Bill on Completion Fund for Ajaokuta Steel Complex Scales Second Reading

• House probes presidential investigative panel
• Public hearing on budget holds Tuesday

James Emejo in Abuja

A bill for an Act to provide for the Ajaokuta Steel Complex Completion Fund for the speedy completion of the project and for related matters scaled seconding reading in the House of Representatives thursday.

The proposed legislation, which is being given accelerated consideration seeks to end the delay and blame game by successive administrations to resuscitate the moribund plant which is seen as crucial for the diversification of the economy as well as meet the Steel needs of the country and the West African sub-region in general.

Ordinarily the bill, which was introduced for first reading on Tuesday was supposed to progress to public hearing having scaled the second reading but Speaker of the House, Hon. Yakubu Dogara, rather referred it to the Committee of the Whole for further fine-tuning.

He said the recent special seminar on the Steel sector which was organised by the House and televised nationwide should take the place of the public hearing.

The bill was sponsored by Hon. Nkem Uzoma Abonta (PDP, Abia) and 300 other members of the House.
Abonta in his lead debate decried the sabotage, and devastating impact of non-completion of plant and praised the Speaker for spearheading efforts to revamp the company.

He said: “It’s our resolution to do the needful. What we need is the political will and this is the time to test that.”

Hon. Adamu Kamale (APC, Adamawa) said when fully operational, the Steel plant can meet the country’s needs and reduce unemployment among youths.
However, a joint public hearing for the 2018 budget will hold between Tuesday and Wednesday next week, the Speaker announced.

The lower chamber hopes to pass the budget on April 24 and expects reports on appropriation for various agencies turned in by April 19.

Also, yesterday a bill for an Act to amend the Industrial Develop (Income Tax Relief) Act, 2004 to increase the capital expenditure for companies applying for pioneer status under the provisions of this bill and for related matters, which was sponsored by Hon. Henry Nwawuba passed second reading in the House.

The Speaker also referred the bill to the Committee of the Whole, meaning it will no longer pass through public hearing.

He said the bill was equally important as it tends to boost the east of doing business in the country as well as stimulate foreign direct investment into the country.

Meanwhile, the lower chamber yesterday resolved to probe the activities and legality thereof – of ‘Special Presidential Investigative Panel (SPIP).

The resolution followed the adoption of a motion under matters of urgent public importance, which was sponsored by Hon. Kingsley Chinda (PDP, Rivers), calling attention of the House to the duplication of roles legally meant for agencies that are a creation of law.

Leading the debate, Chinda noted the inauguration of the SPIP pursuant to the Public Property Special Provisions Act, CAP R4 LFN, 2004 otherwise known as Decree No 3, 1984 with the commencement date of December 31, 1983.

However, he said panel “is alleged to have received petitions from Nigerians and its mode of operation is to proceed to invite citizens to fill asset declaration form which is by law the exclusive mandate of the Code of Conduct Bureau under the Code of Conduct and Tribunal Act CAP T 15, LFN 2004.”

He said: “Following the activities of the Panel, the Attorney General of the Federation has received several complaints from the public on the need to take an in-depth look at the law viz-a viz the various anti-corruption agencies that are now established, particularly the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Code of Conduct Tribunal.”

The lawmaker argued that Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution captures the Code of Conduct Bureau as a federal executive body and that the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides greater details of the act amounting to a breach of the code of conduct of public officers and established the Code of Conduct Tribunal. “Part II of the Schedule defined a public officer in the context of the constitutional provision.”

According to him, “The Public Property (Special Provision) Act codified as CAP R4 LFN, 2004 predates the Code of Conduct and Tribunal Act CAP T15 LFN 2004, whereas the Act commenced 31st Dec, 1983, the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act commenced on 1st January, 19991 (eight years later).

“The Public Property (Special Provision) Act CAP R4 LFN 2004 is a spent law by virtue of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, CAP T15 LFN 2004, the functions specified by the Act to be performed through panels established by the President are now performed by the Code of Conduct Tribunal which serves as a special court headed by a qualified Judge of a superior court of record in Nigeria to try the offences regarding the breach of the Code of the conduct of public officers. Beside the Code of Conduct Act being a newer law on the subject matter, has made specific provisions on the matter.

“It is a trite law that the court would construe a later act as repealing an earlier one if the two provisions cannot stand together or if they both make the same provisions dealing with a similar subject matter as established in Trade Bank Plc Vs. Lagos Island Local Govt (2003) FWLR (Pt 161) 1734.”

Continuing, he said: “There cannot be two parallel agencies of government no matter the manner of operation undertaking the same functions in whatever guise or form. This more so where the functions are so similar that the public are meant to go through repeated processes and procedures which may infringe on their rights and give rise to series of litigation and the consequential loss of revenue both in overheads and the execution of awards in the damages.”

“Special Presidential Investigation Panel (SPIP) ought not to have been set up in view of the existence of such institutions as the EFCC, ICPC and especially the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Code of Conduct Tribunal both created by law and supported by the 1999 constitution.

“Mindful that the Code of Conduct Tribunal is a special court whose Chairman is a qualified Judge of a superior court of record dealing with matters related to the subject whereas the Public Property (Special Provision) Act, CAP R4, LFN, 2004 gives jurisdiction to the Federal High Court under Section 2(2)b which is not only inconsistent with the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act but inconsistent with section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which did not include the code of conduct matters under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court – Trade Bank plc Vs Lagos Island Local Govt (2003)”, he argued.

He voiced concerns over the consequential economic implication of setting up multiple agencies with its ravaging effects on the revenue of government.

The House therefore resolved to set up an ad-hoc committee to fully investigate the modus operandi and legality of the SPIP to ensure that it is in tandem with the law and that it conforms to best practices and report back to the House within four weeks.