•Photo: Embattled Chairman, Zenon Oil and Gas Limited, Femi Otedola, in a pensive mood during his appearance before the House of Representatives Committee on Ethics and Privileges over the controversial $3m bribe scandal, in Abuja … on Tuesday. Photo: Jide Oyekunle:
Chairman of Zenon Oil and Gas Limited, Femi Otedola, honoured invitation of the House of Representatives Ethics and Privilege Committee on Tuesday, but his meeting with the lawmakers ended in fiasco, as he refused to testify behind closed-doors.
Otedola, who was at the committee sitting to answer questions on the raging $3 million bribery allegation between him and a member of the House, Farouk Lawan, refused to cooperate with the lawmakers, insisting that newsmen and other interested parties must be allowed to witness the interaction between him and the committee.
However, his hard stance infuriated the committee members who said he (Otedola) lacks the locus standi to dictate to the panel how its work must be done.
Otedola had alleged that Lawan, who chaired the House ad hoc committee that probed fuel subsidy regime, demanded $3 million, and indeed received $620,000, from him to doctor report of the panel in his (Otedola) companies’ favour.
Though the House at plenary, while referring the matter to the ethics committee, had ordered that the probe sessions be held in public to guide against anyone nursing feeling of bias against the House.
However, the committee decided otherwise, and has since been sitting in camera with explanation that it took the decision to protect the sanctity of evidence the parties will give.
Lawan had been grilled for four hours last week by the committee and no one was allowed to witness the session.
The committee also refused to brief journalists on the outcome of its interaction with Lawan then.
The closed-door method was adopted yesterday when Otedola came, but the session turned awry when the businessman insisted that he would not testify unless newsmen were allowed in.
Gambo Dan Musa, Chairman of the ethics committee, who briefed journalists after the departure of Otedola, said the businessman failed to respond to questions from the lawmakers, but instead, threw tantrums at them.
This is because he insisted that he was not ready to give any testimony unless members of the press were allowed to witness the session.
The closed door session which did not produce any tangible result lasted for about one hour, fifteen minutes.
Speaking to newsmen after the stormy session with the lawmakers, Otedola explained that he took the decision not to answer any question in camera because the House had earlier assured Nigerians that the hearing will be held in public.
He reitertaed that the crisis is an open matter which all Nigerians are interested in knowing what really happened.
Otedola, who noted that the bribery allegation “has generated a lot of public interest and controversy”, queried the rationale behind secret investigation, saying “the House of Representatives committee on the management of fuel subsidy headed by Hon. Farouk Lawan held all its sittings in public.
“When this issue arose, the House of Representatives Committee on Ethics and Privileges publicly stated that its investigations will be held in public.
“It is therefore surprising and curious that this committee has made a u-turn to hold its investigative sittings in-camera, particularly in the light of unfolding events.
“I strongly believe that the interest of the public will not be best served if this investigation is held in-camera.
“I have nothing to hide and will only speak on this issue when this investigation is conducted in a very transparent manner and the press as well as the general public are allowed to be present at the sittings of this committee from the beginning of its investigation to its conclusion,” Otedola added.
Also giving an insight into the drama that played out between the committee and Otedola at the closed door session, Musa told newsmen that Otedola’s appearance became necessary because he was the principal and major player in the bribery allegation.
He, however, regretted the decision of Otedola not to speak unless the hearing was done publicly.
Musa added that all efforts at getting Otedola to submit copies of evidence he allegedly had in his possession to nail Lawan, which he had earlier reportedly given out to the SSS and the police failed.
“Unfortunately – I said unfortunately because he was misguided either by his lawyers or anybody who is advising him – we invited Otedola because he was a principal actor in the alleged bribery scandal because it is one thing to come, it is also another thing to refuse to talk.
“We did all that we could by explaining to him our powers under the Constitution and our rules and further explained that nobody could dictate how we are going to conduct our meeting, yet Femi Otedola refused to answer our questions and he said he could only do so when we do it in public.
“We did not find it funny and we were not happy. He went further to insult us in one way or the other, and we continued to exercise patience.
“He has told us that we are hiding something, that’s why we don’t want to do it in public. Rather we told him, he’s the one hiding something by refusing to talk, by refusing to substantiate his allegation.
“We told him the consequences of this but he was not ready to go by our words. He told us very briefly that Farouk has lied four times, and that all that he (Farouk) submitted were not genuine.
“He said that he heard that documents submitted constituting evidence had been submitted to us and that he wanted to tell us that all documents submitted to us are not genuine as if he saw what he (Farouk) submitted to us.
“We thought that that was not correct, it was not in order and we told him that if a person made an allegations and he refused to substantiate the allegation, the consequences are clear…he continued to refuse to answer all our questions.
“We even asked him to produce what he said he had submitted to the SSS and the police and we told him that if he does that, we will even consider it as his own evidence but he refused to do it…
“We told him that he’s not an accused before us, but a witness; we are only interested in the conduct of our member who allegedly did something against our rules.
“He has refused to answer all our questions, in addition to that he was just laughing. It was very stupid of him and we are not happy.
“I must say this, because we cannot have a committee of this nature, respected by the House, that somebody comes and tells us that he’s a businessman and he’s not hungry; but are we hungry, ladies and gentlemen?” Musa asked newsmen rhetorically.
Also speaking on the closed-door session, Ka’Amuna Khadi, a member of the ethics panel, expressed concern over Otedola’s attitude during the session.
“He’s not been cooperative and refused to talk on the issue, Honourable Farouk came before the committee and told us his own side of the story. So if you want to do the case you cannot do it by not hearing from both parties.
“We asked Femi Otedola to tell us his own side of the story but he declined.
“All what he said was that Farouk Lawan lied on four different occasions, so we now asked him to substantiate the lie made by Farouk but he refused to do that.
“I personally asked him, if he decided not to talk it means he’s not sincere with us.
“He also said he did not release the video to anybody but last night I was watching Channels Television, I saw Channels released the audio tape on the telephone conversation between him and Farouk Lawan.
“But when I asked him that, he said I should ask Channels and I told him that is not our job. I felt he’s guilty because for every corrupt act, there is always a giver and taker,” Khadi said.
The committee has, however, promised to continue with the probe session despite Otedola’s refusal to speak.
Otedola, who was at the committee sitting to answer questions on the raging $3 million bribery allegation between him and a member of the House, Farouk Lawan, refused to cooperate with the lawmakers, insisting that newsmen and other interested parties must be allowed to witness the interaction between him and the committee.
However, his hard stance infuriated the committee members who said he (Otedola) lacks the locus standi to dictate to the panel how its work must be done.
Otedola had alleged that Lawan, who chaired the House ad hoc committee that probed fuel subsidy regime, demanded $3 million, and indeed received $620,000, from him to doctor report of the panel in his (Otedola) companies’ favour.
Though the House at plenary, while referring the matter to the ethics committee, had ordered that the probe sessions be held in public to guide against anyone nursing feeling of bias against the House.
However, the committee decided otherwise, and has since been sitting in camera with explanation that it took the decision to protect the sanctity of evidence the parties will give.
Lawan had been grilled for four hours last week by the committee and no one was allowed to witness the session.
The committee also refused to brief journalists on the outcome of its interaction with Lawan then.
The closed-door method was adopted yesterday when Otedola came, but the session turned awry when the businessman insisted that he would not testify unless newsmen were allowed in.
Gambo Dan Musa, Chairman of the ethics committee, who briefed journalists after the departure of Otedola, said the businessman failed to respond to questions from the lawmakers, but instead, threw tantrums at them.
This is because he insisted that he was not ready to give any testimony unless members of the press were allowed to witness the session.
The closed door session which did not produce any tangible result lasted for about one hour, fifteen minutes.
Speaking to newsmen after the stormy session with the lawmakers, Otedola explained that he took the decision not to answer any question in camera because the House had earlier assured Nigerians that the hearing will be held in public.
He reitertaed that the crisis is an open matter which all Nigerians are interested in knowing what really happened.
Otedola, who noted that the bribery allegation “has generated a lot of public interest and controversy”, queried the rationale behind secret investigation, saying “the House of Representatives committee on the management of fuel subsidy headed by Hon. Farouk Lawan held all its sittings in public.
“When this issue arose, the House of Representatives Committee on Ethics and Privileges publicly stated that its investigations will be held in public.
“It is therefore surprising and curious that this committee has made a u-turn to hold its investigative sittings in-camera, particularly in the light of unfolding events.
“I strongly believe that the interest of the public will not be best served if this investigation is held in-camera.
“I have nothing to hide and will only speak on this issue when this investigation is conducted in a very transparent manner and the press as well as the general public are allowed to be present at the sittings of this committee from the beginning of its investigation to its conclusion,” Otedola added.
Also giving an insight into the drama that played out between the committee and Otedola at the closed door session, Musa told newsmen that Otedola’s appearance became necessary because he was the principal and major player in the bribery allegation.
He, however, regretted the decision of Otedola not to speak unless the hearing was done publicly.
Musa added that all efforts at getting Otedola to submit copies of evidence he allegedly had in his possession to nail Lawan, which he had earlier reportedly given out to the SSS and the police failed.
“Unfortunately – I said unfortunately because he was misguided either by his lawyers or anybody who is advising him – we invited Otedola because he was a principal actor in the alleged bribery scandal because it is one thing to come, it is also another thing to refuse to talk.
“We did all that we could by explaining to him our powers under the Constitution and our rules and further explained that nobody could dictate how we are going to conduct our meeting, yet Femi Otedola refused to answer our questions and he said he could only do so when we do it in public.
“We did not find it funny and we were not happy. He went further to insult us in one way or the other, and we continued to exercise patience.
“He has told us that we are hiding something, that’s why we don’t want to do it in public. Rather we told him, he’s the one hiding something by refusing to talk, by refusing to substantiate his allegation.
“We told him the consequences of this but he was not ready to go by our words. He told us very briefly that Farouk has lied four times, and that all that he (Farouk) submitted were not genuine.
“He said that he heard that documents submitted constituting evidence had been submitted to us and that he wanted to tell us that all documents submitted to us are not genuine as if he saw what he (Farouk) submitted to us.
“We thought that that was not correct, it was not in order and we told him that if a person made an allegations and he refused to substantiate the allegation, the consequences are clear…he continued to refuse to answer all our questions.
“We even asked him to produce what he said he had submitted to the SSS and the police and we told him that if he does that, we will even consider it as his own evidence but he refused to do it…
“We told him that he’s not an accused before us, but a witness; we are only interested in the conduct of our member who allegedly did something against our rules.
“He has refused to answer all our questions, in addition to that he was just laughing. It was very stupid of him and we are not happy.
“I must say this, because we cannot have a committee of this nature, respected by the House, that somebody comes and tells us that he’s a businessman and he’s not hungry; but are we hungry, ladies and gentlemen?” Musa asked newsmen rhetorically.
Also speaking on the closed-door session, Ka’Amuna Khadi, a member of the ethics panel, expressed concern over Otedola’s attitude during the session.
“He’s not been cooperative and refused to talk on the issue, Honourable Farouk came before the committee and told us his own side of the story. So if you want to do the case you cannot do it by not hearing from both parties.
“We asked Femi Otedola to tell us his own side of the story but he declined.
“All what he said was that Farouk Lawan lied on four different occasions, so we now asked him to substantiate the lie made by Farouk but he refused to do that.
“I personally asked him, if he decided not to talk it means he’s not sincere with us.
“He also said he did not release the video to anybody but last night I was watching Channels Television, I saw Channels released the audio tape on the telephone conversation between him and Farouk Lawan.
“But when I asked him that, he said I should ask Channels and I told him that is not our job. I felt he’s guilty because for every corrupt act, there is always a giver and taker,” Khadi said.
The committee has, however, promised to continue with the probe session despite Otedola’s refusal to speak.
No comments:
Post a Comment