Senator AHMED MAKARFI, former Kaduna State governor and member of the Presidential Committee on Boko Haram, talks with COLLINS OSIGBEME on a wide range of issues including agitation for powershift to the North, efforts of his committee in addressing Boko Haram insurgency and problem of oil theft in the Niger Delta
Against the backdrop of ravaging poverty and unemployment in the land, would you say that Nigerians have got what they deserve in the last 15 years of uninterrupted democracy?
Ahmed Makarfi
Anybody who says that Nigerians are satisfied with our current situation will not be saying the truth. But that is not to say that there is no progress in some areas. In my opinion, issues causing greater disillusionment are basically two: security and unemployment. I believe that they are two issues that require a marshal plan to address and they are inter-related. Unemployment fuels insecurity and insecurity causes unemployment because nobody will invest in such a way and manner that employment will be generated. I also believe that dealing with security issues should not be a media thing because the more you talk about how you are addressing it, the more you play into the hands of those causing the insecurity because you are already telling them your approach. All we must continue to emphasise is that it is an issue that requires all of us working together to bring to an end. How this is to be done should never be discussed publicly because it will undermine the search for the type of security that will bring about the peace and stability we all desire.
Again, a lot of wealth is being created; but the wealth distribution is not fair and equitable. So, you can find a few very rich men with an overwhelming poor people, and that is not healthy for the security of the country. The only way to evolve a programme of wealth re-distribution is creating job opportunities that people can work and get reasonable pay.
You were part of the Presidential Committee on Boko Haram. After the report by the committee, Nigerians had expected the activities of the group to reduce. Instead, their activities have been on the increase. Are you concerned about this?
I am concerned. But the key element in the report was the immediate setting up of a body to continue with the dialogue. You don’t just stop dialogue abruptly because dialogue is a continuous thing. Look at the Arab/Israeli conflict; is there anytime they stopped dialogue? An issue of this nature is not the type that you set up a committee to work for a few months, solve the problem and that is it. We brought out a road map to be followed to bring the matter to an end. But no action has been taken on that issue. If it has been taken, I am not aware. But as we can see from other countries, security issues are not resolved by committees that work for a few months, wind up and give you a recommendation.
Shehu Sani criticised your committee, that it did not speak with the leadership of Boko Haram.
He was asked to participate and he declined. If he knew how to get to them and loves the country, why did he decline? Talk is cheap. Who we met and who we did not meet will not be nice for me to say because it can also endanger a lot of issues. If you think you can contribute, it is better to come in and contribute and save lives. It is not an issue you sit on the sideline and make comments and throw accusations.
Many of your supporters have dumped the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the All Progressives Congress (APC), and there is this belief that you are just marking time in the PDP.
Yes, a lot of people known to me have moved from the PDP to the APC, just like in other states, for purely local reasons. Political differences we may have, personal relationship we will continue to have. I have heard that accusation that I am marking time in the PDP. It remains mere accusation because they have seen people who are seemingly close to me. I know people who are close to me. Who you think is close to me may not really be that close to me, and I would be stupid to say who is close to me, because I also know that in politics, people will want to know who are really close to you, so that they know how to get to you. So, I leave people with their presumption.
Don’t you think silence means consent?
Consent to what?
…That you are actually marking time in PDP.
Like I said, I will rather not let people know what exactly I am thinking or planning, because if Nigerians know what you are thinking or planning, they will also know how to stop you. But I am in PDP, if you are talking of party. I still remain in PDP and have been working for PDP. Before I consider leaving, I would have to try everything else without succeeding. I haven’t reached that level.
Do you think the agitation for power to return to the North by all means in 2015 is in the interest of the country?
Who said by all means? For those talking about it, they mean through democratic means. I never heard them saying by all means. And democracy means that people will end up choosing. So, why do we worry about it? It is still people who will determine what will happen. And they are still exercising their fundamental human right by aspiring, and nothing stops anybody from aspiring.
Your committee recently submitted its report to the Senate on allegation of missing money by the former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (now Emir of Kano), Sanusi Lamido Sanusi. What was the report like?
Well, the report is not final because in it, we made certain recommendations as interim because there is an ongoing forensic audit, and such recommendations will be subject to the outcome of the forensic audit. In our report, the Auditor General of the Federation and Price WaterHouseCoopers, the external forensic auditors, are requested to forward the forensic audit report to us. That is what will determine whether the certification by Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA), which is about $10 million was correct, under-stated or over-stated, and by who. Some of the recommendations are subject to the outcome of the forensic audit, and that is why I said it is not a final report. I have seen that major aspects of the report are captured in the papers. However, it is not a decision of the Senate because the Red Chamber still has to consider our recommendations.
For $47 billion out of the $67 billion, there was no dispute at all. Right from the time we started our sitting, the money was in the federation account. Where there was dispute was between the figure of $10.8 billion and $20 billion. Even that dispute did not state that the money was really missing, but what has been done with that money. It was not stated at that time that the money was missing, but that it was not remitted to the federation account. If it was not remitted to the federation account, it could be hanging in one account or another. We took the larger figure of 20 billion (dollars), so that we could investigate what happened to that money. Out of that money, $5.5 billion was spent on PMS (premium motor spirit) and what we needed to do was to find out if the money was appropriated. We checked the budget of the relevant ministries and discovered that the National Assembly appropriated the money. So, if the National Assembly appropriated money and it was expended, you cannot talk about money missing. Another $4.5 billion was expended on subsidy on kerosene. But unlike that of petrol, the money was not appropriated by the National Assembly, but there was evidence and certification that the money was spent. Again, there is a difference between missing money and money spent without appropriation. You know what the latter was used for, but the fact is, was it authorised by law? It was not authorised constitutionally because all money to be spent are supposed to be appropriated by the National Assembly.
That takes care of $10 billion out of the $20 billion. One part of the money was budgeted for and spent, while another part was not budgeted for, but spent. We also discovered that about $8 billion of the money did not entirely belong to the federation account. Our job was to determine how much of that money belonged to the federation account. Why was the money not entirely for the federation account? For example, I have a business and I need money to finance the business to make profit, but I don’t have money and I look for other investors to invest and recover their money while we share the profit. Right from the beginning, it is wrong to assume that the entire money belongs to me because you have to take your money and your profit from the gross earning. That was the accounting that was done wrongly. What the person alleged was that he believed that part of that money belonged to the federation account, and our job was to find out how much of that money belonged to the federation and whether it had been paid into the federation account. We determined how much belonged to the federation account and how much has been paid into it and how much had not been remitted.
Are you saying that your committee found out that not all monies received were paid into the federation account?
Yes, there was money that had not been paid into the federation account, and we determined that it was substantially money belonging to other people and not the federation account. But even for the money belonging to the federation account, not all of it had been remitted. It was all stated in the report and we made recommendations that the money that belonged to the federation account and not yet remitted should be remitted to the account. Even the agencies involved did not dispute our calculations and computations, but gave one excuse or another, and we asked them to remit it and show us evidence that it had been remitted. That resolved the issue of $8 billion, which was the most complex issue because it was money belonging to other people. So, we had to take time to decide how much belonged to whom. We did that and our recommendation was in line with what we had determined to be shares for each party. But as I said earlier, even on the share for the federation account, not all of it has been remitted and there is no dispute about that. That leaves $2 billion to be accounted for, which the NNPC (Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation) explained, was expended in the course of revenue generation. This is different from spending on subsidy. The constitution allows for some expenses in the course of generating revenue. Whatever you are going to remit is net of the expenses related to generating the revenue. Our job was first to find evidence on why they were wholly and exclusively spent in the area of generating that revenue. That was the area we said we didn’t have the required expertise, and so we appointed two firms of forensic auditors, gave them the documents and asked them to verify those things. They made a report to us on how much was liable and how much cannot be defended. What cannot be defended, we recommended that it be refunded. So, that basically accounted for the $20 billion you are talking about.
Were there areas your committee did not look into?
There were areas that we had not looked into and we stated so in the report. Such areas included crude swap, strategic alliances which involved contract over transfer of assets. Whereas they have an impact on how much you generate, it does not affect account for the $67 billion. You account for the $67 billion first and then know how much is missing. I am going into this area because this is the area that can hurt the nation more because if you enter into contract that continues to deprive government of needed revenue, that is a very serious business.
From what you have said, did Sanusi miss the point?
He did not miss the point in the area of subsidy on kerosene. Even before Sanusi raised the point about subsidy on kerosene, we had raised this matter with the NNPC, and so it was not new to us because he was not the first person to raise it. We got to know that unappropriated money was spent, and then his letter came. So, it was nothing new. He was right in the area of kerosene subsidy being spent without appropriation. When he said that the late President Umaru Yar’Adua gave instruction to stop kerosene subsidy, we were not disputing that there was such an instruction. But there was never a time, even under Yar’Adua, that government stopped paying subsidy on kerosene. So, continued payment of subsidy on kerosene is not limited to the current government. It was an issue that continued even under the President that gave the instruction in writing. So, inadvertently, government must have given an instruction which it did not abide by. Who took the action? Some people who feel that the NNPC on its own took the action or maybe the minister took the action. But we have evidence that the President is aware and consents to it. So, if the President is aware and consents to it, you cannot pick one director or one individual and heap the blame on him. That was why we recommended that since the President is aware and consented to it, the constitution says where that happens, he should prepare a supplementary budget and bring to the National Assembly, and if they like, they approve it or sanction him. But until he does that, you can’t commence any action. Based on our report, if the National Assembly feels that it wants to take any particular action, our report is there and we have confirmed that money was spent without being budgeted for. We have also confirmed that some money was not remitted and how much it was, but it is nothing near the amount he was talking about and we have recommended what needs to be done. That is not to say that because the amount of money involved is smaller than the amount he stated, it is an issue you wave aside. No matter the amount, all money should be remitted to the federation account. In that respect, you can say he had a point. But if you are talking about scale, it was nowhere near the amount he talked about.
What else do you think the nation stands to benefit from this report in future?
First of all, beyond the money we said should be refunded, there were fundamental recommendations we had made that would block the loopholes we had seen. For example, for the NPDC (Nigerian Petroleum Development Company) account, we made a major recommendation and even on the subsidy itself. We have to take a major decision on subsidy as Nigerians. Until we are able to take that decision, people will continue to clean this country one way or another. We have made recommendation in the area of transfer of federation assets. That is the transfer of oil blocks to third parties. We said that if this continues, we will wake up one day and find that our revenue yield has dropped drastically because of the way and manner they are being transferred now. This is far more serious than the issue we have looked at. These are recommendations that need to be looked into right away, otherwise we will enter into an era of dwindling returns into the federation account, with severe consequences on the economy.
Issue of crude oil theft has been of serious concern to Nigerians, especially since it has been on the increase. Did your committee also look into it?
We looked into that too and made serious observations and recommendations. Before a particular company was appointed to police the pipelines, so that we reduce theft, the money spent to police the pipelines was $2.1 million a year. When this company was introduced, the money got to almost $15 million a year, but the theft quadrupled. We made that discovery and made a recommendation on that. There are fundamental findings and recommendations in the report that this nation can benefit from. Why should I, while spending less to protect the pipeline that was losing N10, and now that I am spending more for the same protection, I am losing N1,000. Does it make sense? The loss to the federation at that time was certified by our external forensic auditors as $809 million. That was horrendous and that was why we are spending more to protect the pipelines. It calls to question the capacity of the agency or company that has been given the contract to protect the pipeline.
From all that you have said, did the committee indict anybody?
When you talk of indicting, if you are to indict at this point, it is institutions you can indict. It is when the forensic audit comes out that you can indict individuals. That is why some of the recommendations said subject to the forensic audit, and we said that the National Assembly should take further legislative action upon the receipt of the forensic audit, if we find any reason to do so. So, we have not foreclosed anything in our report. We made conditional recommendations and we are waiting for that forensic audit from the external forensic auditors. That is where personal indictment can come. For one reason or another, some people have the belief that the minister and some other people should be indicted. But from what we have seen, we have not seen anywhere the minister made any approval. So, if you don’t see any particular thing she approved, how do you come to indict her? But the forensic audit also covers payment on subsidy, and in that case, the people that could be indicted are many. In our report, we said we did not go into areas of oil contract. There is nobody who can do oil contract without several cadres of approval. So, our report should be seen in the context that it is and that it is not covering all issues, but purely accounting for money. Even in the area of accounting for that money, we made conditional recommendations and when we receive the forensic audit, we will take further legislative action based on what is contained in that forensic audit.
How would you link the outcome of the committee report with the absence of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB)?
Well, like I mentioned to you, accounting for $8 billion, why the Federal Government could not finance its own share and had to go into partnership with other companies in such a way that the $8 billion did not belong to the federation account, but to all of them and they had to share, was because we didn’t have the PIB. If there was PIB, there will be an independent financing body, so that you avoid these kinds of problems because it is a mixed grill of financing NNPC that is the problem. The nation did not have the money, and so had to go into partnership with others. Sometimes, that is why dirty deals can be done. To avoid all that, we need the PIB that will streamline how our oil industry is to be financed in a transparent manner without giving room for under-the-table deal of financing arrangement. That is really where the major problem is. Whether you call it swap, or strategic alliance, we can all avoid that and that is even where the greater suspicion of under-the-table deals are made.
