The recent decision of members of the lower Chamber of the National Assembly to purchase 380 cars at the sum of N2.3b has raised dust among the critical members of the public as the purchase contravenes the monetization policy of government, writes BAYO OLADEJI.
In spite of the controversy generated by the purchase of 380 Peugeot 407 cars at the sum of N2.3 billion under the leadership of former Speaker Dimeji Bankole in the House of Representatives, the current House is set to acquire new operational vehicles for members.
Chairman House Committee on media and publicity, Hon. Zakari Mohammed, who disclosed this at a media briefing in Abuja said members had on inauguration, got N7 million each as ‘‘personal car loan.’’
According to Mohammed, members have started paying back the loan whose total worth is put at about N2.5 billion when multiplied by the 360 members in the lower chambers.? Mohammed assured that the lower chamber would not thrive on profligacy but would only procure materials and equipment which would be of inevitable value to the members.
He said, “When we came in, car loans were given to us and we have begun to repay the loans. But we resolved at the executive session that operational vehicles would be bought by the House for members to facilitate their functions at the committee levels. Although he claimed the green chamber has not concluded on the brand to be purchased, he assured the House would buy durable and strong cars that would be able to serve the purpose for which they are to be bought in the first place.
The essence of purchasing vehicles is for operational purposes, the executive does it and can tag it sports project. So these vehicles are tied to various House projects which must be executed to a logical conclusion. The Speaker is still using vehicles inherited from the sixth Assembly and the N7million we were given to purchase cars was given as a loan to us and we have started paying.’’
Although the Senate wing of the National Assembly is silent on its own but political watchers believe members of the upper chamber too are doing the same though away from the purview of the public.
This might apparently be a way of playing a smart card on the critical section of the public especially those who are well informed about what the law makers are doing especially as it falls short of the Monetisation Law.
The law was passed under the presidency of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo.
Since the return to democracy in 1999, the burden of providing basic amenities for political office holders have contributed significantly to the continued increase in government recurrent expenditure, hence monetization policy was borrowed from the United States primarily to curb excesses and save money for solid development purposes.
Economic and political watchers disclosed that the macroeconomic effects of monetization include efficiency in resources allocation, employment and inflation among others. It has been recommended that the problematic areas associated with monetization should be revisited by the government for effective implementation.
The need for strong accountability is also recommended so that the benefits of monetization are not abused.
The committee on monetization of fringe benefits in the public service of the federation was set up by Obasanjo on November 11, 2002, under the chairmanship of then Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Ufott Ekaette.
The establishment of the committee became necessary because of the escalating cost of governance, arising mostly from the burden of providing basic amenities to public servants by the government. These amenities include residential accommodation, transport facilities, medical services, and utilities such as electricity, water and telephone.
Some benefits enjoyed by public servants had already been fully or partially monetized. These include leave grant entertainment and allowance; other benefits that were monetized under the programme are residential accommodation, provision of vehicles, fuelling/maintenance of vehicles, provision of drivers and medical treatment.
RESIDENTIAL ALLOWANCE:
“Provision of residential accommodation should be monetized at 100% of Annual Basic Salary as residential accommodation allowance which should be paid wholesale to enable an officer to pay for accommodation of his choice.
In order to avoid exerting undue strain on present occupants of federal government quarters and to fund the monetisation of residential accommodation effectively, in the first year of the monetisation exercise, current occupants of government-owned quarters would pay 100% of their accommodation allowance as rent for the quarters they occupy.
Also government residential quarters across the country would be sold off by public auction at the end of the first year of commencement of the monetization programme with their present occupiers being given the first option to purchase the houses, but at the price of the highest bidder.
In addition, government would provide site and services schemes in satellite towns nationwide in order to assist public servants, who would prefer to build their own houses on acquired land.”
FURNITURE ALLOWANCE:
The payment of 200% of Annual Basic Salary (ABS) is for the furniture allowance. It is intended to reduce the likely problem to be faced in paying huge furniture allowance of 200% of ABS in bulk, this allowance would be paid annually at the rate of 40% which amounts to 200% in five years. This rate is only applicable to workers on Grade level 07 and above.
UTILITY ALLOWANCE
The allowance had already been monetized in the extant circulars for public servants as follows: GL. 01- 16 :15% of ABS, GL. 17 and above: 20% of ABS and Political office holders 20% of ABS
DOMESTIC SERVANT ALLOWANCE
The provisions for domestic servant allowances would be as follows: GL. 15-1 domestic servant??????? on GL 03 step 8; GL. 16-17??? 2 domestic Servants on GL 03 step 8 each. Permanent Secretary and above 3 domestic servants on GL 03 step 8 each. Political office holder 75% of ABS.
MOTOR VEHICLE LOAN AND TRANSPORT ALLOWANCE
The provision of motor vehicles to public officers was monetized by provision of motor vehicle loans of 350% of the annual basic salary in line with the provision of “Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances, etc), Act 2002”.
The loan, however, would be recovered in six years for both public servants and political office holders. In granting the loan, government would retain the existing interest rate of 4% on motor vehicle loan. For the successful monetization of this service, government would ensure that:
a. No new vehicles would be purchased by all ministries, extra–ministerial departments and federal government agencies.
b. Officers currently entitled to government vehicles were asked to return them to the presidency for disposal or pooling in the CVU as may be appropriate.
c. Each ministry/agency is allowed a specific number, approved by government, of utility vehicles including buses for essential office services (out – of station duty tours and meetings). No ministry/agency is permitted to exceed the number without prior approval of the president.
d. A Committee was to be set up to handle the issue of disposal of vehicles. In disposing the excess vehicles, an entitled officer would be allowed to purchase one car for personal use at approved discounted value.
e. Where there is the need to purchase (a) new vehicle(s) by the ministry, extra- ministerial department or agency, a request shall be made to the president for approval.
f. Provision of drivers to entitled officers was also monetized.
MEDICAL ALLOWANCE
The provision in the Public Service Rules, Chapter 9, Section 09203 has been prone to abuse and sharp practices, particularly with the submission of fake bills and claims to government. Government is therefore proposing the payment of 10% of an officer’s annual basic salary as medical allowance. However, special cases requiring government intervention would be considered on merit.
Mustapha Muktar Kurawa, policy analyst puts it more succinctly. “Corruption have been identified as the pervasion of anything from its legal form, in public offices a lot of benefits and properties are being abused leading to corruption, instead of 1 car, most top government officials use 4 – 10 cars; some have 2-5 domestic servants and maintain 3 government accommodation.”
Monetization policy is designed in order to cut unnecessary cost of governance so that the revenue saved could be used to finance development projects. But from all indications, the departure of Obasanjo from the scene has literally put an end to the policy! That was the official position of the administration of the late President Umaru Yar Adua when then SGF, Ambassador Babagana Kingibe publicly declared that it would not work. He said restricting a top government functionary from having more than two cars was a humiliation.
This gave the National Assembly a free hand to purchase cars through the ministries and the National Assembly Commission under the pretext of utility vehicles used to perform the oversight function.
But what they have failed to say is what has become the money given to them to purchase personal cars to be used while their membership of the National Assembly lasts? Today members of the National Assembly have a fleet of cars under the pretext of using them to perform oversight functions. To compound the problem, the purchase of the cars are not corruption- free.
From all indications, the National Assembly watchers agreed that the legislators have not learnt their lessons even with the ordeal of the former leadership of the sixth House. Recall that Bankole, his deputy Bello Nafada are being prosecuted on such accounts.
But House Deputy Leader, Leo Ogor believes there would not be any controversy over the proposal to buy 360 vehicles for members of the House and its 89 committees. While stressing that the cars are not personal, he added that upping the number of cars from 84 by the new principal officers was meant to create a more conducive working environment for lawmakers. “The official vehicles we are buying are not personal vehicles, so we should not make it a controversial matter. The Nigerian media should focus on intellectual news and forget about controversial news,” Ogor advised.
Deputy Minority Leader Samson Osagie argued that if the presidency and ministries buy cars with every government that comes in place, the House or the National Assembly should not be prosecuted for doing same. “Ministries, the presidency and other agencies of government are buying cars, so why can’t the National Assembly buy new cars for its new members?
We have a new Assembly, with new members; so we have to provide new cars for them. You should know that these cars are not personal, they are official.”
On whether the new proposal by the House to buy cars would not raise fresh dust, the lawmaker said, in a veiled reference to the 6th Assembly that “We would not cut corners in the new proposal to purchase cars this time”.
But another member of the House, Hon. Nkoyo Toyo, representing Calabar Municipal/Odukpani Federal Constituency of Cross River State, said she was yet to come to terms with the new scramble to purchase cars for lawmakers. “To be honest with you, I was with the Ambassador of Finland on the day this decision was taken. I was not a part of it, and nobody has told me the primary reason for the decision to buy cars for members,” she stated.
Bankole had made a purchase of 380 “operational vehicles” for committees at an alleged inflated cost of N2.3billion in 2008. Bankole had then told journalists that the Peugeot 407 cars which were supplied by Peugeot Automobile Nigeria Limited for N6.1million each would be left behind for succeeding legislators on the expiration of their tenure. However, the cars were given away to the same lawmakers, including the present speaker of the House, Aminu Tambuwal, at the cost of N800, 000 each. What a country!
?
?