LAGOS—Ahead of tomorrow’s commencement of debate on the report of the
House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee on the utilization of
petroleum subsidies, industry and political stakeholders were weekend
separately upbeat and muted over alleged errors in the recommendations.
The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC , yesterday, asked the committee to prove allegations of misdeed levelled against it, even as it emerged that at least 17 of those companies indicted have resorted to go to court today to halt possible implementation of the recommendations. Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, who is lead lawyer to the companies told us yesterday that the companies would be filing court processes today to demand N100 billion for punitive damages.
Enthusiasm for the consideration of the report swelled at the weekend in the House of Representatives with members pledging to enforce the recommendations to be approved by the House. A member of the House ad-hoc committee Dr Ahmad Ali, cried out over what he claimed was a plan by those affected by the House report to destabilise the House leadership by instigating the impeachment of Speaker Aminu Tambuwal.
Reacting to the finding of the committee that the NNPC made double deductions in its subsidy claims, the corporation denied ever receiving any money in that regard since the inception of the Petroleum Support Fund, PSF.
Rather, the corporation said its subsidy claims were offset with accruable crude costs.
“Such a claim is totally unfounded and absurd. We challenge both the CBN and Ad Hoc Committee to provide evidence that such payments as alleged were made to NNPC. They must show authorisation for the payments as well as breakdown of the amount, purpose for the payments, beneficiary accounts in which such payments were made and the utilisation of such payments, he said.
The NNPC Spokesman explained that rather than collecting such payments from CBN as alleged, the NNPC applied such subsidy approvals as credit due to the Corporation towards the cost of its domestic crude allocation.
“For the purposes of clarity, subsidy payment to NNPC is not based on Cash remittance. The mechanics of subsidy recovery by NNPC is not fund based but by way of deduction from crude cost due. As a matter of fact, from the commencement of the subsidy regime there was never a time when CBN paid any money to NNPC in respect of subsidy claim”.
Ajuonuma lamented that despite the fact that all the necessary documents and information were given to the Probe Committee, they could still make this kind of unfounded allegation against the Corporation.
“For instance, NNPC presented to PPPRA approvals for 2011 totaling N981 billion out of which only N844.9billion has been credited to NNPC. But surprisingly, the Committee claimed that PPPRA approved only N504billion and that the balance was excess payment to NNPC .What logic”, he said.
In its general review of the report, the NNPC accused the Committee of causing more confusion, saying that it seemed not to be sure of its action as its intention was really not to clarify the subsidy payments but more interested in maligning and damaging the reputation of the Corporation as well as other key players of the industry.
He also picked holes in the Committee’s query of the NNPC’s deduction of subsidy payment as a first line charge.
“The basis for the deduction of both cash calls for Joint Venture operations and NNPC’S subsidy payments as a first line charge on the income of the Federal Government is statutory and founded on the Appropriation Act which was passed by the National Assembly. Under the said Appropriation Act, certain budgetary items including subsidy payments to the NNPC are listed as first line charges on the income of the Federation,” he noted.
Continuing he stated thus: “The Committee accepted the Cash call as first line charge yet alleged that the subsidy aspect was illegal.
“It is clear that the tone of the Committee’s report is not only damaging to the Corporation but to the entire nation. At this stage, it is pertinent to ask the question, whose interest is this committee serving,” he quizzed.
In a similar twist, 17 companies indicted by the Lawan committee of abusing N41 billion in subsidy claims have protested their innocence. Some of the companies Vanguard learnt yesterday had secured the services of Chief Ozekhome to file their defence before the courts today.
Admitting his legal representation of some of the companies indicted by the House panel, Ozekhome told http://news-and-entertainment.blogspot.com yesterday that his taking the brief was not in any way contrary to his avowed opposition to corruption.
The House report had indicted the companies mainly on the fact that they “refused to appear” before the committee and directed them to refund a total sum of N41 billion.
Sources close to the firms disclosed that the companies saw the report as a grave act of injustice on the fact that they were not invited to appear before they were found culpable.
But sources close to the lawyers of the affected companies confirmed that the oil companies have rejected the report, describing it as lacking fair hearing.
The Companies insisted that besides the fact that they were not invited to appear before the Committee, they were shocked to discover that the Committee went ahead to indict them without hearing from the affected companies.
Lead counsel to the firms, Chief Ozekhome told us that though he agreed with the House on the need to combat corruption and ensure that those who stole money through subsidy were made to refund same and prosecuted, he would not subscribe to innocent oil marketers being punished without fair hearing.
According to him, the House of Representatives does not have the power to indict, prosecute and punish any oil marketer without being heard.
“Some marketers briefed me that they were roped in without being heard. They were not invited to testify, they were tried in absentia and convicted.
On the outcome of the probe generally, Ozekhome, who disclosed that he would litigate for at least two oil marketers said: “I have always said that there is something wrong with the handling of the fuel subsidy. I believe that those who stole our money should be made to refund the money. There is no reason to subsidise fuel to the tune of N2.5 trillion. It is obvious that the figures are cooked up. Let’s fight corruption. We cannot continue to subsidise corruption and criminality. I am agreeable with the House of Representatives to clean the Augean stable, get those who stole oil money to refund them and be prosecuted.”
The Manager, Public & Government Affairs of Mobil Oil Nigeria, Mr.Akin Fatunke, said that at no time was the company invited by the committee to appear before it.
“Mobil Oil Nigeria’s name was neither listed in the invitation published in national dailies by the committee on January 13, 2012 nor did it receive any letter of invitation to appear before the committee. The media reports suggesting that Mobil Oil Nigeria refused to appear before the committee because it ‘has something to hide’ are incorrect”.
Its name was erroneously listed amongst companies said to have illegally collected fuel subsidy, it emerged yesterday.
The authentic report submitted to the House by the Ad-hoc Committee on Wednesday, April 18 does not have the name of Conoil on the list.
“We have it on good authority that some of them have started mobilising against Tambuwal to impeach him because they have seen he didn’t disturb us throughout the probe.
“Remove Tambuwal or not, the House and Nigeria remain the same. Even Tambuwal is irremovable. You know he was not elected from outside. He is from inside”, Ahmad PDP, Ilorin East and Ilorin South federal constituency, Kwara State said at a press conference yesterday.
Ahmad also indicated that some top officials of the Federal Government were among those who benefited from the subsidy payments as he pledged that the committee would reveal them after the report is adopted.
“The oil business is like a secret society thing. If you don’t belong, you don’t belong. Oil industry is so small, but so powerful. I’m even surprised I haven’t started seeing advertorials here and there. They have lots of money and have nothing to do with it”.
Ahmad, who said the implementation of the report by the executive in the next three months would help to address the problem of pricing of petroleum products in the country, added that Nigerians should have a rest of mind on the issue.
The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC , yesterday, asked the committee to prove allegations of misdeed levelled against it, even as it emerged that at least 17 of those companies indicted have resorted to go to court today to halt possible implementation of the recommendations. Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, who is lead lawyer to the companies told us yesterday that the companies would be filing court processes today to demand N100 billion for punitive damages.
Enthusiasm for the consideration of the report swelled at the weekend in the House of Representatives with members pledging to enforce the recommendations to be approved by the House. A member of the House ad-hoc committee Dr Ahmad Ali, cried out over what he claimed was a plan by those affected by the House report to destabilise the House leadership by instigating the impeachment of Speaker Aminu Tambuwal.
Reacting to the finding of the committee that the NNPC made double deductions in its subsidy claims, the corporation denied ever receiving any money in that regard since the inception of the Petroleum Support Fund, PSF.
Rather, the corporation said its subsidy claims were offset with accruable crude costs.
We made no such withdrawals — NNPC
The Group General Manager, Group Public Affairs Division of the
Corporation, Dr. Levi Ajuonuma, in a statement yesterday, said that
contrary to the allegation contained in the report which accused NNPC of
withdrawing from two different sources simultaneously to recover its
subsidy claims, the Corporation at no time made such double withdrawals.“Such a claim is totally unfounded and absurd. We challenge both the CBN and Ad Hoc Committee to provide evidence that such payments as alleged were made to NNPC. They must show authorisation for the payments as well as breakdown of the amount, purpose for the payments, beneficiary accounts in which such payments were made and the utilisation of such payments, he said.
The NNPC Spokesman explained that rather than collecting such payments from CBN as alleged, the NNPC applied such subsidy approvals as credit due to the Corporation towards the cost of its domestic crude allocation.
“For the purposes of clarity, subsidy payment to NNPC is not based on Cash remittance. The mechanics of subsidy recovery by NNPC is not fund based but by way of deduction from crude cost due. As a matter of fact, from the commencement of the subsidy regime there was never a time when CBN paid any money to NNPC in respect of subsidy claim”.
Ajuonuma lamented that despite the fact that all the necessary documents and information were given to the Probe Committee, they could still make this kind of unfounded allegation against the Corporation.
“For instance, NNPC presented to PPPRA approvals for 2011 totaling N981 billion out of which only N844.9billion has been credited to NNPC. But surprisingly, the Committee claimed that PPPRA approved only N504billion and that the balance was excess payment to NNPC .What logic”, he said.
In its general review of the report, the NNPC accused the Committee of causing more confusion, saying that it seemed not to be sure of its action as its intention was really not to clarify the subsidy payments but more interested in maligning and damaging the reputation of the Corporation as well as other key players of the industry.
He also picked holes in the Committee’s query of the NNPC’s deduction of subsidy payment as a first line charge.
“The basis for the deduction of both cash calls for Joint Venture operations and NNPC’S subsidy payments as a first line charge on the income of the Federal Government is statutory and founded on the Appropriation Act which was passed by the National Assembly. Under the said Appropriation Act, certain budgetary items including subsidy payments to the NNPC are listed as first line charges on the income of the Federation,” he noted.
Continuing he stated thus: “The Committee accepted the Cash call as first line charge yet alleged that the subsidy aspect was illegal.
“It is clear that the tone of the Committee’s report is not only damaging to the Corporation but to the entire nation. At this stage, it is pertinent to ask the question, whose interest is this committee serving,” he quizzed.
In a similar twist, 17 companies indicted by the Lawan committee of abusing N41 billion in subsidy claims have protested their innocence. Some of the companies Vanguard learnt yesterday had secured the services of Chief Ozekhome to file their defence before the courts today.
Admitting his legal representation of some of the companies indicted by the House panel, Ozekhome told http://news-and-entertainment.blogspot.com yesterday that his taking the brief was not in any way contrary to his avowed opposition to corruption.
Indicted firms go to court
The companies that have gone to court based on the House report
asking them to refund various amounts of subsidy payments include Mobil
Oil Nigeria (N14.934b); Somerset Energy Services (N3.015b); AX Energy
Limited (N1.471b); CAH Resources Association Limited(N1.052b); Crust
Energy Limited(N1.192b); Fresh Synergy Oil Limited(N1.417b); Ibafon Oil
Limited(N4.687b); Techno Oil(N1.036 b);Oil Bath(N1.019bn);Mut-Hass
Petroleum Limited (N1.2bn); Stonebridge Oil Limited(N1.784b);
Petrotrade(N1.471b); Lucky Energy(N1.7); Rocky Energy(N1.620b); Lottoj
Oil(N1.427b); Oakfield Synergy Network Limited(N988m); Prudent Energy
and Services Limited(N1.360b); Nepal Oil and Gas Service(N2.353b)The House report had indicted the companies mainly on the fact that they “refused to appear” before the committee and directed them to refund a total sum of N41 billion.
Sources close to the firms disclosed that the companies saw the report as a grave act of injustice on the fact that they were not invited to appear before they were found culpable.
But sources close to the lawyers of the affected companies confirmed that the oil companies have rejected the report, describing it as lacking fair hearing.
The Companies insisted that besides the fact that they were not invited to appear before the Committee, they were shocked to discover that the Committee went ahead to indict them without hearing from the affected companies.
Lead counsel to the firms, Chief Ozekhome told us that though he agreed with the House on the need to combat corruption and ensure that those who stole money through subsidy were made to refund same and prosecuted, he would not subscribe to innocent oil marketers being punished without fair hearing.
According to him, the House of Representatives does not have the power to indict, prosecute and punish any oil marketer without being heard.
“Some marketers briefed me that they were roped in without being heard. They were not invited to testify, they were tried in absentia and convicted.
On the outcome of the probe generally, Ozekhome, who disclosed that he would litigate for at least two oil marketers said: “I have always said that there is something wrong with the handling of the fuel subsidy. I believe that those who stole our money should be made to refund the money. There is no reason to subsidise fuel to the tune of N2.5 trillion. It is obvious that the figures are cooked up. Let’s fight corruption. We cannot continue to subsidise corruption and criminality. I am agreeable with the House of Representatives to clean the Augean stable, get those who stole oil money to refund them and be prosecuted.”
The Manager, Public & Government Affairs of Mobil Oil Nigeria, Mr.Akin Fatunke, said that at no time was the company invited by the committee to appear before it.
“Mobil Oil Nigeria’s name was neither listed in the invitation published in national dailies by the committee on January 13, 2012 nor did it receive any letter of invitation to appear before the committee. The media reports suggesting that Mobil Oil Nigeria refused to appear before the committee because it ‘has something to hide’ are incorrect”.
We ‘re exonerated — Conoil
Also yesterday, Conoil Plc said that the report presented by the
Lawan-led committee exonerated it from any misdeeds in the controversial
subsidy payments regime.Its name was erroneously listed amongst companies said to have illegally collected fuel subsidy, it emerged yesterday.
The authentic report submitted to the House by the Ad-hoc Committee on Wednesday, April 18 does not have the name of Conoil on the list.
Cabal moves against Speaker
Meanwhile, a member of the Lawan committee, Dr Ahmad Ali, yesterday
alleged a gang-up by the firms and agencies indicted by the committee to
instigate rebellion against the Tambuwal leadership of the House. Ahmad
while assuring the citizenry of the determination of the House to forge
ahead with an unimpeded consideration of the report vowed that the
House would resist any such move.“We have it on good authority that some of them have started mobilising against Tambuwal to impeach him because they have seen he didn’t disturb us throughout the probe.
“Remove Tambuwal or not, the House and Nigeria remain the same. Even Tambuwal is irremovable. You know he was not elected from outside. He is from inside”, Ahmad PDP, Ilorin East and Ilorin South federal constituency, Kwara State said at a press conference yesterday.
Ahmad also indicated that some top officials of the Federal Government were among those who benefited from the subsidy payments as he pledged that the committee would reveal them after the report is adopted.
“The oil business is like a secret society thing. If you don’t belong, you don’t belong. Oil industry is so small, but so powerful. I’m even surprised I haven’t started seeing advertorials here and there. They have lots of money and have nothing to do with it”.
Ahmad, who said the implementation of the report by the executive in the next three months would help to address the problem of pricing of petroleum products in the country, added that Nigerians should have a rest of mind on the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment