Reps Vs Otedola

Hon . Tambuwal

It is shameful that the government and security agencies are treating the matter with levity

The arcane drama with businessman Femi Otedola and lawmaker Farouk Lawan as lead actors is turning to a national tragedy. We are sure many out there will be asking, are our leaders without shame? For, between the two, and probably including others, a crime has definitely been committed, yet what we get is gas. The law enforcement agencies have suddenly become lame duck, or compromised, or misdirected to stay off. In frustration we ask, how can public confessions to felony be so disdainfully treated by a nation that wants to be reckoned with as a modern society?        

For those who may have forgotten, Mr Otedola confessed that he was forced to offer a bribe to Lawan, who in turn claimed he was coerced to receive the inducement.  The motive for the offer and the price for the acceptance were to remove certain companies owned by Mr. Otedola from among those indicted by the House of Representatives ad hoc committee that probed the fuel subsidy regime for alleged economic crimes against the country, a mission that was accomplished. While there may be dispute between the two as to who was committing a crime, and who was playing along, there is ample lead for an indictment of at least one, if not the two of them. 

Instead of a swoop by the police on the culprits in furtherance of their constitutional responsibilities to investigate and prevent the commission of crime, the parties are encouraged to resort to drama and propaganda, with the law enforcement agencies turning part of the entertained crowd. We need to remind the national leadership that what clearly comes to the minds of ordinary Nigerians as this dance of shame plays out, is that there is a collusion to bury the case together with the subsidy report. And, on behalf of Nigerians dazed by this macabre show, we ask, where will the national redemption come from? 

Mr Otedola told the world, including the law enforcement agencies, that he was cooperating with the State Security Service (SSS) during the operation. He claimed to have given out marked money to Mr. Lawan, and that the illicit transaction was recorded. Yet, there is the pretence that there is no enough evidence to indict Mr. Lawan. On his part, Mr. Lawan claims that he acted along to expose Mr. Otedola for inducing him to corrupt enrichment, and that he duly informed another lawmaker and the police about this criminal conduct. As if men of the SSS or the other named persons belong to prehistoric ages, those with constitutional responsibility to bring either or both of them to justice pretend to be groping in the dark.    

Increasingly, there is the general impression that more public officials are involved in this scam. As many have asked, from where did the SSS source a whopping sum of $620,000? Was that tax payers’ money, and if it was, why did the security men quite unconventionally allow Mr. Lawan to walk away with marked money, with the possibility now, that that money may be lost forever? If indeed Mr. Otedola worked with security officials as he claimed, are those officials responsible to the state, and if they are, why did they allow Mr. Otedola to take the initiative of blowing the whistle? If they failed to act appropriately and their conduct amounts to gross negligence, are they not culpable to be called to answer for failing in their duties?

The House of Representatives investigating Mr. Lawan owes Nigerians more than it is offering. We ask, what effort has it made to expose the veracity of the link to the security agencies either way?  While making a show of public hearings when it concerns others, how come this particular case against one of its own needs to be heard in camera? If the House wants to dig out facts, can’t it hear all the parties the same day to ensure the stories are not doctored, as they claimed to be afraid of? Why so many loose ends over a fairly straight-forward matter?

If we have independent security agencies, would they not have examined the possibility that Mr. Otedola was acting out a script against the subsidy report? Where that is the case, wouldn’t it be fair to know at whose instance he is working? With his advertised closeness to the Presidency, is it possible that he was recruited to destabilise the legislature or the report? Indeed, is it possible that he was acting for the discredited members of the petroleum products importers indicted by the subsidy report? These are questions that should worry the law enforcement agencies, if indeed the well-being of the country is the primary essence of governance. It is not too late to act in defence of our national integrity.