With Senate on  annual recess, and  to resume on September 29, one would have thought that  the recent standoff  in the chambre would be put behind the senators  in the interest of peace and the country.

Following the passing of vote of confidence by 81 senators on Senate President Bukola Saraki and his deputy, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, after a motion by Senator Samuel Anyanwu, PDP, Imo State, many had thought that peace had finally returned to the red chamber. Meanwhile, each passing day, intrigues play out among the lawmakers with new wounds inflicted.

Prior to June 9 when the former Kwara State governor and Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Ecology in the 7th Senate, Saraki was elected  Senate President, two lobby groups emerged in the chambre, Senators of Like Minds, made up of lawmakers loyal to Saraki and the other, Senators Unity Forum, comprising of loyalists of the contender for the Senate president who lost  in the contest,  Senator Ahmed Lawan, APC, Yobe.

The groups engaged in  accusations and counter accusations as the race for the position of the Senate presidency went on. It was like the 8th  Senate will never stabilise as there were forces from outside parliament trying to influence who became the principal officers of the Senate. Lawan was officially the candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in the contest for the Senate presidency.

With the election of Saraki, the Senators Unity Forum has, since then, never seen anything good in the person and actions of the Senate President.

The anti – Saraki group, only last  week, in collaboration with some senators hitherto in the Senate President’s camp took their fight  to the Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions.

The new move by the anti- Saraki group reared its head when the Committee, headed by  Anyanwu, invited the Chairman, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Ibrahim Lamorde, to appear before it following a petition against him by George Uboh, a security expert and Chief Executive Officer of Panic Alert Security Systems.

Uboh had, in his petition, dated July 31, 2015, accused Lamorde of under-remittance and non-disclosure of proceeds of corruption recovered from some convicted former public officials, including a former Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, and former Bayelsa State Governor Diepreye Alamieyeseigha.

The petitioner assured the Senate that he would produce “overwhelming evidence” to back his claims against the EFCC boss, alleging that the anti-graft body had not accounted for “offshore recoveries” and that “over half of the assets seized from suspects are not reflected in EFCC exhibit records”.

His complaint to the Senate prompted the probe and Lamorde was   invited to appear before the Senate Committee at Meeting Room 120 of the New Senate Building, National Assembly Complex, Abuja, by 10 am on Wednesday, August 26, 2015   over the allegations. The key leg of the allegations is that the EFCC fraudulently diverted over N1 trillion proceeds of corruption recovered by the anti-graft agency, just as the Committee  insisted that there was no going back on the invitation as it would act within the ambit of the Constitution.

The invitation extended to Lamorde inevitably divided the Senate.

The leaders of  the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the chambre  immediately kicked against the probe.

Fire works

The PDP senators,   in a statement by the Senate Minority Leader, Godswill Akpabio; his deputy, Emmanuel Bwacha; Minority Whip, Philip Aduda; and deputy, Biodun Olujimi, who   rejected the probe, said , “It has come to the notice of the PDP leadership in the Senate that the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions would begin a public hearing on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 and the committee has invited the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to appear before it.

“The PDP leadership in the Senate is not against any committee of the Senate performing its oversight duties and/or functions but we feel that this is not the appropriate time to embark on the most important assignment, particularly since the same action was mooted and had failed at previous plenary session.

“We therefore urge the committee to suspend its public hearing on this particular matter until further notice.

“The PDP Senate leadership reassures the Nigerian public of its support for the war against corruption by the Federal Government of Nigeria but hastens to add that such fight against corruption should be total and not selective.

“Nigerians need peace at this period of economic challenges precipitated by the falling of oil prices and actions that will overheat the polity and generate unnecessary friction between the executive and the legislature should be avoided.”

Reacting to the position of the PDP leaders in the upper chambre, the Chairman, Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, Anyanwu, also a PDP lawmaker, who noted that the Committee and the Senate acted in line with the Standing Rules as amended, however, said that  Akpabio and his colleagues, in their statement, misinformed Nigerians.

Anyanwu said, “As the Chairman Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, I am answerable to the Senate in the first instance. Two, this Committee attends to every petitions that come from the public. And the invitation to the EFCC boss is one of those petitions and the petitioner is going to appear before the Committee. And if you look at the press statement by the Minority Leader of the party, Senator Akpabio, it was a misinformation. There was an amendment of a motion on the floor of the Senate where the CBN Governor was to be invited with the EFCC boss regarding money laundering and all that. But we stood it down. So, there was a misinformation. So, he thought that it was the same issue. But this is a petition against the person of the EFCC boss.”

On whether the Committee would   go ahead with the probe, he said, “Of course, this is a Standing committee of the Senate. It is not only EFCC boss that was invited. There are other petitions which we have invited the petitioners and those that were petitioned against. We have FIRS; the  Comptroller General of Customs is also coming tomorrow. So, I don’t know why this should be an issue. We are guided by the Senate Standing Rule and the 1999 Constitution to invite anybody when the matter arises.”

On how he would react to a statement by EFCC spokesperson who said the Senate did not follow due process in inviting the EFCC Chairman, the Senate Committee Chairman said, “No, that is not correct. There are ways petitions can come to the Senate. A petitioner can write straight to the Senate President and the President would minute to the appropriate Committee that is involved.”

Procedural defect

Also speaking on the development, Senator   Peter Nwaoboshi, PDP, Delta North, through whom the Uboh’s petition was submitted to the Senate, who noted that procedures were followed, explained that the petitioner, from Ika South, his senatorial district, sent the petition in accordance with the rules, just as he said that the Senate Rule empowers the Senate President to send such a petition through plenary or during recess. He added that in line with the rules guiding the Senate, Saraki  forwarded the petition to the Committee like other public petitions.

Nwaoboshi, who described the attention the invitation was getting as unnecessary against the backdrop that the Committee had over twenty petitions with plans to invite persons and organisations connected with them, stressed that there has never be a time a public petition was debated on the floor of the Senate as such petitions were always sent to the relevant Committee, adding, “ the Procedure is correct, rightly done, why the hue and cry, Lamorde should appear before the Committee and if what is there is nonsense, he can come and defend the issues raised. EFCC Act is an act created by the National Assembly, we can amend or repeal it, Lamorde has been inviting others, he should also honour the National Assembly.

Also speaking to Sunday Vanguard, Senator Matthew Uroghide, PDP, Edo South, who noted that the Committee was not probing Lamorde, but acting as an arbiter following complaints and petitions from Nigerians, said that he was not facing any interrogation, but for the EFCC boss to come up and defend the allegations raised in the petition by a Nigerian who has the right to do that. Uroghide added: “Why must we probe Lamorde, we are only inviting him, we cannot sack him, we just want to hear his side of the story regarding the petition against him, we are not probing him, we are not interrogating him, the invitation was based on complaints, let us get it right.”

Senator Ighoyota Amori, PDP, Delta Central, while equally speaking on the issue, corroborated Nwaoboshi. Amori stated: “The Senate acted in line with the Constitution and the Standing Orders 2014, and the issue has no relationship with the invitation of Toyin Saraki, wife of Senate President, Saraki. They are unrelated. The   Senate acted within its constitutional function. It has nothing to do with Saraki’s   wife invitation (an exercise that was politically motivated). I belong to the PDP Caucus in the Senate and our position is that since that invitation failed to sail through on the floor earlier, the Committee should apply caution and suspend the invitation for now.”

Another lawmaker, Senator Ibrahim Rafiu, APC, Kwara   South, said, “That insinuation of a vendetta is laughable. Is it a senator that wrote the petition? Or are you expecting the Senate not to investigate such serious allegations? Every Nigerian   has theright to write to the Senate and all issues will be taken very serious without bias by this 8th Senate. We have keyed in totally to the anti-corruption fight as being led by President Muhammadu Buhari.   The parties involved   just needed to prove   their facts and the Senate will make appropriate recommendations to be executed or not to be executed”.

Breach of rule

Even with the statement from the PDP leaders in the Senate that Lamorde ought not to have been summoned, the Anyanwu-led Committee went ahead and that led to the appearance of Uboh on Wednesday to defend his petition.

Lamorde was however absent as he was said to have sought for time to enable him prepare his defence on the allegations raised.

As the Committee went into business, there was a dramatic twist as the lawmakers under the Senators Unity Forum of the ruling APC, kicked against the probe of Lamorde, describing the process as illegal and a breach of the Senate Standing Orders.

In a statement by Senators George Akume, Abu Ibrahim, Barnabas Gemade and Ahmad Lawan, they said in a standard parliamentary practice, a petition is routed through either a senator or a member of the House of Representatives and, when received, the representatives would inform the presiding officer of the chamber and, thereafter, present the petition in the plenary.

The statement read: “Upon presentation in plenary, the presiding officer will invite the senator/House of Representatives to lay the petition on the table in the chamber, which automatically becomes public document. Thereafter, the presiding officer will refer the petition to appropriate committee for consideration upon which it would be returned to the Senate plenary.

“In this regard, nothing of the sort happened. Senate proceeded on recess on August 13 and it is not on record that the petition of Mr. George Uboh, accusing Lamorde of diverting over N1 trillion recovered from some corrupt Nigerians, including former governor of Bayelsa State, DSP Alamieyeseigha, the former Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun was presented to Senate in plenary.

“The Senate Unity Forum does  support the position earlier adopted by some of our colleagues that the Lamorde probe should be halted as it did not follow due parliamentary process. For the avoidance of doubt, Rule 41(1-3 of the Senate Standing Orders specifically spell out how petitions are handled in the parliament.

“Rule 41(1-3) states:(1) A petition may only be presented to the Senate by a Senator, who shall affix his name at the beginning thereof.

“(2) A senator presenting a petition shall confine himself to a brief statement of the parties from whom it came, the number of signatures attached to it and material allegations contained in it and to reading the prayers of such petitions.

“(3) All petition shall be ordered, without question being put, to lie upon the Table. Such petition shall be referred to the Public Petitions Committee.

“It is after these steps have been taken that the presiding officer would refer the petition to the afore-mentioned Committee.

“It should be noted that, in this case, none of the laid-down procedures was followed before the Senate Unity Forum read in the newspapers that the Senator Samuel Anyanwu -led Ethics privileges and Public Petitions Committee would on Wednesday, August 26, commence probe of EFCC chairman. We stand against this probe. It is illegal and unconstitutional because it did not follow our rules.”

Echoes of trillions

At the probe hall, it was alleged that Lamorde failed to remit N2.051 trillion to the Federation Account apart from diverting more than one trillion naira recovered by the anti-graft agency.

Defending his petition against the EFCC and Lamorde. Uboh asked the Senate to get Lamorde arrested for failing to remit the money which the EFCC recovered between 2004 and 2013, just as also asked the Senate to compel Access Bank to bring complete and unadulterated statements of the EFCC from 2004 till date as well as force Aminu Ibrahim and Co (auditors) to shed light on the discrepancies.

The petitioner alleged that Lamorde’s younger brother, Usman Lamorde, was given choice assets especially in Abuja.

He said Bayelsa State Government was his client as he was hired to recover the unpaid money to the state by the EFCC, presenting a mandate letter from the state government dated November 19, 2013. He alleged that Lamorde used his paraphernalia of office to intimidate the Bayelsa State Governor Seriake Dickson, who later withdrew the letter and disassociated himself from him (Uboh) despite an earlier agreement between both parties, adding that the governor personally went to court to withdraw the case that he (Uboh) had against the EFCC without his consent.

Uboh told the Committee that he should be arrested if his petition and presentation were fake, stressing that, if genuine, Lamorde should be arrested.

Drama

There was, however, a mild drama when the Committee walked out the representatives of the EFCC boss.

While the petitioner was being cross-examined, Chile Okoroma, Director of EFCC Legal Department, who led the anti-graft agency team to the hearing, interjected that he had a presentation to make as he expressed surprise at the documents that had been tendered by Uboh, adding that the EFCC did not get the copies containing those facts.

He, thereafter, asked to be briefed on the workings of the Committee, explaining that it was wrong for the petition to be heard when the accused was not present.

Senator Dino Melaye (APC, Kogi West), a member of the Committee, explained that it was their prerogative to decide the direction of the hearing.

But Okoroma insisted on speaking even after explanations by the senators. Consequently, the Committee Chairman, Anyanwu, announced that Okoroma and others on the EFCC team should leave the hall against the backdrop that, having written to be given enough time, they ought not to have come.

Anyanwu had earlier read a letter where the EFCC boss pleaded for enough time to respond to the issues raised in the petition. The Committee Chairman then directed that the hearing room be cleared of all EFCC representatives before the Committee could continue.

Speaking to journalists after he was walked out, a member of the team, Osuagwu Ugochukwu, who noted that the EFCC boss asked him to represent him at the hearing, expressed his fears, saying he was disappointed at the Senate Committee.

He said: “They invited Lamorde to come here today and in the letter they wrote to him, they never stated that their coming here would be for the petitioner to be heard alone.

“There was no procedure attached to the invitation letter that this is how this panel will run its sitting. So, to our greatest surprise, in spite of the fact that we even wrote a letter that because of the tight schedule of the commission. This is because we needed some of the members of the legal team to come along with us to the hearing. We wrote them a letter and there was no response and if there was no response, it’s assumed that the letter is ignored. So, Lamorde insisted that I must be here for him. But I came here to see a different procedure, where a petitioner is allowed to give evidence when the respondent is not in the venue of the sitting.

“One senator, I don’t know his name, said they might bring the petitioner if there’s any need to face the respondent. Of course, they will hear from us, but what we are saying is that it is wrong, in standard practice, rules of natural justice, even the Constitution, that the respondent or accused should be confronted without the petitioner.”

On whether he has confidence in the Committee, Ugochukwu said: “I have confidence in Nigeria. You can see it yourself. Well, as far as I am concerned, we are disappointed but if the Committee feels that they can do the right thing and correct the wrongs, fine for them. But as you can see now, I am highly disappointed.”

Also speaking to journalists shortly after the Committee walked them out, the Director, Legal, EFCC, Okoroma, said: “ As you must have read out, requesting for this and for us to come and make our presentation, we didn’t get a reply from the Committee and the Committee is going on in our absence despite our protest that we are not even given the opportunity. These are distinguished senators of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I wanted to be enlightened on the propriety of conducting proceedings in our absence when allegations were made in the absence of the other party. The Constitution is our grundnorm and they are here talking about the Constitution, that is the point we want to make.”

Toyin Saraki saga

Speaking further, the petitioner, Uboh, who swore to an oath holding a Bible, in his presentation and a document he later made available to journalists, said that his petition had nothing to do with the interrogation of Toyin Saraki, wife of Senate President Bukola Saraki as the case has been on since 2013. He said: “EFCC confirmed that several cheques and drafts valued at N1,577,815,942 and $1.3m seized and forfeited by DSP Alamieyeseigha were deposited in the Commission’s recovery account.

“An agent appointed to manage and dispose six real estate properties forfeited by Alamieyeseigha confirmed that N1.9bn was remitted to EFCC between 2008 and 2009 as proceeds from the sales and interests from the properties.

“The agent confirmed remitting N60bn vide Intercontinental Bank draft in 2008 as balance of rent while N3.7 was confirmed by the EFCC as the amount received from Alamieyeseigha seized assets.”

According to the petitioner, the EFCC traded with N3.7 from March 2009 to February 2010 with 12 per cent per annum, alleging that Lamorde failed to remit the interest of N1.1bn to government, the sum which contains the N467.7m interest gotten from the actual N3.7bn that was used to trade with. He added: “EFCC continued to trade with the balance of N1.1bn from January 2010 to October 2013 with the interest rate of 12 per cent per annum. This money yielded N474.2m which should have accrued to Bayelsa State Government but EFCC is not only keeping it back but still trading with it.”

Uboh, who also alleged that Lamorde failed to account for 95 per cent of offshore assets and funds, said, “EFCC declared a fraction of what was seized from DSP.”

The naira recovery, he alleged, was different from offshore recoveries, adding, “in a December 02, 2011 letter, EFCC sent to the Chairman, House Committee on Drugs, Narcotics and Financial Crimes, EFCC stated that the aggregate recoveries from 2004 to 2011 was N1.3 trillion. EFCC did not mention where the N1.3 trillion recovered was remitted to.”

Uboh zeroed in on what the EFCC recovered explaining that former EFCC chair, Farida Waziri told the then President, Goodluck Jonathan that naira recovery was N1.9 trillion while offshore recoveries stood at $316.1m, €32.1m and £1.2m respectively, adding that Lamorde should have remitted N2.051 trillion to government.

“EFCC diverted and concealed N779 million of recoveries from Tafa Balogun in its record (aggregate should be N3.037bn and not N2.258bn). Instead of transferring N3.3bn from Spring Bank to its Access Bank recovery account, EFCC transferred only N2.2bn and concealed it by understating the summation of the balances in the various accounts hence the Access bank statement had N2.2bn after concealment”, he alleged.

“EFCC would be compelled to pay Bayelsa the remittable amount due now with interest and the Commission should be compelled to declare all offshore assets and funds seized from DSP and others.

“EFCC should be compelled to remit N2.051 trillion to the Federal Government while Access Bank should be forced to bring complete and unadulterated statements from 2004 till date.

“Aminu Ibrahim and co, auditors of the EFCC, should be compelled to come and shed light on the discrepancies.”

According to him, on Naira recoveries alone, “In a December 02, 2011 letter EFCC sent to the Chairman, House Committee on Drugs, Narcotics and Financial Crimes, EFCC stated that the aggregate recoveries from 2004 to 2011 (eight financial years) was N1,326,754,554,482:80. EFCC did not mention where the N1.3 trillion recovered was remitted to. EFCC’s claim that it did not recover up to a trillion is completely false”.

With the reopening of old wounds by the senators on the action of the Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions to summon Lamorde, how far will the 8th Senate go in remaining united especially against the backdrop that some senators on the platform of the PDP who made Saraki’s election as Senate President possible are  joining forces with the opposition Unity Forum to unsettle the chambre.

How far can the Senate go with the wounds and the continued war of acrimony when it was yet to constitute the 57 Standing Committees? It is hoped that the senators would get it right and settle down for serious legislative business in the interest of the common who look up to them to act in a manner that will improve their well-being.