage of public fund by the procurement of the buses in question and had also already determined that the procurement was done by him as opposed to the state government.”
He accused the lawmakers of “biased against him having regard to their pronouncements on the floor of the House by reason of which he believes that his right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the Constitution had been seriously compromised by the defendants.”
He, therefore, sought “the court’s declaration that the power of the House to pass a resolution under section 128(1) of the Constitution to cause an inquiry into his conduct as Governor is subject to right to fair hearing as guaranteed by section 36(1) of the Constitution.”
He also asked the court to declare “that the Resolution of the House setting up a 9-Man Committee comprising of the 4th-12th Defendants to investigate all transactions in respect of the 820 Buses said by the defendants to have been procured by him derogates from his right as guaranteed by section 36(1) of the constitution and therefore is unconstitutional, null and void.
Also “a declaration that having regard to the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Appropriation Law of Lagos State 2018, sections 8 and 9 of the Law which required the approval of the House of Assembly of Lagos State before certain expenditure of money is incurred by the executive branch of the state is not in accord with any provision of the constitution and accordingly is unconstitutional, null and void.
In order to avoid appearing before the House, he asked the court to give “an injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents and or representatives from compelling the claimant, in any manner whatsoever, to appear before the Defendants pursuant to the Resolution passed by the Defendants on 27th August 2019 or any other Resolution passed in respect of the subject matter of this suit.”
Ambode’s moves seemed to have paid off following the decision of the court which ordered both parties to maintain the status quo till November 20, 2019, pending the hearing on Motion of Notice filed by the claimant.
The court’s decision forced the Ad Hoc Committee to suspend its sitting indefinitely.
According to the chairman of the committee, Hon. Fatai Mojeed, the decision to suspend sitting and stay action on the probe was in obedience to the court order.
“We are lawmakers; we are not law breakers, which was why we had to adjourn the matter indefinitely. The people of Lagos should be expecting more from us,” he said.
Also speaking, Hon. Gbolahan Yishawu said that the House was not trying to witch hunt anybody or put anybody on the spot for any reason.
Contrary to allegations that the House was being influenced by political bigwigs to probe the past governor, Yishawu denied that the Assembly was being pushed by any individual on the matter.
He recalled that the issue dated back to 2017, when it was included in the appropriation law but was not approved by the House.
The court ruling also came as a respite for the embattled former governor.
Mr. Olaniran Obele from the chambers of Mr. Tayo Oyetibo counsel to the former governor said: “Since the constitutionality of the proceedings of the committee is being challenged in the civil suit, our client will not be able to appear before the committee until the matter is decided by the court in order not to prejudice the fair hearing of his case.”
Genesis
Ambode’s travails began following his plan to secure a second term in office.
The succession politics, the intrigues, accusations of highhandedness, failure to carry along party members, truncated his aspiration to serve a second term.
Ambode eventually lost the return ticket to the incumbent, Mr. Babajide Sanwo-Olu.
Among the arrowheads in the truncation of Ambode’s second term was the present Speaker of the House, Mudashiru Obasa. Towards the end of his administration, there were alleged moves by the House to impeach him, which was denied by the House.
“We are not embarking on any impeachment process against the governor now. Whether or not there would be an impeachment, is based on his actions.
“Even at that, impeachment is constitutional. So many speakers, senate presidents, presidents and others have been impeached all over the world,” Obasa had said.
The battle line was drawn on August 27, when Ambode’s Ikoyi and Epe residences were raided by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, while the Speaker constituted an ad-hoc committee to investigate the Ambode administration.
Mr. Fatai Mojeed, a lawmaker from Ibeju-Lekki I State Constituency was appointed to head the investigative committee with other 15 lawmakers.
They were mandated to investigate the processes leading into the purchase of 820 buses for public transport.
Other projects by Ambode’s administration which the committee was mandated to look into included the Light-up Lagos and Imota Rice Mill projects.
As part of its fact-finding mission, and prior to inviting the former governor, the committee had invited and questioned some of the past commissioners who served in Ambode’s government.
First to be invited was the Accountant-General of the state, Mrs. Shukrat Umar, former Commissioner for Budget and Economic Planning, Mr. Olusegun Banjo; his Energy and Mineral counterpart, Mr. Olawale Oluwo and Mr. Toyin Suara, who served as the Commissioner for Agriculture.
The former commissioners were reported to have indicted Ambode before the committee. However, they denied such reports, saying they stand by their actions in office.
Ambode was accused of procuring the buses with the state’s share of Paris Club refund without the approval of the House of Assembly.
Ambode was also accused of sidelining the Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning in the procurement of the buses.
The first sign that the battle line has been drawn was when the EFCC raided Ambode’s Ikoyi and Epe residences looking for incriminating evidences.
The former governor accused the anti-graft agency of being used by powers that be in the state to implicate him, while his commissioners also denied indicting him with respect to the budgetary allocation for N1.63 billion LED-UK streetlight project.
“For the avoidance of doubt, I reiterate that I did not and could never have indicted Akinwunmi Ambode. I am a committed democrat, a loyal team player and a strong believer in the principle of collective responsibility,” Oluwo, one of his commissioners said.
Ambode argues that in the state’s 2017 fiscal regime, his administration had approached the Assembly for budget reordering and sought legislative approval for the N17 billion Paris Club refund to be allocated for the purpose of the bus procurement.
The re-ordering proposal was approved without including the provision for the state’s Bus Reform Initiative making the request for budget re-order became inconclusive.
This made it impossible for the administration to implement the re-ordered budget.
In December 2017, a proposal of N24 billion for the Bus Reform Initiative was approved
However, a clause in the approval of all projects in the state required the executive arm to seek the House approval or clearance for all capital expenditures above N200 million after the enactment of the appropriation law, before such projects can be executed.
The clause did not go well with some of Ambode’s aides during his tenure who felt the power of the executive was being undermined by the legislature.
The House argues they have the constitutional right to checkmate the expenses of the executive, citing sections 120-129 of the constitution which gives it power to grant approval for every public spending while the executive retains the power to spend public funds in line with the approval of the legislature.
The House is claiming the former governor breached constitutional requirements by spending public funds without approval.
READ ALSO:http://Men’s body parts women find irresistible
“The House wanted to usurp the power of release of funds from the executive by inserting a clause requesting the executive to revert to the House for approval before certain expenditures/votes can be released.
“This was considered as illegal and at variance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“Between May 2018 and May 2019, funds already appropriated were released for the procurement of the 820 buses. Before the last administration ended on May 28, the assembly did not transmit the appropriation bill to Ambode after it was passed,” argued one of his commissioners.
With the new development involving court issue, it remains to be seen, who blinks first between the two parties.
Ambode’s decision to approach the judiciary to save his political career could be what he needs to stem attempt to drive him into political wilderness.
Will the judiciary give him the respite he craves for and safe his political future? The answer remains in the womb of time.
