By Awa Kalu, SAN

MOST readers would of course be aware of Aesop’s Fables in which is embedded the cruel Irony or crass foolishness, if you may, in the fable of the Goose that laid the golden egg. As narrated in storyit.com, there was a man and his wife who owned a very special goose. Every day the goose would lay a golden egg, which made the couple very rich.

“Just think”, said the man’s wife, “if we would have all the golden eggs that are inside the goose, we could be richer mush faster”. “You’re right,” said her husband, “we wouldn’t have to wait for the goose to lay her egg every day”. So, the couple killed the goose and cut her open, only to find that she was just like every other goose. She had no golden eggs inside of her at all, and they had no more golden eggs.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, comments that there are several versions of the fable and that it is generally used as an illustration of a short-sighted action that destroys the profitability of an asset.
Put in the context of the brickbats generated by the now suspended Central Bank Governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, over allegations of missing funds from the NNPC, a comparison may be easy.

Unmitigated prevarication
Although the allegations involved unmitigated prevarication over the quantum of funds that he deemed missing, it is sufficient for our present purpose to state that Sanusi fancies the final figure which is $20 billion as the staggering amount allegedly missing from the Federation Account. It is now difficult to recall how that sum became branded as missing.

The initial allegation was that the NNPC had failed to pay a sum of money (said to be $49.8 billion) into the Federation Account but those who are interested in fables tagged such a huge sum of money missing and set most people asking “missing from where?”.

Well, the suspended Governor of the Central Bank had gone to a hearing at the Senate armed with a memo in which he pointedly alleged that “The amount of money illegally and unconstitutionally withheld, diverted or spent by the NNPC is in excess of $10.8 billion…” it is amazing that the Governor himself was not entirely sure whether the sum of $10.8 billion was withheld, diverted or spent because each of these words has different implications.

For instance, to “withhold” means (in Dictionary terms) “to refuse to give or grant something; to hold back something”. The same Dictionary (Chambers 21st Century Dictionary) defines “divert”, to mean “to make someone or something change direction”. To spend means “to payout (money, etc) on buying something new, for a service, repair, etc”. Having regard to the foregoing, what indeed was Sanusi’s case against the NNPC?

This question is relevant because if it is his case that the staggering sum in dispute was withheld, then the NNPC would not have a serious case to answer. Inevitably, the money would still be somewhere. If on the other hand, the money was diverted, the question would then be, ‘to where and for what?’ There is as yet no illumination on how the diversion occurred.

Furthermore, if the only allegation was that the sum of $10.8 billion was spent, then further questions would also arise. If an amount is said to be spent, then no problems would arise unless the allegations extend to unrestrained or unauthorized spending. Would anyone at the helm of the apex bank be expected to be more certain of an allegation made in the public domain? We think so.

This is because an allegation leveled against a massive institution such as the NNPC must be serious especially if it concerns profligacy or illegality or anything touching on an infraction of the constitution.
The inevitable outcome of the suspended Governor’s allegations was a massive Hearing at the National Assembly which brought several government departments into the fray.

Given that the Hearing did not make anyone the wiser, what did it profit the Governor to make allegations that were bound to create such shock waves of seismic proportion? To find an answer, one was forced to have a quick glance at the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act in order to determine what prompted Governor Sanusi into probing the nooks and cranies of the Bank’s vault in search of funds from the NNPC.

By virtue of section 2 of the Act, the CBN has, as its principal objects, the responsibility to – (a) ensure monetary and price stability; (b) issue legal tender currency in Nigeria; (c) maintain external reserves to safeguard the international value of the legal tender currency; (d) promote a sound financial system in Nigeria; and (e) act as banker and provide economic and financial advice to the Federal Government.

Can anyone who finds him/she self on the seat of the Governor of the Central Bank begin to comb the coffers of each revenue yielding agency of the Federal Government in search of funds which have been illegally or unconstitutionally withheld?

Is it part of the Governor’s job specification to turn into an imperial auditor, demanding from such revenue generating agency the authority to incur expenditure? Is the job of the Central Bank Governor the same as that of the Co-ordinator of the Economy, or of the Accountant-General of the Federation or indeed of the Auditor General?

Principal plank of the allegation
If the Governor of the Central Bank is none of these, then how did the suspended Governor bring himself into the wrong arena?
The principal plank of the allegation is that the NNPC failed the nation by not paying all its revenue into the Federation Account – an account created by the Constitution “into which shall be paid all revenues collected by the Government of the Federation”.

It appears that the constitution has been seen in some quarters as a trading journal which contains the nitty gritty of the operational impulses (including accounting standards) for government revenue or income making organizations. It is reasonable to imagine that the draughtsman contemplated that sooner or later, some controversy would arise from the directive which is contained in section 162 of the constitution. It is for that reason, probably, that subsection (10) of section 162 defines revenue as:

“… any income or return accruing to or derived by the Government from any source and includes- (a)    any receipt, however described arising from the operation of any law; (b) any return, however described, arising from or in respect of any property held by the Government or the Federation; (c)      any return by way of interest on loans and dividends in respect of shares or interest held by the Government of the Federation in any company or statutory body…”

There is presently what one is tempted to call an “uncommercial” argument by which its protagonists contend that section 162 of the constitution intends that revenue will include both cost and profit. Nothing can be farther from the truth because any commercial entity which fails to differentiate between its capital and profit will be as doomed as any person who fails to note that the bone is the not the same as flesh.

It has been suggested in several quarters that resort must be had to the NNPC Act which makes provision for the corporation’s general duties, the powers granted to the corporation and above all, makes financial provisions. Inherent in the financial provisions is the authority to defray all expenses incurred by the corporation.

Having explained that for its survival, the NNPC must in all reasonableness deduct the cost of doing business, what remains is to insist that anyone who conjures the contrary opinion would in all certainty kill the Goose that lays the golden Egg.