The Abuja Land Probe

News reports on the Abuja land allocation and property sales probe are hardly sweet music to the ears. If the purpose of the probe were to find out abuses in the process of sales and allocation of land and houses, it would seem that members of the Senate panel digging into the matter are themselves already smeared in the scandal of being beneficiaries of multiple allocation of land and acquisition of property.
Initial reports published by the Federal Capital Territory Department responsible for the allocation of land and sale of houses showed, for instance, that the chairman of the probe panel and members of his family acquired a whopping 14 land allocations in the FCT. Another member of the panel got three allocations.
The uproar that this revelation has raised is perfectly understandable. Despite the claim by the Senate leadership that the allocations to members of the panel followed the due process, something remains odd about the entire development. Abuja land is not just any other land. It is prime property by any means. If one family would acquire 14 allocations in a period of just eight years or less, we wonder what other people who would also want to own land in the nation's capital and who can afford to pay for it can get.
From the statement by the Senate reaffirming its confidence in the indicted members of the panel, it would seem that the legislative body sees nothing odd in the integrity of the chairman of the panel coming into question so soon in the process of the probe. The problem with the sort of position taken by the Senate on the issue is that it fails to recognise the great damage the probe suffers on account of that revelation. If the chairman of the panel is so deeply involved in the land bazaar as it were, not many people believe that he would be in a position to steer the committee to do a credible job of the probe. And this is not necessarily because he lacks the skill to handle the assignment. Rather, it would be because of the moral deficit he would be bringing to it.
A responsibility such as the one entrusted to the panel is a public trust. Nigerians believe that the panel was set up to uncover those who colluded in the multiple allocation of land and in the sale of houses in a less than transparent manner. If the people who are to dig up the facts are themselves being accused of collusion, we wonder how dispassionate they can be when prima facie evidence shows that they themselves are equally entangled in the scandal. As the saying goes, those who sit in judgement should have clean hands. It would be a mark of hypocrisy for the senate to see nothing wrong in the tainting of the panel's members. The law-making body has not demonstrated that the indicted members are innocent indeed. And for as long as they fail to do that, for that long will their continued membership of the panel remain untenable. In fact, for the senate to insist that they will remain in the panel amounts to a betrayal of public trust. In a sensitive assignment such as that, it is expedient to resolve all matters of credibility on the side of honour. By this we mean that the best thing to do in the face of the dent on the integrity of the chairman and another member of the panel is to ease them out of the assignment and replace them with senators who are not tainted.