Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Dimeji Bankole and his Deputy, Usman Bayero Nafada – acquitted but…
BY OSCARLINE ONWUEMENYI
ABUJA —A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory was yesterday told how former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole and his deputy, Usman Nafada, unilaterally increased allowances of members from N17 million per quarter to N42 million, amounting to N60.480 billion annually.
At the resumed hearing of the case before Justice Sulaiman Belgore, two witnesses, Adeniyi Adebayo and Ibrahim Ahmed, led by prosecution counsel, Festus Keyamo, explained how the Bankole and Nafada-led House of Representatives approved the increment and took a loan of N42 billion from two banks to fund the increment.
Besides, the witnesses said Dimeji and Nafada diverted the excess accruing from the loan into their personal accounts.
One of the prosecution witnesses, Ibrahim Ahmed, an EFCC investigating officer, told the court that United Bank of Africa, UBA, and First Bank funded the illegal increment. He said the first loan taken from UBA without recourse to due process was N10 billion, which was rolled over thrice and another N12 billion from First Bank.
Ahmed told the court that upon investigation, letters were written to the Clerk of the National Assembly, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, Salaries and Wages and Incomes Commission, Secretary to the Government of the Federation, SGF, UBA Plc and First Bank of Nigeria plc with regard to the allegations.

Demeji Bankole and Alhaji Usman Bayero Nafada,
He further told the court that another letter was written to the Clerk of the NASS to provide the minutes of meeting held by the principal officers of the House, internal memos between the Clerk and the then Speaker concerning the loan collected from UBA and First Bank, payment schedule sent to the banks from the House, agreement(s) between the House and the banks and any House resolution concerning the loan matter.
Ahmed also told the court that because the tenure of the Bankole-led administration was nearing its end and the facility was yet to be repaid, UBA held unto the allocation of the House from the Federation account; which starved the house of funds, a development that led to the last loan of N12 billion taken from First Bank.
Besides, he said the increment the members unilaterally did was not captured in the 2010 budget and as such, there were great discrepancies between figures given by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission and what the House paid members.
Justice Belgore, after listening to the two witnesses, adjourned hearing till Tuesday November 22, 2011.
Ahmed also said that the decision to obtain the said loan was taken at the guest house of the former Speaker (Dimeji Bankole) with him presiding; adding that investigation also established the total lawful quarterly allowance’s accrued to each member from the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation.
The duo of Bankole and Nafada were arraigned on Monday, June 13, 2011, on a fresh 17 count charge of criminal breach of trust, misappropriation and theft. It would be recalled that the bid by the former legislators to quash the charges filed against them by the EFCC was dismissed by Justice Sulaiman Belgore who ruled that there is sufficient evidence placed before the court linking them to the alleged crime and dismissed all three applications.
The three grounds contained in the applications filed by the accused persons before Belgore are: an order to quash the 17 counts charge against them; an order to disqualify the prosecution counsel, Festus Keyamo from prosecuting the case and another one querying the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the case.
Justice Belgore had in his ruling, also frowned at the application of the accused persons challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the case. On this, he said: “This prayer amuses me. The Speaker never enjoyed immunity when he was Speaker of the House of Representatives. Even now, he enjoys no immunity as a former speaker; so it really amuses me when he talks of lack of jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.”
Disclaimer
Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.