Why report on my constituency projects is inaccurate – Rep Hafiz Kawu
Hafiz Kawu is the federal lawmaker representing Tarauni federal constituency at the House of Representatives. Some of the projects he initiated for his constituency in the 2001 budget had been in the eyes of the storm following an investigation report, which concluded that most of the projects were not executed while the one executed was […]
Hafiz Kawu
Hafiz Kawu is the federal lawmaker representing Tarauni federal constituency at the House of Representatives. Some of the projects he initiated for his constituency in the 2001 budget had been in the eyes of the storm following an investigation report, which concluded that most of the projects were not executed while the one executed was in a deplorable situation, and that some of the companies that got the contracts had questionable statuses. In this interview, the lawmaker explained how and why he disagreed with the findings of the investigation.
You disagreed with the findings of a recent investigation by Daily Trust, especially as it relates to some of the projects you initiated for your constituency. For instance, at Kauyen Alu, there was supposed to be a building at GGSS Kauyen Alu, but it was found that there was no such project there. But a project was situated at Yan’awaki, are they the same projects?
Well, Yan’awaki is in Kauyen Alu, a ward with various areas among the 10 in Tarauni. That project was initiated by me. When I was campaigning, the people of that area vividly requested that they don’t have a girls’ government secondary school, that was why we provided a block of two classrooms with furniture domiciled in there. The building is there, that is why it is called Government Girls’ Secondary School (GGSS), Kauyen Alu in the Yanawaki area of Kauyen Alu.
But what was observed was that the block of two classrooms was the only structure there, are you saying that this block of two classrooms stands for the GGSS that is supposed to be at Kauyen Alu?
You don’t understand. It is not a GGSS that is supposed to be in Kauyen Alu, what was given was a block of two classrooms. That was the award given from the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) – a block of two classrooms and a centre. It was called GGSS, Kauyen Alu because in that particular area they don’t have a school for their girls. That was why we initiated that.
There was another one in Tarauni Primary School; in the investigation report it is supposed to have a block of two classrooms. Unfortunately, the investigation concluded that there was no project there and the site seeing confirmed that there was no project at Tarauni Primary School. However, very close to that area, there was a constituency project you initiated, which was named Tarauni Special Primary School. Are these two the same?
They are the same. As I told you, these are projects we initiated in that particular area, the same with Kauyen Alu. Tarauni is a ward out of the 10 wards of Tarauni federal constituency. They don’t have a primary school in that area. That was why it was built in Tarauni and we called it Tarauni Special Primary School, two blocks of classrooms as stated in the project by UBEC.
It is stated that when a project is supposed to be situated at site A and was moved to point B, it shows that the point A project wasn’t done in the first place. The investigation concluded that Tarauni Primary School was supposed to benefit from the project but they didn’t get it; what happened?
It is not true. That’s not how it should be. We decide where the project should be sited, especially you the initiator of the project. You decide where because you know where there is problem in that particular area. It’s not that the project is supposed to be in Tarauni Primary School. That’s not how it is done. How it is done is that as long as the project is in Tarauni ward, you don’t take it to another ward or secondary school when it is supposed to be a primary school. The reality is that the project was built in Tarauni and it is a primary school. Do you know Tarauni Primary School? It is not in Tarauni federal constituency, it is in Nasarawa. So the project in question was situated in Tarauni.
There’s also a project that was supposed to happen at Kundila Islamiyya Centre – rehabilitation of a skills acquisition centre —but the investigation noted that there was no such project there, and workers there confirmed that the only renovation done was by the community and there was nothing brought by your you. How would you respond to this?
As I said earlier, in the report he didn’t put the skills acquisition centre but a rehabilitation centre. What was put in the budget was rehabilitation of skills acquisition centre in Kundila, not Kundila Islamiyya. That is the title of the project if you check the budget.
What brought about Kundila Islamiyya was that in Kundila, they didn’t allow us, so we later changed the project, wrote a letter to the Ministry of Agriculture that we wanted to change the project to renovation of Kundila Islamiyya, which was done. The rehabilitation took place. That’s the school I attended. I took the project there because it is an old building (since the 1980s. That was why we went there to renovate it. So, it is not a rehabilitation centre as you said in your report. And it is not in Kundila Islamiyya. It was a rehabilitation of a skills acquisition centre in Kundila Maiduguri road, not Kundila Islamiyya because it doesn’t have a skills acquisition centre.
But members of staff of Kundila Islamiyya who spoke off record said the renovation you claimed to have brought to the place was done by the community. What is your take on that?
That is why they took you there. You saw a place we renovated, so I don’t think anybody can come and claim that it was done by the community. The signpost is there, there is picture. I don’t think anyone can dispute that this place was renovated by me. They should mention the people that renovated it.
Yes, your name was on the wall of one of the buildings, but there was another name on the other building…
You know it is a big place, so somebody must have renovated the other place. But we renovated blocks of classroom because it is an old building.
At Kundila Secondary School, the investigation concluded that there was renovation of a block of two classrooms, but the project, which was done two years ago, looks so bad that some thought it was done in the past 10 years because it has dilapidated. It was concluded that it was a shabbily done project. What would you say about this?
Well, there is bound to be vandalism on a public building renovated two years plus, almost three years. People won’t allow it because in most public buildings you would see that vandals go there and remove windows, chairs and tables. So, two years later, you cannot find the building intact. The building was in total dilapidation before we renovated it. We have a video and pictures of how it was done before. So you don’t expect it to be the same now. Did you see the building cracking? I am sure that it was done in the best interest of the design. There is no way you will find it the same way it was done two to three years ago. It can never be the same because most of these buildings are not protected. They allow people to go and play football; and all these scavengers go there to remove burglaries, even chairs and sell. Go and check the physical and mechanical structure of the building.
But some older buildings in the school are in better conditions, why is this one different?
We did not build it, we only renovated it. It is an old structure, so you don’t expect it to be as good as the ones built recently. All we did was to put windows, doors and fix other things.
Aside the status of the projects, the investigation also concluded that some of the contractors have questionable standing. At least four of them were said to have inactive statuses at the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) as at the time the investigation was done. Was due diligence followed before the award of the projects?
I am sure the agency concerned (UBEC) would not just give an award without due process. They must have done their due diligence; and they have all the documents. When I saw what was written, I personally checked the CAC. But what I saw in the report was different from what I found at the CAC website. Some of the companies you said were inactive are active on the portal of the CAC.
Could it be that it was a recent update after the report?
I cannot answer that because it was when I read the story that I went to check. When I checked, I saw that they are active as against what was published. And when I talked to the UBEC, they said they had the documentation of all the companies/contractors and they complied with the best procurement processes. I believe the UBEC would be in a better position to explain the statuses of the companies because they are the ones that gave the contract awards.