How was it chairing the committee? People who heard that you would chair the committee expected that it would not turn out like the power project probe? The pressure!
It was challenging, in the sense that the responsibilities we were saddled with were very enormous for a number of reasons. Firstly, given the public interest on the issue of subsidy; given the fact that the setting up of the committee itself was a response by the House of Representatives to the demand on the part of members of the public for transparency in the management of the subsidy funds because subsidy was suddenly removed on January 1, 2012.
It was also challenging because of the demands and expectations from members of the public, especially from a House of Representatives that is constantly being monitored by members of the public.
When we started, we knew the enormity of the responsibilities and we went about it in a manner that should satisfy the yearnings of members of the public for transparency. It was also with a view to satisfying the yearnings for further understanding of the workings of the subsidy regime with the overall interest of Nigerians being the major consideration.
The Senate Committee on Downstream had sat before the House Committee commenced proceedings but the latter took the shine off the activities of the Senate Committee on Downstream?
What may have been responsible for that may have been the decision by the House to carry members of the public along in this engagement, given the nature of the responsibility before us. One, that Nigerians are very passionate about the issue; two because it would affect the lives of every Nigerian so we took the conscious decision to do the public hearing and so I had and still have the feeling that Nigerians were following what we were doing and mind you, being intelligent people, were drawing their own conclusions from what was going on while the probe sessions lasted.
Even before we concluded the exercise, my belief was that we demonstrated our commitment to doing a thorough job and one which Nigerians on their own had confidence in our ability to do the job in a manner that would satisfy all.
The interest generated by this committee on subsidy regime management appeared to have generated a higher decibel of response even when compared to the power project probe of 2007. What assurances can we point at that with what you have done Nigerians should be grateful, putting in mind the fact that the other committee chairman got enmeshed in some controversy?
There are quite a number of issues that are different from the power probe.
The power probe was conducted by the chairman of the committee on power in the House. What that meant was that he had already worked in some way with the power sector so it was very easy, rightly or wrongly, for people to begin to allude certain things to him or about him because he was the standing committee chairman on power. So we are different. I am different.
But there would have been pressures all round – from operators in the sector both private and government operators in that sector?
That is natural but we had a job to do and we had to do it to the best of our abilities but more importantly in the interest of Nigerians.
Mind you, this time around, not only am I not a chairman of any committee related to the petroleum sector, I have never been involved in any of the sector related committee. My membership of the House in the last 13 years have not placed me in any committee related to that sector; I have never done any business related to that sector itself and, therefore, did not have any relationship in that sector.
Secondly, I think it is important to realize that for us in that committee, we have been in the limelight for a very long time and we have succeeded in building reputations that we are not going to jeopardize just like that.
Thirdly, is the nature of the House of Representatives. This is a House which, against all odds, elected its own leadership without any interference from any quarters. It is a House that responded to the yearnings of members of the public by sitting, specially, on a Sunday to discuss a matter that is very dear to Nigerians. As far as we are concerned, we have done the best we can and we believe that the House will have no reason not to adopt the report of our committee which was what happened.
The implementation is left for the executive.
Given the public interest in the matter, the executive would be expected to take it up from where we have stopped, having fulfilled our constitutional responsibility.
Whatever requires legislative action would receive legislative action. We want to believe that the President is on the same page with us because he directed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, to look into it having brought in external auditors to look into the figures.
I can not see any justification for anybody not to implement our resolutions.
There is something intriguing here. Some observers while watching your proceedings wondered what the whole exercise would amount to – and they have good reasons to so wonder. If President Goodluck Jonathan, with all the powers at his disposal could plead helplessness that he can not contain the activities of the so called cabal and, therefore, went ahead to remove subsidy, sending helpless Nigerians to the subsidy vultures, what guarantees are there that all these would not become a fool’s errand?
I think a simplistic solution to what is happening is to remove the subsidy. If the fact that people are paid subsidy is an incentive for people to engage in sharp practices, then removing the subsidy was what the executive thought should be able to solve the problem.
But while the probe went on we believed in our minds that we had achieved something because it would never be the same again. Even if the exercise had been truncated, we would have achieved something because of the enormous interest that it generated and the perception of members of the public.
We have tried to identify the institutional gaps and lapses in the system that had allowed those things to happen the way they did.
We addressed those.
Going forward, we do not expect that people would continue to engage in these sharp practices based on the recommendations that we have put forward.
I know there were so many discoveries made during the probe. Which ones did you find shocking?
Many! Beyond what Nigerians were able to see during the public hearing, there were others. For instance, some of the importing companies that joined the business did so purely to get subsidy funds.
There were even some instances where the companies allocated importation slots were incorporated a few weeks before they got allocation papers, thereby suggesting that they were incorporated purely to benefit from the subsidy funds.
Some didn’t even have any experience in importation of petroleum products yet some of them were the ones who got very huge allocations.
The composition of the House vis a vis what it is known for by being on the side of the masses, what would you suggest to members of the public as a way forward on matters that affect them because this may not be the end to the issue of subsidy?
It is very important for me to establish that one of the assignments given to the committee is to determine how much would constitute the subsidy for 2012. This is just so that we can provide for it in the 2012 appropriation bill. We went very far in determining this because once we are able to determine the level of consumption for 2011, then we can safely project for 2012 as distinct from the guess work that people were doing and which gave rise to the dubious figures that over-bloated the subsidy funds.
We can then be able to determine what should constitute the subsidy per litre.
It is that aspect of the investigation that would help the House to determine what the decision of the House of Representatives would be on the subsidy figures.
source:Vanguardngr
