House of Reps claims Otedola has no video-clip on $620,000 bribe
 |
| Mr. Femi Otedola |
Bello claimed that contrary to media reports, Otedola told the panel that he had no knowledge of the video evidence in circulation when he appeared before the committee last week.
Bello, who represents Igabi Federal Constituency of Kaduna State, told journalists in Abuja that despite Otedola’s refusal to respond to questions on allegations of bribery against Lawan, disowned any video of his alleged exchange of money and discussion with Lawan, the suspended chairman of the House Ad-hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy Management.
Bello said: “He (Otedola) said that he did not give anybody any video of him giving Lawan bribe. He denied that. All he said was that he did not give anybody any video.”
He, however, insisted that the committee was on the right track in insisting that the hearing with Otedola be held in camera.
According to him, “we had this interactive session with Otedola last week and we insisted that he cannot decide how we do our job.
“When we asked him about the video-clip, Otedola told us to summon the media houses and ask them how they got it. He categorically denied the video-clip and said he never discussed anything with anybody. He is in our own record.
“ All Otedola said at the meeting was that Farouk Lawan lied four times and that’s all. What I am saying is on record and we have it. Nobody can come and bend our rules. We don’t have any business with Otedola. I asked Otedola before the chairman of the panel, who told him not to talk with us nor answer our questions? Apparently unknown to him, he was only a witness before us and we told him categorically that we have about 10 lawyers in the Ethics and Privileges Committee.
“But he came with a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) who sat beside him and told him not to answer our questions. He didn’t know that Otedola was only a witness before us and we told him categorically.
“But the position of the Nigerian law as at today is that he who gives bribeand he who receives are both culprits. You are not a member of the parliament and you alleged to have given one of us something which is illicit, then you are the best person to come before the committee and tell us the true position of what transpired between you and the lawmaker.”
Bello said the issue is unique because “as a committee, its business is the examination of the conduct of our members. This matter, I insist is unique because it involves somebody who gave and somebody who took. The allegation is that somebody who is not a parliamentarian gave to a parliamentarian.
“And we in the parliament want to ascertain the veracity of the claim. Are we going to import a demon to find out what transpired between Otedola and Lawan?”
“The onus is on Chief Femi Otedola to come before us and testify to the fact that he gave Lawan graft because he is an accused person too by virtue of our laws. So, can you see the fallacy in this country? We don’t know who is protecting the accused person here.”
Bello said when Lawan appeared before the panel, he was interrogated for almost four hours and after giving his testimony he left, with the arrangement that “whenever we need his presence he will come back. Now he (Otedola) is insisting that we should go into a public hearing.“
“We insisted that hearing cannot be made public because it is not one. “There is a difference between a public hearing and a committee sitting. In a public hearing, Nigerians have the right to witness the sitting as long as they will maintain peace. But in a committee sitting of this nature, it is restricted to members of the House only, especially as it concerned the conduct of a member of the parliament hence, we had to meet in privacy.
“We are neither a court nor a tribunal to give a verdict. We are just to analyse facts by law and take our findings to the House. We cannot punish Lawan or Otedola.”
Bello admitted that there were no provisions in the House standing rules to compel Otedola to give any testimony, adding that the laws of the country provide that he who asserts must prove such beyond reasonable doubt.
The panel member said Otedola declared he won’t talk to the committee because he is a businessman and the testimony he gave the State Security Services (SSS) and police was enough. “We even asked him to give us a copy so that we can allow him to go but he refused.”
Bello denied allegations that the committee had a hidden agenda, saying “we are not hiding anything and we are not protecting anybody. We have been cautioned. Any of our members, who goes out to do anything that is abominable is alone. Every member is assumed to be responsible and reasonable. That is why we are going to do our work without fear or favour be it Lawan or Otedola.”
Reacting to Otedola’s refusal to divulge information, the panel Chairman, Gambo Dan-Musa told journalists that the committee was disappointed over the attitude of the businessman.
Dan-Musa said: “He went further to insult us one way or the other. Otedola laughed off our threat of the consequences of his action, and simply said that Farouk Lawan had lied four times and in four different occasions over the bribery allegation.”
Meanwhile, the Primate of Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), Most Rev Nicholas Okoh, has urged Christians not to be discouraged by the current spate of insecurity particularly bombing of churches in the country.
He said the intention of the perpetrators was to weaken the church and if possible, wipe it out.
Okoh however appealed to the National Assembly to bring to a logical conclusion the ongoing probe of the various sectors of the economy. He also advised the Executive arm of government to look into the reports and ensure their implementation.
At the ordination of new deacons and collation of Canons and Archdeacons at the Cathedral Church of Advent, Life Camp, Gwarimpa Abuja yesterday, Okoh asked churches to make adequate arrangement for the security of worshippers.
No comments:
Post a Comment