Actually, the loan allegations got into the news on May 11, 2011.  The President signed the2011  budget into law along with the increased allowances on May 27, 2011.  Hence, even the President is complicit in the approval of the increase in allowances even after the allegation had become public knowledge.

Ok, that is sad. I wonder how many more of such careless activities are going on, EFCC should go after the president, too, for accomplice and cospiracy to enrich people who least deserve it. But that is not possible, right?

I don't think it is likely that is how it is. I would be surprised. Surely there is something in the constitution to stop such except it is written by mooorons.

What else can we call those folks up there?

X-factoria:

No, he doesn't have a point. Check this line in the write-up:

“It was the Accounting Officer of the House of Representatives who advised that the short fall in fund be met by loans to be taken from a commercial bank to meet the funds required"

Note the use of the word advised. The Admin Officer did not approve the taking of the loan. He only advised. Bankole and his so called committee gave authority to the taking of the loan to fund an illegality. The Admin Officer on his own could not have gone to the Bank to take the loan. Besides, the Bank would always require a resolution of the house committee as a condition precedent to drawdown on the loan.

Good point!

Being advised does not free you from guilt, it will only (at best) mitigate your sentence and suggest there needs to be a sack in the admin of the HoRep.

T.M.:

What else can we call those folks up there?

I agree. But most likely the constitution would be written by our top lawyers and would involve a lot of copy and paste from the West with a few tweeking.

So basically he did what was harmful to public funds to save his self interest and that makes him not culpable?

I actually like that, moral culpability, and sadly I am not sure very many Nigerians will pass that.

I agree. But most likely the constitution would be written by our top lawyers and would involve a lot of copy and paste from the West with a few tweeking.

I will be glad to see where that is in our own version of the law and that will set me free!

T.M.:

I actually like that, moral culpability, and sadly I am not sure any Nigerian will pass that.

That is not moral culpability, that is a criminal act.

It is like a President stopping/covering up the prosecution of corrupt ministers/governors because he feels without their support he would not win the next elections.

For as long as there is no law against what he did, it is only a matter of morality. That is what I think, but pardon me of my ignorance of the details of our law. And what about the fact that the president saw it before signing it into budget? He looked away, was that immoral or criminal? if he possibly dint know that it will be funded by loan, cant he inquire how they plan to fund it? or he is just there to sign anything that comes across his table, if that is the case, then how is he in anyway different from the accused?

Bankole sh*** 2 u.

T.M.:

For as long as there is no law against what he did, it is only a matter of morality. That is what I think, but pardon me of my ignorance of the details of our law. And what about the fact that the president saw it before signing it into budget? He looked away, was that immoral or criminal? if he possibly dint know that it will be funded by loan, cant he inquire how they plan to fund it? or he is just there to sign anything that comes across his table,  if that is the case, then how is he in anyway different from the accused?

I am sure there will be a law that criminalises personal gain by a public official at the expense of the state.

If you borrow money from a bank that the state has to pay unnecessary interest (especially when you are borrowing for money you are not entitled) then you have personally gained at the expense of the state.

Whether president knows or not is not a defence in the court of law.

It is like an armed robber going to rob a bank saying the police know I was planning it, why didn't they stop me?

Sagamite:

That is not moral culpability, that is a criminal act.

It is like a President stopping/covering up the prosecution of corrupt ministers/governors because he feels without their support he would not win the next elections.

Apologies in advance if I come across as irrational but:

@Sagamite, two questions:
1.  If you were in Bankole's shoes, what would you have done?  Refuse to approve?  Get impeached?  Then the House installs another Speaker that does their bidding.  How does that solve the problem?
2. If the House of Reps collectively reaches a Resolution, who is responsible?  The Speaker or the House of Representatives?  The House makes resolutions not the Speaker.  It is a simple case of Ayes vs Nays.

Sagamite:

I will like to understand the legal basis that allows a Legislative arm to obtain a loan (that bares interest) beyond the allocations due to the arm.

Where does payment of the interest comes from? Who will be paying the interest?

So basically, the house can vote for $50m yacht and a Hampshire flat for each member and the Speaker can borrow money and go and buy and say "he did nothing wrong"?

There's no legal basis that prevents em from doing so either!

The constitution is screwed!

T.M.:

For as long as there is no law against what he did, it is only a matter of morality. That is what I think, but pardon me of my ignorance of the details of our law. And what about the fact that the president saw it before signing it into budget? He looked away, was that immoral or criminal? if he possibly dint know that it will be funded by loan, cant he inquire how they plan to fund it? or he is just there to sign anything that comes across his table, if that is the case, then how is he in anyway different from the accused?

Not only is the Presidency culpable in this instance only, the Presidency is the one that should carry the can and have ALL the blame, Yes-All the blame, for the outrageous pay of the National Assembly.

It is on record and in our constitution that the only body that has the authority to fix Political Office holders remuneration and allowance is the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), and this body reports ONLY to the Presidency. When RMAFC stated that it did not approve those mega payments, how come each year, the Presidency keeps making provisions for these allowances and payments in the Federal budget?

As mentioned by a poster earlier, the same increased allowance that the whole country is railing against has been approved and signed into law by the Presidency. How can you continue to budget for something and say that it is illegal, then still go ahead and release money that satisfy the same payments. Haba, either the Presidency knows something or the Presidency thinks we are dunces. Make your pick!

Bankole may walk free, and if he does, it won't be because there are no grounds for his prosecution. Rather, it will be because some people have decided to look the other way as is the case with many of such cases in Nigeria.

I can't agree less dan de above quote, bt i ll like us 2 run inside our various rooms n put on our mourning gowns cos 9ja is in n soaked with selfish n incompetent "riggers" cum rulers. Moreso, it's only wen God himself decided 2 liberate us we ll remain in dis jungle we ve all found ourselves  

bioye:

Apologies in advance if I come across as irrational but:

@Sagamite, two questions:
1.  If you were in Bankole's shoes, what would you have done?  Refuse to approve?  Get impeached?  Then the House installs another Speaker that does their bidding.  How does that solve the problem?
2. If the House of Reps collectively reaches a Resolution, who is responsible?  The Speaker or the House of Representatives?  The House makes resolutions not the Speaker.  It is a simple case of Ayes vs Nays.

1. I would have done what was legal. If doing what is legal gets me impeached, then I am impeached. IT IS NOT A DEFENCE TO GO TO COURT SAYING I DID AN ILLEGAL THING BECAUSE OF MY PERSONAL INTEREST. Do what is legal and leave the police to solve the problem.

2. If the house reaches a resolution that is illegal/criminal, you refuse to approve it. That is your job as Speaker. So you mean if the House votes that lets kill all the Ibiobios, you will say "the house has voted, so I must follow and instruct the army to go in"?

violent:

There's no legal basis that prevents em from doing so either!

The constitution is screwed!

It might not be an explicit law, it might be implicit.

E.g. it  might fall under this implicit law: by doing that and the state has to pay unnecessary interest, then that is making illegal personal gain.

The problem is that if guilty of the implicit law, the penalty might be less than that of a clear explicit law.

An empty boast by an unrepentant thief.

bioye:

[b]First, Bode George's case is a totally different case.  It has NOTHING to do with legislative matters or House Resolutions.  So don't equate it with this case.[/b]

Regarding the increase in allowances, it was a collective House Resolution by the House of Reps.  The Speaker doesn't make decisions on his own.  He cannot reject a House Resolution.  He only did his job as the Speaker NOT individually as Dimeji Bankole.  If EFCC is eager to prosecute, they should prosecute the House of Reps as an entity not Bankole.  You say they broke the law, so how come the President signed the increase in allowances into law in the 2011 budget even after the allegations were already in the open?

Concerning the Peugeot scam, why don't you wait for EFCC to charge him for that before you draw your conclusions.  Given the desperation of detractors to show Bankole is a looter, how come they are yet to publicise the evidence of payments into Bankole's accounts?  Indeed, if they have this proof, the car scam would be the first EFCC would employ!  There are always 2 sides to a story.  Please read:

1. How I escaped N2.4bn car scandal – Bankole
2. N2.3bn car scandal: How Rep offered me N1m to blackmail Bankole –Activist

If Bankole walks free, it is because there is no case against him or there is no evidence to support the numerous allegations against him.

From what Bankole is saying, they are the same case. The highest management decision making body in the NPA is its board of directors which Bode George once chaired. The highest management decision making body in the House of Reps is a committe of its principal officers which Bankole also chaired nomenclature notwithstanding. The clerk of the House of Reps and other staff of the House execute decisions taken by Bankole and co and they also serve advisory roles as Bankole himself reiterated. Bankole did not say that the clerk took any of the decisions.

Who says he couldn't reject a house resolution that is inconsistent with the law? Do you know what that Mase means? The speaker and other principal officers carries the authority and the responsibility of the House. Why do you think their renumerations are different if they are just ordinary House members? You need to be schooled on why there are offices for principal officers in the first place.

Then on the President signing the budget after the house loan scam became public knowledge, I am not sure if it was disclosed as house borrowing to be repaid. But be that as it may, I tend to agree with you that it is inexcusable for the President having pre-knowledge of the scam and yet signed that budget. However, there were going to be grave implications of delaying the budget beyond the life of the last legislative assembly. If the President sends it back to the National Assembly and the budget was not signed then, it will have to pass the review of the incoming legislators and that will take time.

In the case of Bode George, he can singly carry out the act. But in Bankole's case, he needs the majority of the house. We cant compare them, i guess.

bay77:

In the case of Bode George, he can singly carry out the act. But in Bankole's case, he needs the majority of the house. We cant compare them, i guess.

That is just the case, so how can we correct a collective wrong doing? That is what we should focus on and not a mane name Bankole. There are many cases like this under the cover.

Akainzo:

Not only is the Presidency culpable in this instance only, the Presidency is the one that should carry the can and have ALL the blame, Yes-All the blame, for the outrageous pay of the National Assembly.

It is on record and in our constitution that the only body that has the authority to fix Political Office holders remuneration and allowance is the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), and this body reports ONLY to the Presidency. When RMAFC stated that it did not approve those mega payments, how come each year, the Presidency keeps making provisions for these allowances and payments in the Federal budget?

As mentioned by a poster earlier, the same increased allowance that the whole country is railing against has been approved and signed into law by the Presidency. How can you continue to budget for something and say that it is illegal, then still go ahead and release money that satisfy the same payments. Haba, either the Presidency knows something or the Presidency thinks we are dunces. Make your pick!

No, I think you are getting certain things wrong. The allowances they state in their budget is what the RMAFC approved. What they do is to conceal the excess under some expense heads. The issue is that they are the only ones that prove the part of the budget which they fix in conjunction with the Clerk of the National Assembly i.e. the running cost of the House which include travelling expenses, training costs, visitation costs and all forms of frivolous expenses. They fix their expenses and the Budget office of the federation does not even have a say there. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE ABLE TO DO STUFFS LIKE THESE. THAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM!!!!!

X-factoria:

From what Bankole is saying, they are the same case. The highest management decision making body in the NPA is its board of directors which Bode George once chaired. The highest management decision making body in the House of Reps is a committe of its principal officers which Bankole also chaired nomenclature notwithstanding. The clerk of the House of Reps and other staff of the House execute decisions taken by Bankole and co and they also serve advisory roles as Bankole himself reiterated. Bankole did not say that the clerk took any of the decisions.

Who says he couldn't reject a house resolution that is inconsistent with the law? Do you know what that Mase means? The speaker and other principal officers carries the authority and the responsibility of the House. Why do you think their renumerations are different if they are just ordinary House members? You need to be [b]schooled [/b]on why there are offices for principal officers in the first place.

Then on the President signing the budget after the house loan scam became public knowledge, I am not sure if it was disclosed as house borrowing to be repaid. But be that as it may, I tend to agree with you that it is inexcusable for the President having pre-knowledge of the scam and yet signed that budget. However, there were going to be grave implications of delaying the budget beyond the life of the last legislative assembly. If the President sends it back to the National Assembly and the budget was not signed then, it will have to pass the review of the incoming legislators and that will take time.

This could go on forever.  But the following is what the Constitution says about the Speaker's role, decisions, house resolutions et al:
========
56.
(1) Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution any question proposed for decision in the Senate or the House of
Representatives shall be determined by the required majority or the members present and voting; and the person presiding shall
cast a vote whenever necessary to avoid an equality of votes but shall not vote in any other case.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the required majority for the purpose of determining any question shall
be a simple majority.
=========

Hence, the[b] only role of the Speaker is to preside[/b].  The decision is taken solely by the simple majority.  The Speaker has no power to approve asides acknowledging the Resolution of the simple majority by[b] hitting the gavel[/b].  The House makes the Resolution and the Speaker has ZERO votes most of the time.  It would be an ILLEGALITY if the Speaker takes it upon himself to make THE decision by NOT acknowledging the decision of the HOUSE as stipulated in the constitution. QED.

And please, don't say I need to be SCHOOLED on anything.  That is an INSULT.  Kindly make your points and refer to the facts wherever possible.  Okay?

bay77:

In the case of Bode George, he can singly carry out the act. But in Bankole's case, he needs the majority of the house. We cant compare them, i guess.

T.M.:

That is just the case, so how can we correct a collective wrong doing? That is what we should focus on and not a mane name Bankole. There are many cases like this under the cover.

Whether you need just your yourself or a battalion does not stop something illegal being illegal.

Gbenge 77:

An empty boast by an unrepentant thief.

Unfortunately, we live in an insane country where you can do egregious wrong that is destroying the nation, and on the very, very, very, very, very rare occasions when you are prosecuted, even though you do not admit it at first opportunity and you fight tooth and nail at further cost of MILLIONS to the taxpayer you robbed, you will still only get a slap on the wrist.

People need to be sacked in the Ministry of Justice.

This cretin called Bankole flew into Lagos in a Chartered private jet yesterday. How can he afford that? Absolutely no shame. Yet I am sure some cretin we call judge will give him the ceremonial 6 months or even a fine of N10,000.

bay77:

In the case of Bode George, he can singly carry out the act. But in Bankole's case, he needs the majority of the house. We cant compare them, i guess.

You are mixing things up. Constitutional matters need majority of the House to approve. This is management of the House, the principal officers take decisions on management on advise by the Admin Officers. The Principal Officers are the management team of the House. That is why their emoluments are slightly higher than those of ordinary house members. They decide on welfare of members.

bioye:

This could go on forever.  But the following is what the Constitution says about the Speaker's role, decisions, house resolutions et al:
========
56.
(1) Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution any question proposed for decision in the Senate or the House of
Representatives shall be determined by the required majority or the members present and voting; and the person presiding shall
cast a vote whenever necessary to avoid an equality of votes but shall not vote in any other case.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the required majority for the purpose of determining any question shall
be a simple majority.
=========

Hence, the[b] only role of the Speaker is to preside[/b].  The decision is taken solely by the simple majority.  The Speaker has no power to approve asides acknowledging the Resolution of the simple majority by[b] hitting the gavel[/b].  The House makes the Resolution and the Speaker has ZERO votes most of the time.  It would be an ILLEGALITY if the Speaker takes it upon himself to make THE decision by NOT acknowledging the decision of the HOUSE as stipulated in the constitution. QED.

And please, don't say I need to be SCHOOLED on anything.  That is an INSULT.  Kindly make your points and refer to the facts wherever possible.  Okay?

I will need to understand the definition of "any question" in the constitution to understand the law.

How does this contradict or is tiered with other laws?

Otherwise, I wonder why the Legislature even have to allow RMAFC to determine their salary when they can raise "any question" that allocates them a monthly salary of N50Bn per month and then vote on it.

X-factoria:

From what Bankole is saying, they are the same case. The highest management decision making body in the NPA is its board of directors which Bode George once chaired. The highest management decision making body in the House of Reps is a committe of its principal officers which Bankole also chaired nomenclature notwithstanding. The clerk of the House of Reps and other staff of the House execute decisions taken by Bankole and co and they also serve advisory roles as Bankole himself reiterated. Bankole did not say that the clerk took any of the decisions.

Who says he couldn't reject a house resolution that is inconsistent with the law? Do you know what that Mase means? The speaker and other principal officers carries the authority and the responsibility of the House. Why do you think their renumerations are different if they are just ordinary House members? You need to be schooled on why there are offices for principal officers in the first place.

Thank you

I'm finding it very hard to understand Boiye's argument.

that the speaker must accede to a patent illegality just because it has been agreed upon by the house speaks volume of our particular brand of democracy.

pray, WTF is he the speaker for? Has he forgotten the words he uttered the day he was sworn in?

even more pathetic is Banky's attempt to use it as a defense. I'm not sure sure they aware of the implications.

bioye:

This could go on forever.  But the following is what the Constitution says about the Speaker's role, decisions, house resolutions et al:
========
56.
(1) Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution any question proposed for decision in the Senate or the House of
Representatives shall be determined by the required majority or the members present and voting; and the person presiding shall
cast a vote whenever necessary to avoid an equality of votes but shall not vote in any other case.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the required majority for the purpose of determining any question shall
be a simple majority.
=========

Hence, the[b] only role of the Speaker is to preside[/b].  The decision is taken solely by the simple majority.  The Speaker has no power to approve asides acknowledging the Resolution of the simple majority by[b] hitting the gavel[/b].  The House makes the Resolution and the Speaker has ZERO votes most of the time.  It would be an ILLEGALITY if the Speaker takes it upon himself to make THE decision by NOT acknowledging the decision of the HOUSE as stipulated in the constitution. QED.

And please, don't say I need to be SCHOOLED on anything.  That is an INSULT.  Kindly make your points and refer to the facts wherever possible.  Okay?

We are talking about management of the house finances here not constitutional matters. The Principal Officers decide on management matters. Get the difference please.

bankole read the constitution, bill of rights, and articles of confederation, and now he figured out his right, lmfao that is what happen when ur educated, chinke mee, osalobua, let us see what will happen here, is jonathan back frm campaign?? kai walahi, them don turn naija to mumuish country, i laugh die o, fdf, power

X-factoria:

We are talking about management of the house finances here not constitutional matters. The Principal Officers decide on management matters. Get the difference please.

That is NOT true.  For the increase in allowances, after the House Resolution was made, a 37-man committee of members from all states and FCT was set up to look into the implementation.  The committee made a[b] recommendation and the House adopted[/b] it.  No special role was played by the principal officers in this matter.  This information is in the public domain as provided in the following link:
How Reps Shared Controversial N10 Billion

If you have any information or public references to back your claim or refute mine, kindly share them.  Chikena.

The truth is, the constitution as been amended & re-edited to suite this corrupts leaders so as to perpetrate their looting plans.My brother,do not be surprise if this thief, armed robber{armed with immunity} escape this trial. What happened to the rule of law?, that stated; Equality before the law,Impartiality before the law, why the immunity clause?
It's quite sad & unfortunate that those we elected to represent us to make laws,guide & protect our rights are still the same people violating the laws, what an irony!
so everyone let forget about it and enjoy fresh air, this man will live in gold till he dies

bioye:

That is NOT true. For the increase in allowances, after the House Resolution was made, a 37-man committee of members from all states and FCT was set up to look into the implementation. The committee made a[b] recommendation and the House adopted[/b] it. No special role was played by the principal officers in this matter. This information is in the public domain as provided in the following link:
How Reps Shared Controversial N10 Billion

If you have any information or public references to back your claim or refute mine, kindly share them. Chikena.

Bioye, I insist you need to be schooled. See the bolded phrase in excerpt from the article you refeered me to and tell me what it means:

Fresh facts which emerged at the weekend concerning the N10billion loan scandal in the House of Reresentatives that just ended its tenure suggest that the sourcing which resulted in the present situation was the product of an executive session where members insisted on enhancing their allowances.

And whereas former Speaker Dimeji Bankole is the one facing the fire, Sunday Vanguard is now in possession of documents which show that the genesis of the hoopla was an executive session of the House of Representatives on Thursday March 25, 2010, where Hon. Aminu Tambuwal briefed the House regarding the "restiveness of members and the possible crisis that may erupt in the House because of the issue of enhanced allowances that members have been clamoring for".

The two major resolutions of that executive session was the agreement to pass the 2010 budget and the briefing by Tambuwal who was said to have made a very passionate plea for the upward review "so that members would be happier". It was based on that briefing that the House set up a 37-member committee, with members drawn from each state of the federation and the FCT.

The following week, Tuesday, March 30, 2010, another executive session held and the committee reported back, whereupon it was agreed that each member should, from January 1, 2010, be paid N42 million quarterly as running cost as against the former running cost of N22 million.

Also, based on the plethora of correspondences between the Deputy Director of Finance and Administration, DDFA, National Assembly Management, Speaker Bankole and the Clerk of the House, Sani Omolori, Sunday Vanguard discovered that the funds in question were expended on the agreed enhanced allowances for members.

The new running cost that was approved by the executive session of March 30, 2010, is as follows:

Speaker, N100m

Deputy Speaker, N80m

House Leader, N60m

Dep. House Leader, N57.5m

Chief Whip, N55m

Dep. Chief Whip, N54.5m

Minority Leader, N54.5m

Minority Whip, N50m

Dep. Minority Leader, N50m

Dep. Minority Whip, N50m

In fact, members, at that session, also decided that money should be earmarked for the payment of outstanding allowances for members from 1999 - 2007, and that money should also be set aside for selected services as follows:

Committee Secretariat

House Admin

Insurance

Chamber Services

The executive session of that day was presided over by Deputy Speaker Nafada. It was, nonetheless, a decision of the whole House, which meant the speaker was also included.

Interestingly, however, to meet the payment for the new running cost for members, the leadership of the House resorted to borrowing money. N2.5billion was borrowed from the management of the National Assembly.

We are still not getting something here, was this Bankole's sole idea and execution, and did any of the members vote against it?

X-factoria:

The executive session of that day was presided over by Deputy Speaker Nafada. It was, nonetheless, a decision of the whole House, which meant the speaker was also included.

Interestingly, however, to meet the payment for the new running cost for members, the leadership of the House resorted to borrowing money. N2.5billion was borrowed from the management of the National Assembly.

Bioye,

Again check out the distinction in the bolded statement to see where a distinction was drawn between the executive session and the whole house.

I like to be educated. Did anyone that benefited from the produce alert the police that something terrible is going on? And where are all this people who has tens of millions against their names?

No one is saying the speaker is not included, can anything happen in the house without his knowledge? So many fact will emerge in the future. But let me ask, can the members of the lower house earn more than their counterpart in the upper house? Or can they possibly earn more than the president in terms of allowances.