Senate and Malabu Oil deal

The Attorney General had written to the Committee on January 27, 2014, requesting the discontinuance of further probe because, according to him, it was a subject of current litigation.  According to the letter, an obscure organisation, which the letter identified as “African Youth Platform for Development”, had instituted a suit in which the National Assembly […]

The Attorney General had written to the Committee on January 27, 2014, requesting the discontinuance of further probe because, according to him, it was a subject of current litigation.  
According to the letter, an obscure organisation, which the letter identified as “African Youth Platform for Development”, had instituted a suit in which the National Assembly and Mr. Adoke’s office were listed as defendants. He argued that since the National Assembly and his office had commenced their defence in the suit, and in accordance with respect for the rule of law, “the proceedings of the Committee be kept in abeyance.”
But the Vice Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kabiru Marafa, rejecting Adoke’s argument, insisted that the investigations would go ahead.
 Adoke’s letter was a brazen attempt at muzzling legislative function, particularly on a matter of consuming public interest that the Malabu Oil deal has generated. Marafa was right in asserting the statutory duty of the National Assembly and the public interest with respect to the issue.  As the Senator stated, “The Senate as a body is going to do it regardless of the suit in court because the Constitution requires us to do our work.” An aspect of Marafa’s remarks that should be carried forward concerned what he said was the impunity of stalling the functioning of the National Assembly with spurious court cases, and that this should not be allowed to go unchallenged.  
Details of the Malabu Oil deal in public domain are murky, and refer to complex transactions in which a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mr Dan Etete, enriched himself and some associates, and involved bribes to certain Nigerian government officials. The money came from proceeds from alleged manipulations in the allocation and sale of a lucrative oil prospecting lease (OPL) 24.
 A French court convicted Mr Etete on charges of aggravated money laundering relating to Malabu Oil. He had appealed the case in France and lost.  The twist in the case is that the Federal Government of Nigeria, on the strength of a legal advice from the office of the Attorney General, paid Mr Etete 1.1 billion dollars after his conviction in France and upon his return to Nigeria.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) waded into the matter and, in its report, found the entire Malabu Oil transaction unwholesome. The resulting public opprobrium caused the House of Representatives to order a revocation of the deal. The Senate’s response was the mandate last to its Committee on Petroleum Resources (Downstream) to investigate the transaction. It was in reply to the invitation sent to him and others by the Committee to appear before it and explain their roles that Adoke sent the letter asking for a stay of action.
Mr Adoke’s stand on this matter is controversial by itself, given that it casts doubts on his position as a defender of the national interest.  While he may cite the issue as being sub judice, there are justifiable misgivings about, even questioning of, the locus standi  of the “African Youth Platform for Development” to be in court for the stated reason.  In any case, as Mr Adoke himself must know, his letter cannot purport to imply that the court’s process can suspend portion of the Constitution which empowers the National Assembly to perform its functions.   The conclusion that can be drawn from this therefore is an attempt to stall efforts at getting to the root of the Malabu Oil deal that has embarrassed Nigeria as an explicit example of international fraud.
Mr Adoke’s failure to appear before the relevant committees of the National Assembly when he was invited, and his overt attempt to scuttle investigation into the matter, is unacceptable and deserving of serious legislative censure.  The Constitution is clear about the roles of each arm of the government; abiding by this principle is essential in the smooth functioning of a democracy.