In a letter to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) explaining its side of the story, the company’s Principal Manager in charge of Corporate Communication, Mr Toyin Akingbogun, PAN said nothing in the terms of contract for the supply of the vehicles was breached.

His words: “The ‘controversy’ over different models does not arise as we determine the brand names given to various models. The ‘Comfort’ name was given by us to the supplied ST Sports 407, which had all the features requested for in our contract. We wish to state that as at 2006, the 407 Comfort was not in Nigeria. It was introduced to the Nigerian market based on the order we received in 2007.

“We did not give any discount in view of the urgency of the order which necessitated an ‘off factory production’ and special shipping terms."

On the alleged discrepancies in the quoted price and the actual amount paid for the specific model in question, PAN insisted that, “as at the time we signed a Contractual Agreement with the Management of  National Assembly for the purchase of the cars, the price of ‘Comfort’ that was eventually supplied and paid for was N6,168,750 (Six million, one hundred and sixty-eight thousand, seven hundred and fifty naira only) excluding PD1 and delivery charges.

“Our prices as usually indicated on the price list are subject to changes based on competition, market trends and promotional sales. For instance, from 2007 to date we have had several movements in our prices.”

It re-iterated its commitment to the anti-corruption war and due process, saying: “We wish to state that PAN will not condone or encourage corrupt practices in its business engagement and will not want its good name to be dragged into unnecessary controversy. We support in its entirety, the anti-corruption drive of the government and will be willing to assist in any way in achieving a corruption-free society.

Lagos lawyer, Mr. Festus Keyamo, had in an October 19, 2008 letter to Speaker Dimeji Bankole of the House of Representatives alleged impropriety in the supply of 380 units of 407 Comfort Automotic at a cost of N6.209 million or a total of N2.359 billion.

Keyamo’s letter reads:

“At an executive session in the House of Representatives on the 12 of December, 2007, members passed a resolution approving the purchase of 380 Peugeot 407 cars for the oversight functions of its committees. On the 13 of December, 2007, a memo was raised by Hon Aliyu Dikko, Deputy Chairman, House Committee on House Services to you referring to the resolution and the decision to buy the said cars from Peugeot Automobile Nigeria Limited, PAN.

The said memo was approved by you and sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the National Assembly for further action. However, this transaction has raised certain issues which require some explanation.

“I have been given the recommended price list from PAN applicable from 1 January, 2006 which shows the different prices of three types of Peugeot 407 cars namely; the 407 Saloon sPremium Pack (Automatic), the 407 Premium (Manual) and the Comfort (Automatic). These three types have 2.0 litre engines and have a price tag of N6,000,000, N5,6000,000 and N5,100,00 respectively, all inclusive of VAT.

“Based on this, the Clerk to the National Assembly awarded the contract for the supply of 380 units of 407 ST (Sports) Auto to PAN at the amount quoted by PAN. On the 3rd of January, 2008, the contract was accepted by PAN vide a letter of 23rd January, 2008.

“Interestingly, what the company quoted is not what was eventually supplied. What the company quoted for was the 407 ST Sport (Automatic) at a unit price of N6,209,175. What was eventually supplied was the 407 Comfort Automatic to be worth N5,100,000. The difference, therefore, per unit of car supplied is N1,109,175. This translates to a total of N421, 486,500 overpayment or misappropriated by the House under you leadership.

“Another curious thing about this transaction shows that the total amount for the contract is the sum of N2, 359, 486, 500, includes VAT.

Interestingly, it would appear that the House under your leadership went behind again to pay the same amount directly to the Federal Inland Revenue Services. Why pay twice for VAT?. This obviously needs some explanation in case I am wrong.”

He gave the Speaker 72 hours to address “these facts.”

Comments (4)