The power sector, FCT and other probes

THE probe into the power sector by the House of Representatives Committee on Power and Steel as well as the Senate probe of the sale of Federal Government houses by the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) under the Obasanjo government, as expressions of the determination of the present National Assembly to audit the performance of the past administration, continue to excite public interest, and this is understandable. Not a few persons think however, that, one year into its tenure, the National Assembly is spending so much time and effort digging into the past, to the detriment of the more urgent task of making laws to improve the here and now. But the exercise is certainly useful, through it so much is being revealed about how the country's affairs and resources were managed; the people's right to know is also being underlined.

There is also the humbling lesson that public office holders, no matter how powerful, can, in the course of time, be called to render account on their stewardship - a clear reminder of the transience of power. It is also reassuring, in the face of a palpable crisis of governance in the country, to see a legislature at the centre that appears to be productively engaged. There are matters arising, however, from the exercise so far. Whereas the exercise may have generated much light and is serving a useful purpose, there are glaring shortcomings which may affect the effectiveness of the initiative. One problem is the seeming lack of capacity, if not competence, on the part of the probe committees.

As the probe sessions have repeatedly shown, the National Assembly is ill-equipped with the skill and instruments required for the function that it has taken on. Often times, the form, content and quality of questions posed reveal that research into the facts and figures of the matter at hand have not been done by interrogators; some questions are downright unintelligent, some statements irritatingly obtuse, all with the consequence that respondents expose the limitations of the panel. In the case of the House Committee on the power sector, some of the companies involved in the National Integrated Power Project (NIPP) have placed advertorials in the newspapers that more or less trivialise the serious accusations against them and portray the committee as ill-informed.

At the Senate, persons who were summoned to appear before the panel on the sale of Federal Government houses and other related matters in the Federal Capital Territory obviously appeared better prepared than the Committee members. For this reason, the exercise almost degenerated into a sorry burlesque. But perhaps the more dramatic incident so far would be the invitation to both former President Olusegun Obasanjo and former Vice-President Alhaji Atiku Abubakar by the House Committee on the power sector. Both men failed to turn up. The one was 'slightly indisposed' while the other could not catch a flight back to the country from the Middle East. However, the Vice-President had argued that since he was sidelined in the scheme of things he would have little or nothing to say that may shed light on the matter at hand.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo sent a written response to the panel in which he said, in sum, that having inherited in 1999, a sector where no investment had been made in the preceding 18 years, and only 1500 megawatts of electricity supply in the eight years of his administration, he has 'been told that the figure (invested in the sector)...is in the region of $6.5 billion...' Importantly, however, he did not say how many watts of electricity have been delivered by this investment by the end of his government in May 2007. And there lies the crux of the matter: with so much money - be it four billion or 16 billion dollars - spent by the past administration, how come power supply never improved?

The former President added that his government laid the foundation for future efforts for 'what is required is serious, adequate and committed follow-up and sustenance from where we stopped'. But the matter is not so clear and simple; in many parts, General Obasanjo's response was contemptuous and dismissive.

This probe has revealed how due process and transparency were conveniently compromised at the highest level by a government that paraded these as cornerstone of its efforts, how large sums in foreign currencies were paid to corporate entities with no legal existence; how barely existent projects were commissioned - knowingly or unknowingly - by the former president; how foreign companies, including one blacklisted by an international financial organisation, collected public funds but have nary a thing to show for it, long after. The former President's response raised more questions than it sought to answer.

This is why it is surprising that the House Committee simply said that it was satisfied with the response. Certainly Nigerians are not satisfied with this monologue of a submission by their former president. Thankfully, since he has offered 'to do whatever is possible within the Constitution, decency and law' to assist the investigation of executive actions after office, we hope that the former President will keep this promise. Even as sitting president, he had offered himself to be questioned at the Justice Oputa Panel. He should be prepared to shed further light when and where need be, on the power sector and other matters.

And that is how it should be in a society governed by the rule of law rather than the rule of men; for, in many other countries, it is neither disrespectful nor in bad taste that, if need be, former heads of state are questioned by duly constituted authorities. Indeed, Chief Obasanjo cannot afford to be irritated by, or ever be tired to honour an invitation to answer for his stewardship. Beyond delegated duties and collective responsibility, it was his government and the buck stopped at his desk. And, in the specific case of the power sector probe, it may be said that credibility and integrity are some of the issues at stake.

We should think that, after all is said, the question must arise: where do we go from here? It is in this light that we urge the legislature to firmly keep in view, its specific objectives for instituting these probes which we dare assume is to put in place, within its competence the legislative provisions that would prevent future misdemeanour in public office. But only this much can the National Assembly do. It must, at the end of the day, send its findings to the Executive arm of government for further action. No one can say for sure, how enthusiastic the presidency is, or will be to act in this regard. There is, indeed, good reason to doubt. In a sense, it may be said that the legislature has taken these investigative roles upon itself because of the failure of the Executive that controls the appropriate machinery, to do so.

To strengthen its own processes and save itself from further embarrassment, the National Assembly should ensure that the probes do not end up as a circus. Legislators on these assignments should avail themselves of as much information as possible on the issues at hand. Indeed, it is for this purpose that legislators are entitled to a number of aides at state expense. The various committees can, for future purposes, seek the assistance of researchers and other professionals who are skilled in the art of interrogation. It is only by asking the right questions that the right answers can be elicited. In the final analysis, Nigerians need to have the right answers.