By  Dayo Benson & Abdulwahab  Abdulah

Former House of Reps Speaker, Mr Dimeji Bankole

What appeared like hide and seek game between former Speaker Dimeji Bankole and operatives of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, ended Sunday night when Bankole was eventually arrested at his Abuja residence. The EFCC action which the former Speaker’s aide described as abduction was the climax of four hours siege on the premises.

Bankole who had been kept under security surveillance following a failed attempt to pick him up Friday had promised to report at the Commission’s office Monday.

However, in a pre-emptive move which probably caught the former Speaker unaware, EFCC, which did not want to leave anything to chances swooped on his Abuja official residence Sunday night. The step, according to the commission was taken to nib in the bud his alleged plan to travel out of the country. The Inspector-General of Police, IGP, Afiz Ringim’s intervention had stalled his arrest last Friday. But the police authority had promptly denied that the IGP stopped the arrest after he personally visited the ex-Speaker’s residence. Force Public Relations Officer, Mr. Sola Amore said the IGP’s visit to the house was a social one.

Since he was arrested, Bankole has been chatting with the EFCC on his role in the N10 billion loan which the leadership of the immediate past of the House of Representatives obtained from banks. As at press time, EFCC lawyers were putting final touches to charges being preferred against him. The Commission also intended to obtain a holden charge that would enable it to keep Bankole in its custody beyond 48 hours which the Constitution prescribes.

Apart from the N10 billion loan, other charges are being preferred against the ex-Speaker. But specifically, the question some are asking, is what has Bankole done wrong by obtaining the loan on behalf of the house? Lagos Lawyer, Mr Femi Falana, had taken up the issue in a letter he wrote to the chairman of Fiscal Responsibility Commission,FRC, urging him to investigate the controversial loan, especially how it was obtained. According to the letter dated mAY 25,2011, Falana said “Our attention has been drawn to the illegal and unapproved 10 billion naira loan obtained from commercial banks by the speaker of the House Representatives, Hon. Dimeji Bankole.

As you are no doubt aware the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007 provides a framework for debt management and conditions for borrowing by governments. Section 41 (1) thereof provides:

“Government at all tiers shall only borrow for capital expenditure and human development, provided that, such borrowing shall be on concessional terms with low interest rate and with a reasonable long amortization period subject to the approval of the appropriate legislative body where necessary”.

Section 44(1) also provides:

“Any Government in the federation or its agencies and corporations desirous of borrowing shall, specify the purpose for which the borrowing is intended and present a cost-benefit analysis, detailing the economic and social benefits of the purpose to which the intended borrowing is to applied”.

The Act further provides the conditions that each borrowing must comply with which includes the existence of prior authorisation in the Appropriation Bill or other Act or Law for the purpose for which the borrowing is to be utilised.

“The combined effect of the provisions of Section 41 and 44 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act is that all borrowing by Government or any of its agencies shall be authorised in the Appropriation Bill or any other Law(s) and shall be only for capital expenditure and human development.”

The provision of the law is clear and unambiguous, the Federal Government can obtain loan for any capital expenditure or human development subject to the approval of the National Assembly. There is no provision for either of the Chambers of National Assembly to obtain loan from bank or any financial institution whatsoever. The leadership of the House of Representatives has no legal basis for obtaining the 10 billion naira loan. It is even more criminal when such loan was used for recurrent expenditure. “Furthermore the loan does not meet any of the criteria outlined in Section 44(1) to (5).

The House of Representatives is yet to convince Nigerians that the loan was taken for capital expenditure or human development as required by the law. Loan obtained for paying salaries and allowances are not within the scope of the law and a contravention of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007.

“Similarly, none of the conditions for borrowing and verification of compliance was complied with before obtaining the loan. Section 41(3) expressly provides that non-compliance with the provision of this section shall make the action taken an offence. It is an offence for Mr Dimeji Bankole to obtain loan from the bank without the approval of the House and without provision for same in the Appropriation Act or any other law.

“Section 45(1) of the Act requires all banks and financial institutions to request and obtain proof and compliance with the provision of the law before lending to any Government in the Federation. We urge your Commission to also investigate the banks involved in this transaction as they did not request and obtain proof and compliance with the relevant provisions of the law.”

In the light of the foregoing, the Fiscal Responsibility Commission is requested to urgently investigate the aforesaid complaint and make appropriate recommendations including the prosecutions of those who have violated the provisions of the Constitution and Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007.

Speaking on the issue, Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) said, ‘’I’m not too familiar with the provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, but going by those sections that you mentioned and their content, you can see that the provisions of those sections have been breached. But you cannot blame Speaker Dimeji Bankole alone. The banks must also be blamed for granting the loan without ensuring that the provisions of the Act are complied with. So, I am of the view that all the appropriate sanctions which the Act prescribes must be applied, apart from the on-going EFCC investigations.”

Chief Robert Clarke, SAN, on his part said, “As a lawyer, I always try to run away from issues that are not bordering on law. This one is not a matter of law but a matter of conscience. It is a matter of conscience in the sense that if there is a budget, the best the National Assembly can do is to ask a bank that, pending the receipt of money from the budget, please allow us, the National Assembly not an individual members to access fund to maintain the office. But what we have now is different, though every individual member has a right to get overdraft from the bank and their salaries and advances are paid into those banks. To my mind that is wrong and it is corruption of the highest order, which should not be encouraged.

“The Section 41 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007, you mentioned does not even allow the National Assembly as an institution to borrow money from the bank. The only money the National Assembly can borrow is for them to have a bridging loan from the bank. This will be stipulated and show that they are expecting their allowances shortly. This will also be in form of an overdraft to cover their spending so that while their money arrives, the bank can deduct the money thereof.

This is not applicable to an individual legislator but for the body as a whole. That is very wrong, because their salaries and allowances are budgeted for every year and paid for. The step is corruption and nothing more.”

In his own view, another senior advocate, Mr. Emeka Ngige, said, “For them to have incurred such expenses or bill and borrowed money for their spending, this indeed call for the review of the law that governs the operations of the National Assembly. It is very wrong for them to do that, especially when this does not fall within their budgetary provisions. The issue must thoroughly be probed and those found wanting or contravening the provisions of the law be punished. This type of things must be discouraged and we must ensure that it does not reoccurred, because it is not good for our growing democracy. Sincerely, it is an act of irresponsibility. After, the probe and if they are indicted, they should be dealt with according to the provisions of the law. There must not be hiding place for any of them that run foul of the law.”

The position of Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN is not different. According to him, “Sections 41 and 44 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act have been wantonly breached in the N10 billion loan house saga.

That means Criminal offences have been committed by the ex- Speaker, the ex-Principal members and other members of the 6th national Assembly and the banks for which all of them are liable to be prosecuted.

The act was promulgated to prevent wastage, fraud, leakages and inflation of contract prices with a view to ensuring that the cost benefit analysis of any loan taken is in the larger interest of the society and not meant to end up in private pockets.

So, the conduct of the Speaker is therefore reprehensible and same must be visited with judicial sanctions. The rights message must be sent that it cannot be business as usual and that the anti-corruption war must be assiduously fought to a hilt.

Bamidele Aturu, another Lagos lawyers said, “the law does not allow anybody to borrow money, so if there are ample pieces of evidence that indeed they collected the money, there must be restitution. All of them must return the money into the covers of the government. The EFCC should check the law and if they contravene any of the provisions of the EFCC Act, they should be prosecuted accordingly.