Budget padding: Is APC right to seek political solution? - Chief Ogunlewe

As far as I am concerned, the 2016 budget is already a law. So, the noise over the process that led to the final document would not make much difference.

The budget is not subject to interpretation by any security or anti-graft commission. It could only be unturned by a court of competent jurisdiction.

However, the padding allegation is beyond an individual or a political party. If any group believes that there are provisions that are repugnant to the existing (appropriation) law or that affect it negatively, it should go to court. It is only the court that could settle such an issue

So, there is nothing the Economic

and Financial Crimes Commission could do about the matter. What does the EFCC want to probe? Is it going to probe President Muhammadu Buhari as well? It is only the court that could nullify the act because it is not subject to any investigation. If it is, it would be an indictment on President Buhari for signing a flawed budget into law.

The All Progressives Congress should not ridicule the entire nation. The 2016 budget has been signed and it has become a law. The APC should caution its members. In future, the President has to do more scrutiny to limit or prevent any fraud or padding. Since the budget has been signed into law, there is nothing any politician could do about it.

 Professor Osipitan

I do not think the allegation is something that should be treated as a party issue by the All Progressives Congress. The party should allow the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other relevant institutions to investigate the matter and find out whether it is a criminal act or not. It cannot be treated as an intra-party issue. It is a national issue.

But whether padding is an offence or not is what the court has to decide. The court has to decide whether padding falls into the category of forgery. If the court rules that padding is criminal, it means the issue is beyond the APC.

If the matter is not allowed to be decided by the court, somebody may go to court to compel the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to institute a prosecution. A Non-Governmental Organisation could even go to court to compel the AGF to prosecute those who are involved. Of course, if there are grounds for prosecution and they are dismissed, it would be a minus on the anti-corruption war.

Timi Frank

Personally, I have condemned my political party for keeping silence on the padding scandal by the members of the House of Representatives – when it was expected to do something. It should have intervened long before now. The party leaders should have done something when the matter had yet to become a public issue. In the previous interviews I granted, I made my position very clear.

Unfortunately, the leaders of the All Progressives Congress started calling for peace when it was rather late. That was something they should have done long ago. As far as I am concerned, their action is like taking a medicine after death. The mediation is coming too late; it is coming when Nigerians have already taken over the issue.

The party suddenly realised that the issue could be resolved as an internal affair. Its decision is understandable. But for a matter that is already at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission, I don’t know how the APC intends to go about resolving it internally.

Whatever be that case, I still maintain my position – the party should have intervened when the matter was fresh. As it is, I stand by Nigerians; the matter is no longer within the powers of the party. Every Nigerian has interest in how it is resolved. So, the APC should allow the EFCC and the ICPC to do their job.

Ikenja Eze

As a member of the Peoples Democratic Party, some people would expect me to celebrate the crisis involving the members of the All Progressives Congress. But I am not celebrating.

I don’t want to believe that the APC is unable to manage its conflict. Understandably, this is its first time in national leadership position.

A political party has a role to play in any society that practises party politics. So, the APC has the responsibility to call its members and advise them on how to handle the crisis.

We must understand that there are rules governing the members of the House of Representatives. The internal mechanisms of the House of Representatives should have been explored before an external agency was approached.

Democracy is a slow and rigorous process. To ensure fairness and freedom, the processes are rigorous. Even if one goes to court, one would not get a judgment immediately. We must be in tune with the workings of democracy. If allegations are made, there are internal mechanisms that should be used to treat the allegations.

Recently, some members of the parliament were accused of having inappropriate relationship with some women in the United States. That was a case that involved two countries. But the House of Representatives directed the relevant committee to look at the allegation. That shows how effective the legislature’s internal mechanism is.

No matter how angry we are, we must know that we practise democracy. So, no matter how aggrieved the former Chairman, House of Representatives’ Committee on Appropriation, Abdulmumin Jibrin, was, he should have exhausted the internal mechanisms of the house before taking a further step. By rushing to the anti-graft agencies, Jibrin gave the impression that he had an ulterior motive.

What the APC has done is not different from what every political party that operates in a party politics environment does. The APC is expected to play the role of a father; it even delayed in taking an action. The matter should not have been taken to the EFCC and the ICPC immediately. The commissions, no matter the weight of their findings, would still go to court. Even when the court makes a pronouncement, those who are not satisfied would appeal. Democracy is rigorous; we must prepare to go through the processes.

Professor Saleh

It is not out of point for the party to intervene in the crisis. We should understand that the matter started as an internal matter. The former Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Appropriation, Abdulmumin Jibrin, should have exhausted the legislature’s internal mechanisms before taking the matter to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission.

I know that the House of Representatives has internal rules and processes, which it applies in resolving disputes. Those rules and processes should have been explored. But now that the EFCC and the ICPC have been petitioned, they should be allowed to carry out their investigations. The fact that the APC has intervened in the conflict does not foreclose investigations by relevant agencies. They should investigate the issues raised and let Nigerians know their findings.

Of course, the APC cannot cover up the matter. It is too late to do so. But I also think that the cry by Jibrin is unnecessary. You cannot be the prosecutor and the judge in your own case. He should allow the anti-graft agencies to treat his petitions.

Mike Igbokwe

The attempt by the All Progressives Congress to settle the issue may not necessarily undermine investigation by relevant authorities. No political party can stop legally-established institutions from carrying out their mandates unless those institutions do not want to do their job. No political party has the power to do so. I am not sure the APC intends to stop public institutions from carrying out their constitutional responsibilities as regards the padding allegation. Even the President, I am sure, would not do that.

If there is an ongoing investigation on the allegation, it means that the facts are still unclear. Until the investigations are completed, nobody can say whether there was padding or not. More revelations are being published by both traditional and social media on a daily basis.

But from the perspective of the law, the accused persons remain innocent until the court says they are guilty. That must be understood by all parties to the matter. It should also be noted that no panel or agency except the court can declare anybody guilty.

Credit: Punch