X-factoria:

Factored into the budget under which expense head Or was it stated as "borrowings - to pay increased allowance"??

You see, that is where the criminality lies. They must have concealed it under one frivolous expense. That in itself is criminal and Bankole is busy making mouth that he can't be convicted!!

bioye:

Are you sure you don't have a personal issue with Bankole here?  Even you have cited multiple times that[b] Bankole was absent at the 'executive session' where that decision was taken[/b].  You know it was a decision of the House.  And Bankole did not benefit from the increase.  And[b] he could not have stopped the decision[/b].  So, why are you so desperate on Bankole in particular being the scape goat?  

You know the truth that Bankole did not embezzle N40bn and yet you choose to mislead people with false information.  WHY?

Ileke-IdI:

Bankole is right, like someone said.

The reason why EFCC arent on the billions found in Bankole's acct is because that money was shared amongst out politicians. To arrest Bankole for that crime, many of them will also be charged.

Sagamite:

You still have not explained what "any question" is.

Surely if the legislative arm decides to vote whether to Soludo to death for the 5 bank's crisis, it is the responsibility of Bank-Ole to say that is not a matter or "any question" for the legislative and he would not approve it.

So what is "any question" and how come the legislathieves led by a Bank-Ole be voting money to themselves?

bioye:

Oga Sagamite, I did not write the constitution but to the best of my understanding, 'any question' means any decision the House decides to deliberate upon.  My point is that if they decide to commit a crime collectively, the Speaker cannot stop them.  His is to acknowledge their decision.  He doesn't even possess the power to approve or deny.  However, if the law finds that the lawmakers have broken the law, the House should be sued collectively and not the Speaker who did his job according to the law by presiding over the House!

X-factoria:

“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.

We should all rise to defend our country and her resources - that is if we truly care. It is not yet time to point fingers, the constitution has to be reviewed as a matter of urgency. If a three arm government doesnt work, we can surely try something else.

Sagamite:

1) I think it is the responsibility of the speaker to guide what can be discussed and if he does not and then approves decision on what should have not been discussed that leads to financial loss for the state and financial gain for him and his fellow thieves, then he is culpable.

2) Even if the legislathieves vote money for themselves, it is Bank-Ole that decided to go to a bank to borrow at a loss to the state. I will need to know whether it is within his powers to be borrowing money (even if the decision of the house qualifies for "any question".

It is clear he approved the milking of Nigeria by legislathieves and he benefited the most! We need to know whether his approval is illegal or was executed (by borrowing) illegally.

bioye:

Unfortunately, the Deputy [/b]Speaker [b]Nafada presided on that day because Speaker Bankole was away for an event in Ibadan. FOOD FOR THOUGHT: How come the decision was taken on a day Bankole was not present?

Donlittle:

is like u knw something, that we all dont know, cause the way u defend, this guy on Nland, is becoming suspicious, please enlighten us, are u related to him, your his boyfriend?? or your just being loyal and saying the truth?? no abuse intended. 

WisdomV:

not many people can stand by this type of truth, it is courageous. Allowing people to call you names and all of that, attacking you left right and center. it doesnt matter what your rship is with the accused for as long as you are not misinforming the forum your opinion matters and we are all ears.

bioye:

Unfortunately, the Deputy [/b]Speaker [b]Nafada presided on that day because Speaker Bankole was away for an event in Ibadan. FOOD FOR THOUGHT: How come the decision was taken on a day Bankole was not present?

ndu_chucks:

@bioye, I appreciate your effort to tell the other side of the story.  Would you be willing to proclaim, with the same amount of vigor, that the action of the legislators including bankole in this case is morally reprehensible, even if 'legal'? Would you sir, be willing to admit that the said action by the legislators and Bankole is morally equivalent to theft, albeit 'legal'?

oyb:

Meeen NL is big business o

see as our politicians all have mouthpieces on nl

bioye:

Actually, as far as I know, the 6th House of Representatives broke the law by increasing allowances for 358 of the 360 members of House of Representatives. This is because according to the constitution, only RMAFC is empowered by law to do so. This collective action is morally wrong and illegal.

ndu_chucks:

Your statement that the 6th House of Representatives broke the law by increasing allowances for 358 of the 360 members of House of Representatives can be easily debunked in court. Let's take a quick look at section 84 fo the constitution:

84. (1) There shall be paid to the holders of the offices mentioned in this section such remuneration, salaries and allowances as may be prescribed by the National Assembly, but not exceeding the amount as shall have been determined by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission.

According to the constitution, the National Assembly has the constitutional duty to prescribe salaries and remuneration of members of the House of Representatives. The duties of RMAFC, is to set a limit which the NASS should not exceed. RMAFC does not have the authority to increase or decrease allowances or other remunerations.

Based on what is reported in this case, Bankole and NASS did not spend more than the limit established by RMAFC.  (1)NASS voted to increase allowances - a constitutional act (2)NASS did not pay its members a penny over the limit established by RMAFC (from government funds/budget)  -  RMAFC has no authority whatsoever on how the said loan proceeds were spent by Bankole and others.

EFCC goofed here, I'm sorry to say that Bankole and the 6th House of Reps have perpetrated one of the biggest 419 in history. These people deserve to be shot, if I may quote Sanusi.

ndu_chucks:

Your statement that the 6th House of Representatives broke the law by increasing allowances for 358 of the 360 members of House of Representatives can be easily debunked in court. Let's take a quick look at section 84 fo the constitution:

84. (1) There shall be paid to the holders of the offices mentioned in this section such remuneration, salaries and allowances as may be prescribed by the National Assembly, but not exceeding the amount as shall have been determined by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission.

According to the constitution, the National Assembly has the constitutional duty to prescribe salaries and remuneration of members of the House of Representatives. The duties of RMAFC, is to set a limit which the NASS should not exceed. RMAFC does not have the authority to increase or decrease allowances or other remunerations.

Based on what is reported in this case, Bankole and NASS did not spend more than the limit established by RMAFC.  (1)NASS voted to increase allowances - a constitutional act (2)NASS did not pay its members a penny over the limit established by RMAFC (from government funds/budget)  -  RMAFC has no authority whatsoever on how the said loan proceeds were spent by Bankole and others.

EFCC goofed here, I'm sorry to say that Bankole and the 6th House of Reps have perpetrated one of the biggest 419 in history. These people deserve to be shot, if I may quote Sanusi.

Sagamite:

You need to provide more clarity.

What was the limit set by RMAFC and what was the allocation implemented by NASS?

(a) monitor the accruals to and disbursement of revenue from the Federation Account;

(b) review, from time to time, the revenue allocation formulae and principles in operation to ensure conformity with changing realities.

Provided that any revenue formula which has been accepted by an Act of the National Assembly shall remain in force for a period of not less than five years from the date of commencement of the Act;

(c) advise the Federal and State Governments on fiscal efficiency and methods by which their revenue can be increased;

[size=14pt](d) determine the remuneration appropriate for political office holders, including the President, Vice-President, Governors, Deputy Governors, Ministers, Commissioners, Special Advisers, Legislators and the holders of the offices mentioned in sections 84 and 124 of this Constitution; and[/size]

(e) discharge such other functions as are conferred on the Commission by this Constitution or any Act of the National Assembly.

84. (1) There shall be paid to the holders of the offices mentioned in this section such remuneration, salaries and allowances as may be prescribed by the National Assembly, but not exceeding the amount as shall have been determined by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission.

The RMAFC Chairman, Mr. Elias Mbam, made this known at an interactive session between the nation’s anti-graft agencies and members of the National Assembly in Abuja.

Mbam said, “We have heard a lot said about the emoluments of legislators; some say it is N15m per month. The monthly emolument of a senator is N1.06m; that of a member of the House is[b] N794,000[/b] before any deductions are made.

bioye:
Ha!  Your argument is quite logical. But I hesitate to accept it as sacrosanct.  If you were to suggest an amendment to correct this loophole in the constitution, what would it be?  

Also, what you are inadvertently saying in conclusion is that ONLY after the Presidency signs the budget and disburses the allowances (for last year and this year) to the House while exceeding the limit set by RMAFC does it becomes a crime.  And the criminal by law here would be the Presidency and the Presidency alone?

If the legislators have not broken the law, why should they be shot? Because they were morally wrong though legally right?  That is where I would ultimately disagree with you.

Sagamite:
You need to provide more clarity.

What was the limit set by RMAFC and what was the allocation implemented by NASS?

Mai Suya:

moreover the fact that it was a loan and not taken directly from fed acct the doesn't obviate the fact the house members, under Banky, approved and got for themselves remunerations above what RMAFC had determined.

ndu_chucks:

The so-called running cost of members was N27million per member per quarter (needless to say this was the maximum limit established by RMAFC – they didn’t have to pay each member this maximum amount, but that is what they did).
As greed set it, members threatened Bankole with impeachment if he does not go along with their 419 plan, so they all agreed to increase the running cost to N42million per member per quarter.
If at this point if they had paid themselves with government funds (afterall they are charged with appropriations, so they can find the money from other government programs), then they would have been in violation of section 84 of the constitution. Their 419 solution – obtain a loan, share the money and claim that they were carrying out their duties and because of the separation of powers principles, the judiciary and the executive branches can go to blazes.
By now, Nigerians should have been protesting by the hundreds of thousands in front of NASS. Being idol-thief worshipers and cowards, Nigerians have not taken any action.