AN Abuja High Court clearance of former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Dimeji Bankole and his Deputy, Usman Bayero Nafada of financial misconduct or wrong doing of the
17-count charge of conspiracy and criminal breach of trust has been faulted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The trial judge, Suleiman Belgore, in a three- hour ruling, held that Bankole and Nafada did not breach any known financial regulations or statute to warrant their being charged and tried.
Belgore said the duo could not be held “vicariously liable” under the country’s criminal law for the action that was taken by the Lower House.
In a swift reaction to the ruling yesterday, EFFC lead counsel, Mr. Festus Keyamo, said the court erred in discharging Bankole and Nafada based on the no-case submission they made.
Keyamo said: “This charge is only in relation to the allegations of obtaining illegal loans and the indiscriminate increase of the “allowances” and “running costs” from N27 million to N42 million per member, per quarter, under the leadership of the accused persons. The charge in relation to the contravention of the Public Procurement Act, to wit: inflation of prices of goods purchased for members of the House is still pending before the Federal High Court, Abuja.”
Belgore had held that the two accused persons did not move any money with the intention of dishonestly taking them. “How can borrowed money now somersault to a property that was dishonestly taken for personal use?” he asked rhetorically.
The court also held that “the House of Representatives does not need approval from the President to increase its running cost and also source for loans from a bank, as it is an independent arm of government, which is not in the category of ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs)” contrary to Keyamo’s submission.
Belgore disagreed with the EFCC that by not seeking the approval of Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission RMAFC), the accused persons breached the extant provisions of the commission’s Act.
“Is RMAFC the owner of the money as to make its consent relevant? How can it be relevant that money approved by members need to get the approval of RMAFC before it is disbursed?”
According to him, “there is, therefore, no evidence that the accused persons moved the money or gave such orders for the movement of the money, as no evidence of taking of any property dishonestly has been established. The accused persons were not among the beneficiaries of the loans, if anything, their running costs were drastically reduced.”
Belgore also held that the functions of the accused persons, in their capacities as Speaker and Deputy Speaker, did not include any dealings with the funds of the House. Rather, their functions were “purely legislative in nature.
He said contrary to EFCC’s allegation that the leadership of the House obtained a loan facility of N40 billion from First Bank Plc and United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc, the actual amount of loans taken and rolled over thrice is N25 billion only.
But Belgore berated the members of the House for being “insensitive” to the plight of Nigerians, who elected them, as exemplified in their “mindless increment in their running costs.”
Consequently, the court declared that, “there was no contravention of any financial regulations by the two accused persons and no prima facie case has been established against them. I find considerable merit in this ‘no case submission’ by the defence. The charge against the accused persons/ applicants cannot be sustained and it is hereby struck out.”
Keyamo, however, said: “We disagree with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Belgore because the court held that though it is morally wrong, morally indefensible and morally insensitive for the members of the House led by Bankole and Nafada to have increased their “running costs” from N27 million per quarter, per member, to N42 million, it did not amount to a criminal offence but a moral wrong. The court reasoned that the legislature, being a different arm of government, RMAFC cannot fix the ‘running costs’ for its members. They are at liberty to increase their ‘running costs’ to whatever amount they so collectively wish.
“Again the judge held that RMAFC can only fix ‘wages’ and ‘allowances’ and not ‘running costs’ and that ‘running costs’ do not qualify as ‘allowances.’
“Our disagreement on this point is based on section 70 of the 1999 Constitution that states that ‘a member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall receive such salary and other allowances as the RAFMC may determine.”
The EFCC added that the court was wrong in ruling that Bankole and Nafada could not be held for criminal breach of trust because constitutionally, their powers do not include control of the accounts of the House.
Keyamo added that the court declaration that the accused persons could not be held guilty for theft was incorrect because “theft is committed when a property belonging to another is taken fraudulently without the consent of the other person. In this case, so long as monies were credited to the account of the House, which is an account of the Federal Government, they still needed to follow strict financial regulations in disbursing those amounts.”