Otedola denied giving out Lawan’s tape, says Rep

Femi Otedola

Businessman Femi Otedola told the House of Representatives Ethics and Privileges Committee that the audio tape of his purported telephone conversation with Hon. Farouk Lawan did not emanate from him, a member of the committee said at the weekend. 

Mr Ibrahim Bello (CPC Kaduna) said: “When we asked him about the audio clip, he told us to even summon the media house and demand how they came about the tape. He categorically denied the tape and said he had not discussed with anybody. 

“He denied the audio clip. All he said at the meeting was that Farouk Lawan lied four times and that’s all. What I am saying is on record and we have it.”

The House Committee is probing the $620,000 bribe for-clearance allegation between Lawan and Otedola.

The Chief Executive of Zenon Oil and Gas has accused Lawan, the chair of the House ad-hoc committee that probed the subsidy management fund of demanding bribe to get his company’s name off the list of those who got foreign exchange but imported no fuel.

He said he informed security agents following which he gave marked cash to Lawan.

The lawmaker after an initial denial, said he collected the cash  as evidence that Otedola forced him to take a bribe.

Bello, however, said rules are meant to be followed, irrespective of status, which is responsible for the insistence of the Committee  to hold its sessions behind closed-doors.

He said: “Nobody can come and bend our rules. We don’t have any business with Otedola.  I said it before his lawyer, who  told him not to talk with us and answer our questions. He was only a witness before us and we told him categorically. We have ten lawyers in the ethics and privileges committee. 

“But he came with a Senior Advocate who sat beside him and told him not to answer our questions. He didn’t know that Otedola was only a witness before us and we told him categorically. 

 “But the position of the Nigerian law as at today is that he who gives graft and he who receives are both culprits. You are not a member of the parliament and you were alleged to have given one of us something which is illicit, then, you are the best person to come before the Committee and tell us the true position of what transpired before you and him”. 

Bello said the importance of the case would not give room for laxity as the integrity of the House as an institution is at stake.

 “This particular issue is a unique case. As a committee, our business is the conduct of affairs of our members. But this matter is unique because it involves somebody who gave and somebody who took. The allegation is that somebody who is not a parliamentarian gave to a parliamentarian. 

“And we in the parliament want to ascertain the veracity of the claim. Are we going to import a demon to come and find out what transpired between Otedola and Lawan?” 

“It’s a matter whereby the onus is on Otedola to come before us and give us justification testifying to the fact that truly he gave Lawan graft because he is an accused person too by virtue of our laws. So, can you see the fallacy in this country? We don’t know who is protecting the accused person here. 

“He (Lawan) came and we interrogated him for almost four hours after giving his testimony he left, with the arrangement that whenever we need his presence he will come back. Now he (Otedola)is insisting that we should go into a public hearing”.  

The lawmaker also defended the action of the Committee on its decision to hold its session in secret, saying,  “Let me tell you, there is a difference between a public hearing and a committee sitting. 

“In a public hearing, each and every Nigerian has the right to come and witness the sitting as long as such a person will maintain the peace. But in a committee sitting of this nature, it is strictly restricted to members of the House especially as it concerns the conduct of a member of the parliament hence we had to meet in privacy.

“Because we are not a court neither are we a tribunal to give a verdict. He doesn’t know that we cannot give verdict. We are just to analyze by law, our own findings and take back to the House. That is our limit. We can either punish Lawan nor Otedola.

And we do not have any provisions within our standing rules where we can compel Otedola to give any testimony. But the law of this country provides that he who asserts must prove beyond reasonable doubt. So, what is beyond reasonable doubt here? In as much as Otedola was the nominal complainant in this allegation but he declined in giving statement.

“We are not hiding anything and we are not protecting anybody. 

“We have been cautioned. Any of our member who goes the extra mile to do anything that is abominable is on his own. Every member is assumed to be responsible and reasonable. 

“That is why we are going to do our work without fear or favour. We will do our work diligently and report back to the House”.