...He can’t dictate to us – Reps
Photo:
Sun News Publishing
Date:
Wed, 07/04/2012 - Lawan denied the allegation, saying the $620,000 part-payment he got from Otedola in a “string operation,” was to nail the business mogul. However, yesterday, a leading Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and a professor of law, Dr. Taiwo Osipitan, and other eminent lawyers condemned the ethics committee for insisting that Otedola must be heard in a closed-door session when he appeared before them two days ago.
Speaking to Daily Sun, the respondents commended Otedola’s conduct for honouring the invitation. According to Osipitan, the hearing does not have security implications that would warrant being conducted in camera as against a public hearing. He urged the House to respect Otedola’s position by allowing the session to be conducted openly, especially as Nigerians are already aware of the case. “The House should respect Otedola’s position and let him be heard in the open, especially when Nigerians are very much interested in what is going on. There is no security issue involved that could warrant his being heard in camera.
“The House conducted its probe in the open, so, why should this one be different? I salute his courage for honouring their invitation. In any case, they have no right to investigate a crime, most especially when it involves one of their members. The responsibility to investigate crime belongs to the police and they are already on the matter,” he said. Also, the Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Lagos branch, Taiwo Taiwo, called for the hearing to be made public, not private. He said: “The hearing must be in the open because the case is already in the public domain. Why would the National Assembly conduct the hearing in camera at this stage when Nigerians are interested in the matter?
“Otedola is a member of the public not an elected member of the House, so why would they not want a public hearing? The House should have a rethink on the invitation to Otedola that the hearing should be in camera. The danger for them is that they are protecting Lawan and it ought to do proper investigations whether or not Lawan is one of its members. Lawan is not different from any other Nigerian who isn’t a member.
“All hearings must be done in public not in private. Even in the court of law, all hearings are in public except the person giving evidence is a child that should be protected by the court or for any other reason,” he said. A Law lecturer at the Lagos State University (LASU), Gbenga Ojo, also condemned the attitude of the House for insisting that Otedola should be heard in camera.
“They are taking Nigerians for a ride. Nigerians are interested in what is going on. They are behaving like comedians. What do they want to hide? Otedola, out of respect, honoured their invitation despite the fact that they have no right or power to look into a full-blown crime. The issue of bribery borders on crime and don’t try criminal allegations on the floor of the House,” he said. Lagos lawyer, Festus Keyamo, also strongly condemned the House committee’s decision. His words: As for the House Committee on Ethics and Privileges, its so-called investigation of the scam is nothing, but a laughable sham, a diversionary and disgraceful enterprise with a pre-determined end, an unconstitutional and illegal exercise and Nigerians must ignore it.
Also reacting, Chief Niyi Akintola (SAN), queried the summons issued by the House committee as he submitted that the Green Chamber has no power to have invited Otedola in the first place, since he is not a public officer. “They have no power to even compel anybody to appear before them. They shouldn’t overstretch their power of oversight. Otedola isn’t a public officer. The Constitution doesn’t envisage a situation, where every Nigerian should be at their beck and call. He could even resist, he has no business with them. So, the two of them haven’t breached any provision of the law.”
The legal luminary also expressed indignation over the comment of Hon. Gambo Danmusa, the Committee Chairman, for describing Otedola a stupid man. “I take exception to the House calling Otedola stupid. That’s un-parliamentary. Otedola didn’t insult them in public. They must conduct themselves in dignified manner, he shouldn’t have used that language.” Another lawyer, who is former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship aspirant in Osun State, Tunde Odanye, also aligned himself with Otedola’s stance as he noted that the House was interested in protecting one of their own.
“The truth is, the man doesn’t want to be ambushed. He wants whatever he is going to say in public. If the House treated other issues in public, why this? It is like they are interested in protecting one of their own. But constitutionally, the House reserves the right to regulate its procedures. But for the sake of equity and fairplay, they should do it in public,” he said. Reacting to the incident, former Senate President, Ameh Ebute, said Otedola’s action is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct. According to Ebute, “that is a breach of the Code of Conduct. He cannot refuse to talk to a House committee. That is disobeying the order of the House committee,” he said.
The Third Republic lawmaker said: “Let him talk to the committee and address a press conference. If he wants anything to be in the press, he can hold a press conference. But by refusing to answer questions, is a breach of the Constitution in my own opinion.” Ebute urged the House to be tough on the matter, saying, “the committee should summon him formally and if he refuses to attend, then he has breached the provision of the Constitution and the warrant of arrest be issued against him,” he said.
But, the National Chairman of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), Prince Tony Momoh, said he had no doubt that if any hearing had to be done, it must be done in public. According to Momoh, “the thing is whether the invitation of Otedola to appear before them, amounts to a trial. If it is so, then of course, I don’t think the House of Representatives has the power to investigate him. The house should go through due process.
“But if it has to do with continuing this investigation on the corruptive thing, then they can invite him in my view. But what Otedola is saying, which I think should not be put under the carpet, is: ‘I will testify, but it should be public. “Why should anybody deny the public hearing when these people were elected by us and are accountable to us. And then, he was publicly invited.
“So, I have no doubt in my mind at all that if any hearing is to be done, it has to be in public,” the former Minister of Information and Culture said. Also, a former Special Adviser to ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo on Political Matters, Akin Osuntokun, said Otedola was right in the decision he took. According to Osuntokun, “in the circumstances, of course, he is right. I agree with him in the interest of transparency. His suggestion is the best one. I would have thought the House would be very enthusiastic to accept that kind of proposition since the most important quality we want out of this kind of thing is transparency.
“So, let the public see the thing and judge for themselves. The more you don’t allow things to be filtered through anybody, the better. “The House of Representatives has always made a big deal out of any public hearing. So, why can’t it be done in this case? It was done in the sake of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Of course, this is even more important than that one and of greater public interest. The oil subsidy probe was a public hearing, so why don’t you follow suit,” he queried.
Osuntokun asked: “Why make an exception of this? He has put the moral burden on the House of Representatives in the whole issue. Nobody has anything to hide. They should agree to do a public hearing,” Osuntokun declared. Meanwhile, the House yesterday came down hard on Otedola over his refusal on Tuesday to testify before the Ethics committee in camera, dismissing the audio tapes of the purported conversation between Otedola and Lawan being relayed by Channels Television. It described the exercise as “diversionary” and “comical,” urging the public to disregard it.
Addressing journalists in Abuja yesterday. House spokesperson, Hon. Zakari Mohammed, said the businessman’s refusal to address the Ethics’ committee was inconsequential as, according to him, “every witness has the right to speak or keep quiet.” He, however insisted that the oil magnate lacked the locus standi to dictate to the House as an institution on how to conduct its affairs.
“The House of Representatives is not an extension of anybody’s personal estate. This is an institution. We will never join issues with anybody, because this institution is greater than anybody,” he maintained. Likening the House to a court of law, Mohammed said, “You don’t go to a court to tell the judge how he/she sits. “We are not trying Mr Femi Otedola, rather, the House Ethics and Privileges Committee only invited him to be a witness against one of us who had been accused of professional misconduct.”
On Otedola’s refusal to talk, the House spokesman said, “even in the court of law, you may decide not to talk, it is left for the presiding judge to use his discretion at the end of the day”. Mohammed, who expressed amusement at the businessman’s conduct, said the committee would continue with its assignment, as, according to him, Otedola was only one of the several witnesses lined up to help unravel the truth.
Insisting that Otedola wasn’t on trial, Mohammed said the House was saddened at the resort to playing the purported audio tapes on national television, stressing that the move may have been part of the strategy by some of the oil marketers indicted in the House report to scuttle same.
“Worried? Yes! We are worried! But the House is standing firm against corruption. The report of the oil subsidy probe is sacrosanct. We are calling for a full implementation of the report along with the ongoing investigation into the bribery allegation. We will not entertain any distraction, we will remain focused. Nothing will change our stand,” he said, stressing, “ the bribery allegation is only against one of our members and not the entire members of the House.”
Otedola had on Tuesday appeared before the committee, which last Thursday grilled Lawan for over four hours. However, unlike the lawmaker, Otedola refused to talk to the committee in camera, insisting that he would only speak if the committee sat in the open.
SOURCE: 6 July 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment