Sagamite:

If they are awarding themselves more than the RMAFC limit through loans, who repays the loan?

The politicians or the government?

If it is the government, they are still breaking the law by exceeding the limit, init?

The EFCC eeidiots should have waited until the new budget is passed, when the National Assembly would have included the funds to pay for the loan, and also twisted the arms of members of RMAFC to increase the said limit.  My prediction is that GEJ will ensure that RMAFC increases the current salary limit to ensure that, Bankole and the other 300+ members of the 6th National Assembly, most of whom are PDP members walk free.  If GEJ doesn't play ball, expect them to make his life miserable with impeachment threats.

Here is the view of the only witness that EFCC has announced to the public.

http://www.thenationonlineng.net/2011/index.php/news/9919-clerk-bankole-rejected-advice.html

ndu_chucks:

The EFCC eeidiots should have waited until the new budget is passed, when the National Assembly would have included the funds to pay for the loan, and also twisted the arms of members of RMAFC to increase the said limit.  My prediction is that GEJ will ensure that RMAFC increases the current salary limit to ensure that, Bankole and the other 300+ members of the 6th National Assembly, most of whom are PDP members walk free.  If GEJ doesn't play ball, expect them to make his life miserable with impeachment threats.

Here is the view of the only witness that EFCC has announced to the public.

http://www.thenationonlineng.net/2011/index.php/news/9919-clerk-bankole-rejected-advice.html

I really don't think that any RMAFC increase can be applied retrospectively by law.

Secondly, even if the EFCC erred, I think the only way out for Bank-Ole and his group of representhieves is to repay the loan out of their own pockets na.

That said, if the loan has "Federal Republic of Nigeria" as the loan bearer, they have already broken the law. They all can only mitigate their sentence by repaying it out of their own pocket.

Sagamite:

I really don't think that any RMAFC increase can be applied retrospectively by law.

Secondly, even if the EFCC erred, I think the only way out for Bank-Ole and his group of representhieves is to repay the loan out of their own pockets na.

That said, if the loan has "Federal Republic of Nigeria" as the loan bearer, they have already broken the law. They all can only mitigate their sentence by repaying it out of their own pocket.

hehehe. Good luck on expecting the reps and bankole to repay a penny. The loan does not have Federal Republic of Nigeria as the loan bearer. The House of Representatives routinely obtain loans from various sources including National Assembly management, the Senate, and banks. Typically a House resolution is all that is needed to obtain such loans.

If only our wishes were the law ,

Bakole,Bakole how many times did I call you. Go and apologise to those you steped on their toes. EFCC my foot. What happened to Ribado and Iyabor Obasanjo over N300million scandal. For now Nigeria has no direction just going round circle. Sorry to say.

You are a cretin if you give your money to a pastor with a private jet!

- Sagamite

I think there is more work for EFCC to do in that direction, if they actually have any serious work that they want to do. How are they different from the legislators? Sorry for digressing, I just noted that on Sagamite's signature.

ndu_chucks:

hehehe. Good luck on expecting the reps and bankole to repay a penny. The loan does not have Federal Republic of Nigeria as the loan bearer. The House of Representatives routinely obtain loans from various sources including National Assembly management, the Senate, and banks. Typically a House resolution is all that is needed to obtain such loans.

If only our wishes were the law ,

But who has to repay the loan?

The government? Who is the loan bearer?

Sagamite:

But who has to repay the loan?

The government? Who is the loan bearer?

The National Assembly pays any loan obtained on its behalf. Its not unusual for them to borrow from, say the senate or National Assembly Management, to fund some House of Rep project pending the passage of the budget after which they appropriate funds, as they see fit, to pay it back.  They do this routinely.

Does the House of Representatives have a duty to appropriate emergency funds to themselves to carryout their duties, in the name of national interest, even if it some may think the spending exceeds the limits set by RMAFC?  I bet you some lawyer will find another loophole in the constitution that will make one answer Yes to the question. The Reps anticipated current EFCC action, so they set up a 37-man committee, made up of one member per state and the FCT, to review the welfare package. This committee recommended the enhancement of their running costs, providing a cover for the loan.

The situation is quite sad.

ndu_chucks:

The National Assembly pays any loan obtained on its behalf. Its not unusual for them to borrow from, say the senate or National Assembly Management, to fund some House of Rep project pending the passage of the budget after which they appropriate funds, as they see fit, to pay it back.  They do this routinely.

Then it will come from the budget and they will have broken the law.

ndu_chucks:

Does the House of Representatives have a duty to appropriate emergency funds to themselves to carryout their duties, in the name of national interest, even if it some may think the spending exceeds the limits set by RMAFC?  I bet you some lawyer will find another loophole in the constitution that will make one answer Yes to the question. The Reps anticipated current EFCC action, so they set up a 37-man committee, made up of one member per state and the FCT, to review the welfare package. This committee recommended the enhancement of their running costs, providing a cover for the loan.

The situation is quite sad.

They will have to prove it is running cost and these 37 will be open to charge for fraud if the attempt fails, if not, then they will have to prove they followed the best practice due process procurement laws.

Anyone changing claims after expensing is committing fraud and theft!

The 37 are basically, unknowingly, volunteering to take the heat for their colleagues. In my opinion, that is fantastic because we have 39 people (i.e. plus Bank-Ole and Nafag) to prosecute, which is much easier and manageable than charging over 350.

The 37 are basically, unknowingly, volunteering to take the heat for their colleagues. In my opinion, that is fantastic because we have 39 people (i.e. plus Bank-Ole and Nafag) to prosecute, which is much easier and manageable than charging over 350.

These people are are a representation of the others, meaning that the decisions made are in the interest of the others and it is not in anyway a form of liability. Or what if I were called on to represent my state on the committee and I am not for the idea and yet the decision was passed, how will I be judged?

WisdomV:

These people are are a representation of the others, meaning that the decisions made are in the interest of the others and it is not in anyway a form of liability. Or what if I were called on to represent my state on the committee and I am not for the idea and yet the decision was passed, how will I be judged?

You know the purpose of the committee.

Clearly and publicly disassociate yourself from it.

Do not attend any sessions.

When they arrive at their fraudulent decisions, clearly and publicly announce that you were not part of it and you do not support it.

After doing all that, you are unchargeable as you did not participate in illegality.

Simples!

Interesting! Did any of them do this? None I guess, else, the case would have been blown open since and it the execution could have been prevented. Hence, if anyone is guilty, there would actually be 39 of them. And they should be called on to start answering questions, right?

WisdomV:

Interesting! Did any of them do this? None I guess, else, the case would have been blown open since and it the execution could have been prevented. Hence, if anyone is guilty, there would actually be 39 of them. And they should be called on to start answering questions, right?

I am not sure, but when the commitee presented their conclusions to the house, did anyone do the honourable thing and say "no, that will be to much for me and my constituency, please count me out of this 'illegality'". In my opinion, anyone who dint do this is a part of the "illegality"!

It is cowardice for someone to sit quietly and watch others get punished for something he benefited maximally from.

WisdomV:

Interesting! Did any of them do this? None I guess, else, the case would have been blown open since and it the execution could have been prevented. Hence, if anyone is guilty, there would actually be 39 of them. And they should be called on to start answering questions, right?

If it is used as defence and evidence (under oath) in court and can be verified as true, then there is grounds to arrest the 39 to start answering questions and face charges.

T.M.:

It is cowardice for someone to sit quietly and watch others get punished for something he benefited maximally from.

If the 39 are dumb enough to put themselves in such a position to take the blame, there is nothing cowardly.

They have basically said the others did nothing wrong as it was just assembly expense, whilst they have put themselves forward as people that committed fraud.

They were more gong-ho about cheating the nation and volunteered to perfect the criminality and I am fine with them taking the heat at a reduced prosecution cost.

They have basically said the others did nothing wrong as it was just assembly expense, whilst they have put themselves forward as people that committed fraud.

If that is accepted then every other thing they said should be accepted. It is not about what they say, it is about what is right and fair. If you were one of the other members outside of the 39, would you accept to benefit from the proceeds?

T.M.:

If that is accepted then every other thing they said should be accepted. It is not about what they say, it is about what is right and fair. If you were one of the other members outside of the 39, would you accept to benefit from the proceeds?

I don't get your logic of the bolded.

Explain.

nuremberg

They have basically said the others did nothing wrong as it was just assembly expense

That is what you said.

I am sure they also said that they dint do anything wrong, either. Or did i miss something?

T.M.:

That is what you said.

I am sure they said that they also dint do anything wrong, either. Or did i miss something?

If they show paperwork stating that the money given to legislators was part of normal expenses, then it will be impossible and prohibitive to charge the others for taking money when they can claim that was their belief.

But if they provide such paperwork, it will be easy and inexpensive to show that they are being fraudulent.

Reduced cost of prosecution, 39 people clamped for fraud, great result.

@Sagamite are you saying it is legit to collect from the proceeds of illegality, and you wont have a case to answer? I dont think so, beacuse I know that you are not supposed to buy stolen goods.

bay77:

@Sagamite are you saying it is legit to collect from the proceeds of robery, and in you wont have a case to answer? I dont think that should be encouraged.

If you claim you are not aware it was from robbery and your giver corroborates that story, it will be hard to charge you even if you have a case to answer.

It should not be encouraged but it is expedient and helps prevent such happening again as the legislathieves know they can't cover it up without some fall guys. I doubt many mugus will like to take the fall guy required to cover up and take the heat on their own.

Not to talk of collecting, willingling. What happens to aiding and abetting?

bay77:

Not to talk of collecting, willingling. What happens to aiding and abetting?

Expediency!

If you feel you can easily charge them at low cost, then you should.

If not, and you waste millions on lawyers for years on a case costing millions and you do not even have a chance of getting the money back, it is not rational.

Everyone who took from the proceeds of "illegality" knowingly should pay for it.

bay77:

Everyone who took from the proceeds of "illegality" knowingly should pay for it.

I agree with such ideals, but I am pragmatic enough to know that is not always possible.

Hopefully some hungry, long-suffering citizen would kill them in a robbery, kidnap their kids for ransom or burn down their assets in a riot. Human beings, especially illiterate, down-trodden, malnutritioned ones are not intelligent to think in such targeted ways.

I was happy when the ex-NFF cretin chairman's mother was kidnapped for ransom.

Sagamite:

Then it will come from the budget and they will have broken the law.

They will have to prove it is running cost and these 37 will be open to charge for fraud if the attempt fails, if not, then they will have to prove the followed the best practice due process procurement laws.

Anyone changing claims after expensing is committing fraud and theft!

The 37 are basically, unknowingly, volunteering to take the heat for their colleagues. In my opinion, that is fantastic because we have 39 people (i.e. plus Bank-Ole and Nafag) to prosecute, which is much easier and manageable than charging over 350.

All the Reps have perpetrated 'fraud' frankly. By the time the lawyers throw monkey wrenches in the process and monies start ending up in judges' accounts, nothing will happen to them. This case is not so clear-cut, EFCC should find other ways to nail these people.

9bn Scam: Bankole has a case to answer, EFCC insists

Dimeji Bankole
advertisement


The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC), Thursday told a Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja and presided over by Justice Donatus Okorowa that a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole, has a case to answer.

Bankole is standing trial on a 16 count charge bordering on contract inflation and fraudulent embezzlement of public funds totaling N9 Billion.

EFCC counsel, Festus Keyamo, urged the court to dismiss two motions brought by Bankole’s counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN seeking to quash the charges against him and to disqualify Keyamo from prosecuting the case.

While moving his motion, Keyamo pointed out that Sections 57 and 58 of the Procurement Act clearly emphasized that ‘all other parties’ other than those mentioned such as contractor and procurement officers, can be prosecuted within that provision.

He further argued that parties to the offence can be those that have the authority to stop the commission of a crime, as in the case of Bode George and others. “My Lord there is a striking similarity between this case and that of Bode George because the same arguments were made for them stating that they were not procurement officers but board members. Our argument then and even now, is that Section 7 of the criminal Code recognizes other parties who in one way or the other may have aided or abetted a crime.”

Keyamo, while replying to the issue of showing two prices, stated that the prosecution detailed out, in its charges, the two prices that were contradictory and has been generous and magnanimous in its proof of evidence so as not to be seen as persecutors but prosecutors.

He equally noted some loopholes in the defence arguments concerning his disqualification as a prosecutor, saying that such has exposed their inability to support their claim of ‘personal bias ‘from their affidavit. He said that his petition to the National Assembly which they cited as a proof of his ‘bias’ was clear on its intention which stated that the former Speaker was not being accused of any financial impropriety but was being asked for explanation to Nigerians on his role in the matter.

Keyamo also said that he had written a similar letter to another former Speaker Ghali Na’aba as far back as 2005 seeking an explanation on a national issue which clearly shows that there was no personal interest in the matter.
Keyamo also stated that the law does not question in explicit language the impartiality of prosecution but that of the tribunal. “The court’s role is to hold the scale. In fact, if a prosecutor does not believe in the guilt of the accused person, there is no need taking the brief. Impartiality in this regard as they want to put it means I do not have a mind and this is not correct.”



He pointed out that even if they want to argue on partiality or otherwise of the prosecutor, it should not have come now when the accused person has taken his plea. “My lord it is too late in the day to raise this objection because what qualifies the prosecutor to prefer a charge qualifies him also to proceed with the trial . Why didn’t they raise it before taking of plea or even filing of charge”, he questioned. He said that all the motions by Bankole were subterfuges to truncate the trial.

Bankole had on June 13, and July 26, 2011 respectively filed two separate motions seeking the court to quash the case against him on the ground that the proof of evidence did not disclose any shred of criminality against him and on another ground that Keyamo, the EFCC counsel, should be disqualified from prosecuting the case as he has through his antecedents, shown that he is biased and impartial towards the accused person.
Awomolo, while making his submissions posited that under Section 58(4a) of the Public Procurement Act, offences can only be committed by specified person namely contractors, suppliers and procurement officers and that his client is none of the aforementioned.

On the issue of Keyamo’s disqualification, Awomolo stated that the office of prosecution is a public institution instituted for public interest and interest of justice. He said a criminal prosecutor must generate public confidence and that Keyamo by his known public condemnation of the accused person, cannot be impartial in handling of the case. “Keyamo wants to proof a point to Bankole that even though the House has cleared him, he (Keyamo) will show him ‘pepper’ in court. He should distance himself from prosecuting a case he has shown bias, prejudice and commitment as an activist;”

Count one of the 9 count charge against Bankole who was arraigned on Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 reads that “That you, Dimeji Bankole and others now at large on or about 28th of May, 2008, within the jurisdiction of Federal High court, being body of principal officers of the house of representatives for the approval of contracts in the house of representatives, with intent to defraud, did conspire amongst yourselves to inflate the cost of 400 units of 40-inch Samsung [LNS.341] television sets. By approving the purchase of said items at the rate of N525,000 per unit, instead of prevailing market price of N295,000 and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 58[4][a] of the public procurement Act No. 14 of 2007 and punishable under Section 58[5] of the same Act”.

The case has been adjourned to December 19, 2011.