Impeachment Charges: My Reply, By Obasanjo (1)
This Day (Lagos)
DOCUMENT
September 12, 2002
Posted to the web September 12, 2002
Lagos
For the Record
Response of the President of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, GCFR, to allegations
made against him by the House of Representatives to
the Peoples Democratic Party
Introduction I welcome you to this meeting and I thank
you for your sacrifices which make you worthy members
of our great Party, respected citizens of our country
and mediators at this time of crisis.
I am happy to present my explanations to you not only
because it is just but also because I have absolute
confidence in your integrity and objectivity. Your
courage, your experience, your patience, your
dedication to our party and to our country and your
understanding of our strength and weaknesses will
enable you to appreciate the response which I now make
to the question that have been raised. I assure you
that I am not angry with the complainants and so I
shall present my points dispassionately. From me you
shall hear nothing but the truth. All that I have
done, I have done according to the law. All I have
done I have done in the best interest of our great
country. I have not deliberately violated the law or
the constitution and I have not sought personal gain.
I am not accused of corruption or mis-use of my power.
In a country as complex and complicated as ours, no
single man or woman can have all the answers. It is
for this reason that I have always consulted widely
and been open to suggestions from all quarters.
Nevertheless, the ultimate responsibility for the
governance of the country is mine and it is I who must
answer when questioned like now and before the bar of
the public.
I thank the National Chairman of our party and members
of the National Working Committee for living up to
their responsibilities at this time. I commend their
efforts at asserting the supremacy of the party and
their insistence on order and discipline without which
the party's effectiveness and influence will be
grossly undermined. That effectiveness and influence
is as essential on the Legislature as it is in the
Executive. Without discipline and respect for
constituted authority, the nation would never have
entrusted its affairs to us at this critical time.
I regard what was forwarded to the Party by the
Speaker of the House on behalf of the PDP cacus of the
House as a complaint to be explained rather than a
query to be answered as there is no legal basis for
such.
Without too much preamble, let me go straight to the
issue raised and let me respond to them point by
point. At the end, I would like to throw more light on
some aspects of executive/legislative relationships at
the Federal level which will need a change of attitude
and orientation for progress to be made.
Now I address the issues as presented.
First Allegation.
That sometime between the months of April and July,
2002, the president purportedly amended the Capital
Provisions of the 2002 Appropriation Act by reducing
the Capital budget to 44% without forwarding the said
amendments to the National Assembly for passage in
violation of Section 80(4) of the 1999, constitution
which acts amounts to gross misconduct.
Response
Shortly after the 2002 Appropriation Act was passed,
it became apparent that the revenue projections which
underpinned it were unrealistic. I immediately took
the initiative of inviting the leadership of the
National Assembly led by the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to a
meeting at the Presidential Villa on 4th June, 2002 to
brief them on the implications of the revenue
shortfalls as well as the judgment of the Supreme
Court on the 2002 Appropriations. I also informed them
of the need to prioritize the Budget in the face of
the dwindling revenue. Subsequently, on 16th June,
2002, I had a meeting with a delegation of nine
Senators led by the Senate president amongst whom were
the Chairmen of Senate Committee on Appropriation and
Public Account, during which detailed responses were
given to the charges of the Senate Public Accounts
Committee alleging non-implementation of Budgets since
1999.
Among other things, the Senate delegation was informed
that there had been a significant shortfall in the
revenue profile of the Budget, notably the unrealised
US$1.3 billion and US$1.2 billion, as a result of the
botched privatization of NITEL and non-recovery, as
yet, of looted finds, respectively. At that meeting,
we agreed that a joint Executive/ Legislative
Committee of twelve persons, consisting of six persons
from each arm, should be set up under the Chairmanship
of the Vice President to prioritize the 2002
Appropriations in the light of the changing revenue
profile.
I immediately followed this up with a formal request
to the leadership of each Chamber of the National
Assembly to present the names of their nominees to the
Joint Committee. Instead of presenting the names as
previously agreed, the leadership of the National
Assembly refused to do so. I had no option but to
direct that the privatization exercise should proceed
as planned. The Assembly was notified of the outcome
of the exercise on 10th August, 2002 as well as my
intention to send a Supplementary Bill to the National
Assembly in respect of some outstanding programmes and
projects, inadvertently omitted from the 2002
Appropriations.
I should stress that the exercise was limited to
putting preferential order to the projects and
programmes already included and approved in the 2002
Appropriation Act, within the limits of the resources
available to implement the Budget. It neither involved
new expenditure, nor a reduction of the appropriations
in the approved Budget. The capital budget has not
been reduced to 44% as a result of the prioritization
exercise, as alleged. It was therefore not necessary
to send a fresh Bill to the National Assembly for
amendment of the 2002 Appropriation Act.
If during the course of the financial year the revenue
profile improves, the priority will only be enhanced
within the already approved budget. An approved budget
can never be regarded as sacrosanct with regard to
implementation especially in the face of dwindling
revenue. The need may often arise for urgent
additional funds that cannot be covered by the
contingency vote. An example of an institution whose
needs may often be substantial and unforeseen and yet
urgent and imperative is the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) and/ or few on-going
projects. It was for this reason that the National
Assembly was notified of the Executive's intention to
send a Supplementary Appropriations Bill for those
items inadvertently omitted from the 2002 main
appropriations or urgent new items. If anything, my
action should be hailed as prudent management of the
economy.
Section 80(4) of the 1999 constitution provides that
"No moneys shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated
Revenue Fund or any other public fund of the
Federation, except in the manner prescribed by the
National Assembly. "By virtue of this provision I am
not allowed to exceed the limit set by the National
Assembly in the Appropriation Act. However, I can, as
I have done apply limited funds to me the needs
approved in the Appropriation Act, having regard to
the national interest. The implementation of the
budget is the responsibility of the Executive and it
need not consult the National Assembly in order to
determine its priorities. I am therefore not guilty of
any gross misconduct as alleged.
Second Allegation
On or about the month of July 2002, he issued a
presidential order purporting same to constitute an
amendment to the revenue allocation Act which action
amounts to violation of Section 162(1) and (2) Section
313 of 1999 constitution which amounts to a gross
misconduct.
Response
Sequel to the Supreme Court's judgment on the
On-Shore/ Off-Shore suit, I set up a committee under
the chairmanship of the Attorney-General of the
Federal and Minister of Justice to examine the
judgment and advise me on its implications,
particularly as it affected the 2002 Budget and the
principle of derivation. At that time, tension was
rising in the country, especially in those littoral
states most affected by the judgment. It was clear
that action needed to be taken quickly to reduce or
eliminate tension and avoid possible grounding of the
machinery of government.
Simultaneously, I set up another Committee under the
Chairmanship of the Works and Housing Minister to seek
a politial solution to the problems arising from the
judgment, particularly on the derivation principle of
revenue allocation.
It became apparent from the report of the first
committee that the judgment had far reaching
implications for the 2002 budget and the three tiers
of government. The supreme Court, amongst other
things, declared unconstitutional, the deduction of
7.5% special funds as a first line charge on the
Federation Account with the exception of 1% allocated
to derivation in the existing Law 1.e Cap 16 (as
amended). Furthermore, the Court held that the 1%
allocated to derivation was inconsistent with the
constitution which provides for payment of not less
than 13% as derivation. The court also declared that
there was no legal basis for the payment of 13%
derivation then being made to the oil producing states
as the National Assembly had not enacted the relevant
law giving effect to it nor the President, as the
Appropriate Authority, modified the existing law in
order to bring it into conformity with the
constitution pursuant to Section 315(2) of the
constitution.
While awaiting the Report of the Second Committee, and
on the advice of the Attorney General of the
Federation, I issued the order subject of this charge
dated 8th May, 2002 which, modified the existing law
on revenue allocation and brought it into conformity
with the Constitution. The order also gave legal
backing to the payment of 13% derivation to the
oil-producing states hitherto stopped. I transferred
to the Federal Government the funds and responsibility
for the Federal Capital Territory (1%),Development of
the Mineral Producing Areas (3%), General Ecological
problem (2%) stabilization Account 0.5% previously
covered by the Special Funds, deduction of which, as a
first line charge on the Federation Account, the
Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional. It is to
be stressed that the Federal Government's share
remains 48.5% as the 7.5% was applied by the Federal
Government to the purpose for which the funds were
originally intended. It should be noted that even
before the modification of the law these
responsibilities were discharged by the Federal
Government and the funds accordingly allocated to it.
I took that action in absolute good faith and as
necessitated by the exigencies brought about by the
volatile situation at hand and in accordance with the
Constitution. I was guided by the Supreme Court's
judgment which stated as follows:
"Now, sub-Section (2) of Section 315 of the
constitution provides for modification of an existing
law to bring it into conformity with the constitution.
The sub-Section reads:
_The appropriate authority may at any time by order
make such modifications in the text of any existing
law as the appropriate authority considers necessary
or expedient to bring the law into conformity with the
provisions of this constitution.
The word "modification" is defined in sub-Section (4)
of Section 315 as including "addition, alteration,
omission or repeal."
See Att-Gen Ogun State v Att-Gen of the Federation.
(1982) 1-2 SE13. and the appropriate authority in
respect of Cap 16, a law of the Federation, is the
President. Thus, the president had constitutional
power, by order, to modify Cap 16 either by way of
addition, alteration, omission or repeal, to bring it
into conformity with the constitution. This he has not
done. At least, our attention has not been drawn to
any order made by the President modifying Cap 16 to
bring it into conformity with the 1999 constitution."
It is apparent from the above that I acted within the
limits of the powers conferred upon me by the
Constitution, in the best interest of the nation and
as dictated by exigencies of the time. Nevertheless, I
intend to table proposals before the National Assembly
for a new revenue allocation formula as soon as I
receive the necessary advice from the Revenue
Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission. Morever
this has become necessary since the proposal I earlier
submitted on 16th August, 2001 to the National
Assembly on the new revenue allocation formula for
consideration has not been acted upon before it was
withdrawn as a result of the obvious implications of
the judgment of the Supreme Court on the proposal. The
House of Representatives is entitled to dispute the
constitutionality of my order. In such a situation, it
is my humble view that judicial interpretation ought
to be sought rather than raising allegation of gross
misconduct. It is a matter of interpretation of
Constitutional provisions, and this lies exclusively
in the domain of the Judiciary.
Third Allegation
That from 1999 to 2002 you have consistently indulged
in extra budgetary expenses contrary to Section 80(2),
(3) and (4) of the 1999 constitution which act amounts
to a gross misconduct to wit:
_Expenditure on the National Stadium Contract in
excess of appropriated sums.
_Expenditure on the National identity Card project. He
authorised the spending of the Sum of N9.5 billion
vide letter of credit as against the sum of N5.9
billion cumulatively approved for the years 2001 and
2002 in the Appropriation Acts respectively.
_He authorised the purchase of 63 houses and their
furnishing for Ministers in the years 2002 to the tune
of N3,019,153,178.06 without any budgetary provisions
in the 2002 appropriations Act.
Response
National Stadium Contract
The contract for the National Stadium, Abuja was
awarded on the basis that payment to contractors was
to be sequenced over three years of successive
budgetary appropriations. In the 2001 budget, N12.8
billion was appropriated for the National Stadium, out
of which N8 billion has been paid leaving a positive
balance of N4.8 billion. It is apparent, therefore,
that no expenditure was incurred on the National
Stadium contract in excess of appropriated sums. On
the contrary, the expenditure so far incurred is below
the amount appropriate.
National ID Card Project
The chequered history of the National ID Card project
is well known. It suffices to add that, in the past,
great amount of time and resources were spent on the
project with very little to show for it. In fact, the
National Assembly has itself inquired into this
project. I believe that its finding must be quite
revealing.
The following appropriations have, so far, been made
for the projects.
N Billion
FY 2000 6.00
FY 2001 5.431
FY 2002 .5
Total 11.931
The federal Executive Council decided to complete the
National ID Card project given its enormous potential
for enhancing national security amongst other
benefits. Pursuant to that decision, the council
awarded contract for the project to SAGEM AG of France
after a transparent process involving competitive
international bidding. SAGEM demanded moblisation fee
in order to execute the contract expeditiously. this
was paid from the appropriated Sums. I should add that
so far the sum of N9.5 billion spent on the National
ID Card project as stated by the House is less than
the appropriated sum of N11.931 billion thereby
leaving a credit balance of N2.431 billion. It is
apparent, therefore, that no excess expenditure was
incurred in respect of the National ID project as
alleged.
Purchase of House
On assumption of office in May, 1999, the present
Administration was faced with acute shortage of both
office and residential accommodation, but especially
the latter. Members of the National Assembly were
themselves victims of this harrowing experience. Huge
sums of money, by way of allowances, were initially
paid out to distinguished senators and Honourable
members of the House in lieu of accommodation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2002 This Day. All rights reserved.
Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of
> postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
> at:
> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
> To contact the List Management, please send an
> e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
