The Senate, on Wednesday February 24, received the report of its joint committee that investigated the alleged ‘Mismanagement of TSA.’ Chairing the seating was Senate President, Sen. Bukola Saraki, who himself has a case pending before the Code of Conduct Tribunal.
The chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance, Senator John Enoh from Cross rivers state, made a 40-page presentation detailing the highlights of their presentation, summary of their findings and recommendations for the chambers for adoption. While all these were done in the fulfilment of their constitutional responsibilities, their actions on that auspicious afternoon have again opened the proverbial ‘keg of gunpowder.’
The Senate claimed to be in support of TSA and rightly appreciated Mr. President for demonstrating the will and leadership to oversee its execution. According to them however, Remita and CBN appeared to have charged ‘higher-than-obtainable’ rates as transaction fees and as such their contract should be terminated.
Instantaneously, this position sets the entire nation ablaze. Social media took the wrong cue as everyone begins to question the ability of the Senate to terminate a validly executed contract between two legal parties.
How is it possible that the Senate, who claims to support the TSA, will have as its primary recommendation the termination of the contract upon which the project is executed? How is it possible that business arrangement between a private organisation and government agency gets arbitrated on the floor of the Nigerian senate?
Indeed, what is the value of a contract in Nigeria today? What is the confidence given to investors to pull their cash and human resources together and approach the government for a social initiative? When will the government and her agents respect the terms of valid agreements and where aggrieved or in breach approach the court for arbitration?
The Senate initiated their investigations based on the motion of alleged Fraud and mismanagement of TSA presented by Senator Dino Melaye. Their acclaimed intention was to save to the nation some money through the detection of purported fraud in the management of TSA by the owners of Remita, SystemSpecs, but what the senate may have unwittingly done is move Nigeria back some years and incurred on the nation possible billions of Naira in losses.
To start with, the Senate by its submissions and recommendation agreed that Remita has a valid contract with the CBN, for if they don’t, why would there be a recommendation for termination? It means therefore that Remita, or by implication, SystemSpecs can rightly seek the protection of the law and sue the CBN and by extension the FGN for breach of contract in a straight forward case.
Several examples of government intervention in contractual issues has not only messed up our respectability as a nation and discouraged investors, it has also set us back by billions of naira, possibly even dollars. The Maevis vs. FAAN matter still burns bright in our minds, where Maevis-very much like Remita, committed human and material resources toward the automation of revenue collections at the four (4) major airports in the country and the FAAN subsequently terminated the contract alleging a breach.
Meavis promptly sought safety via the court and a judgment in their favor was issued wherein on 17th June 2013, a Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos ordered that N5 billion be paid as compensation to Maevis Nigeria Limited over the breach of a revenue collection deal it had with the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (FAAN).
Although an appeal is still in court, the really sad part here is that asides the 5billion naira the country has to pay, the achievement and operational efficiency the Maevis project brought to the country has been terminated and we are really back to square one. No operational efficiency delivered, and we still get to pay 5billion naira or possibly more as compensatory fine.
Other examples abound of government failing to honor agreements it made with reputable local and foreign organizations for varying reasons, a reality which has factually discouraged many forward-looking and innovative organisations from dealing with the Nigerian government. The Chams vs. NIMC where over 121 billion naira was wasted, many jobs lost; the Chams consortium closed up shop in Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt and Benin and a general wastage of effort, time and considerations by the investing parties. Even as arbitration also continues, one can only imagine the human, material and monetary losses the nation will suffer from NIMC’s singular act of termination without standardized recourse to arbitration.
Other well-known contract conflicts like the ‘Metroline & Lagos State’ matter,’ Bi-Courtney vs FAAN’ and ‘Manitoba & FGN’ contract which was singularly terminated in 2012 and subsequently reviewed in 2015 after countless legal and bureaucratic brickbats shows that the nation’s leaders are really not learning from their historical errors.
For if as submitted Remita’s contract is terminated, on what basis then does Remita now operate? If Remita does hands off the TSA project, how then does TSA function-knowing that the OAGF claimed there is no solution within the country currently capable to deliver on the TSA? Would we because of a commercial dispute truncate all the achievements of TSA thus far?
The Minister of Finance, Minster of Information, Vice President and even Mr. President have repeatedly hailed the achievement of TSA-and how significantly it has blocked corruption and is aiding government towards the execution of the proposed 2016 budget.
I only hope PMB will demonstrate the required courage and call the bluff of the senators. More than discounting their unhelpful recommendations, His Excellency should provide a definitive position on this matter and convey a meeting that agrees on the fees with the participating consortium (Banks, CBN and Remita) in a way that puts this matter to rest one and for all.
We must not continue to puncture the wheels of our national progress on the altar of vested interested or political brigandage. It has been said again and again that political risk is the most significant considerations in a Public Private Partnership (PPP) project, wherein government’s lack of commitment to a project, which may manifest as an outright cancellation or change in the legal/regulatory regime adversely impact on the success of projects and the desire of investors to commit to public project. My hope is that government will encourage investors’ confidence through a positive and accelerated closure of this matter.
Wale Adetona tweets from @iSlimfit
Comments