NDDC: THE HYENAS AND JACKALS ONCE MORE GATHER – II

NDDC: THE HYENAS AND JACKALS ONCE MORE GATHER – II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr Uche Diala

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sahara Weekly Reports – Like I noted in part one of this series, when you fight corruption and indiscipline, they both fight back ferociously. This would not be far from what is playing out currently at the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and well-meaning Niger Deltans and Nigerians can ill afford to keep quiet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is obvious that certain individuals and vested interests are doing everything to ensure that the commission does not depart from its old ways and that the aims and intentions of the new Chairman of the Governing Board which to enthrone probity, accountability, due process and efficient service delivery to the people of the region are scuttled. To achieve that, these individuals and vested interests within and around the NDDC have orchestrated and deployed all manners of mischief and underhand tactics.

 

In the part one, I wrote about the procured court judgment which among other things purportedly barred the Chairman of the Board from interfering in the legal functions of the Managing Director of the Commission and sacking “18 Aides” allegedly contracted by the Chairman. In this installment, I shall deeply scrutinize that court judgment and expose the folly and mischief it is enabling for Niger Deltans and Nigerians to see.

 

It would be recalled that a certain Dr Mike Oberabor had approached the Federal High Court, Warri, presided over by Hon. Justice Okon E. Abang in a suit marked FHC/WR/CS/14/2023, “on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Oberabor Oreme-Egbede families of Olomoro Community in Isoko South local community of Delta State”,. The suit was “seeking an interpretation of the NDDC Act, 2000 and other relevant statute and documents relating to the running of the commission’’. It had the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), the Chairman of its Governing Board, Mrs Lauretta Onochie and its Managing Director, Dr Samuel Ogboku as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively.

 

From the Certified True Copy of the Judgment delivered on Tuesday, 9th May 2023, Justice Abang while stating that; “having considered the relevant provisions of the NDDC Establishment Act, 2000 ..’’, “the circular issued by the presidency on revised frequency of meeting for part time members of government committees, Boards of Federal Agencies, Statutory Corporations and government owned companies”, “the circular issued by office of the Accountant General of the Federation dated 16/1/23 on the subject matter of dispute between parties,” and “that the unilateral decision of the 2nd Defendant (Mrs. Lauretta Onochie) to appoint 18 aides in her office, the demand for an executive office in the commission are in contravention (of) relevant provisions of NDDC Act, the circulars released by Federal Government on the subject matter of the Plaintiff’s claims,” granted the Plaintiff’s claims and ordered as follows:

 

“It is hereby adjudged, ordered and declared as follows:

 

“1. That the 3rd Defendant as the Managing Director of the Niger Delta Development Commission is the person statutorily empowered by the NDDC ACT to perform and wield the executive functions, powers and day to day running and management of the Commission to the exclusion of other members of the Board of the NDDC including the 2nd Defendant herein”.

 

“2. That all actions of the 2nd Defendant including but not limited to the appointment of her personal aides carried out in exercise of executive functions and powers in the Niger Delta Development Commission since her assumption of duty on the 4th day of January, 2023 are ultra vires her powers and therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever”.

 

“3. That the 2nd Defendant (Mrs Lauretta Onochie) is restrained from carrying out and/or exercising any executive functions and powers in the Niger Delta Development Commission, the 1st Defendant (NDDC) herein.

 

“4. The 2nd Defendant is further restrained from interfering with the 3rd Defendant’s (Managing Director’s) executive functions, powers and day to day running and management of Niger Delta Development Commission the 1st Defendant herein.”

 

Firstly, I will not spend precious time dwelling on the person of the plaintiff, Dr Mike Oberabor, his qualification for bringing the suit, his real motive in meddling in what are internal affairs of the Commission as well as whose interest he is actually representing, especially seeing as all the prayers and reliefs sought in the suit and granted in the judgment are skewed in favor of the Managing Director, who is currently battling the chairman of the governing board and who himself was a co-defendant in the suit. Is it a case of the biblical ‘hand of Esau but the voice of Jacob’? Time will tell.

 

However, as erudite lawyer and anti-corruption activist, Chief Okoi Obono-Obla put it: “He (the plaintiff) is not qualified to bring a suit against the defendants. He has no locus standi because his community whom he is purporting to represent in Delta State is not the only community in the nine Niger Delta States of Delta, Imo, Abia, Akwa, Ibom, Ondo, Rivers, Cross River and Bayelsa States.”

 

Chief Obon-Obla goes further to say that; “The reliefs granted by the Court are unobtainable because by section 24 (1) of the NDDC Act, the honorable Chairman and Board members are public officers protected by the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act”.

Furthermore, he opined that “the suit (by Dr Oberabor) by section 24 (2) (a) & (b) of the NDCC Act was time barred. Indeed, Section 24 (1) – (2) (a) & (b) of Niger-Delta Development Commission (Establishment etc) Act state as follows:

24. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act shall apply in relation to any suit instituted against any officer or employee of the Commission.

 

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or enactment, no suit shall lie against any member of the Board, the Managing Director or any other officer or employee of the Commission for any act done in pursuance or execution of this Act or any other law or enactment, or of any public duty or authority or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act or such law or enactment, duty or authority, shall lie or be instituted in any court unless:

 

(a) it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of; or

 

(b) in the case of a continuation of damage or injury, within six months next after the ceasing thereof.

 

It is curious to note that the presiding judge did not take the above facts contained in the same NDDC Act into consideration.

 

Secondly, I will not dwell anymore on the allegation of appointment of “18 personal aides” by the Chairman of the Board which I debunked in part one as that has been proven to be false and malicious. Even the NDDC Board has strongly and officially debunked that claim. Therefore, the court could not have nullified or voided something that never existed. I still wonder why and how the Court accepted that as true without verified evidence or proof of such.

 

Thirdly, it is very important to state here that there is no arguing the fact that the Managing Director is statutorily empowered by the NDDC Act to perform and wield the executive functions, powers and day to day to running and management of the NDDC as stated in the court judgment.

 

Indeed, Section 12 (1) (b) of the NDDC Act states that “the Managing Director shall be the chief executive and accounting officer of the Commission”. However those powers are neither absolute nor without oversight, checks and balances. Those powers are “… subject to the general direction of the Board …” as stipulated by the NDDC Act, Section 12 (2).

 

Section 12 (2) states that: The Managing Director shall, subject to the general direction of the Board, be responsible:-

 

(a) For the day to day administration of the Commission;

(b) For keeping the books and Proper records of the proceedings of the Board, and

(c) For –

 

(i) The administration of the secretariat of the Board, and

(ii) The general direction and control of all other employees of the Commission.

 

It is therefore as curious as it is disappointing to read the Judge reduce the position and duties of the Chairman of the board of the NDDC to merely overseeing and presiding over meetings of the board thus: “The court having considered the relevant provisions of the NDDC ACT to the effect that appointment as the Chairman of the board of the 1st Defendant on part time basis is to oversee and preside over the meetings of the board,”.

 

Indeed this brings to fore the questions I asked in part one of this series as to what exact executive functions or powers of the Managing Director have been usurped by the Chairman Governing Board since January 4, 2023 when they all assumed office?

 

Does the Chairman insisting that due processes must be followed in the running of the affairs of the Commission, that transparency, probity and accountability must be the watch words, that multiple accounts maintained in the name of the Commission, some shrouded in secrecy must be accounted for and that the NDDC must be made to work for the common good of the generality of the people of the Niger Delta and Nigerians at large constitute interference or usurpation of the powers of the Managing Director to oversee day to day running of the Commission?

 

If anyone, it is the management led by the Managing Director that usurped the powers of the Governing board by reportedly signing a $15b Memorandum of Understanding on a rail project with neither the knowledge of the Chairman nor the consent and approval of the board.

 

For avoidance of doubt and for proper information of Niger Deltans and Nigerians, Section 8 of the NDDC Act expressly states that: (Please pay attention to 8 (e)).

 

8. The Board shall have power to:-

(a) Manage and supervise affairs of the Commission.

(b) Make rules and regulations for carrying out the functions of the Commission.

(c) Enter and inspect premises, projects and such places as may be necessary for the purposes of carrying out its functions under this Act.

(d) Pay the staff of the Commission such remuneration and allowances as appropriate.

(e) Enter into such contracts as may be necessary or expedient for the discharge of its functions and ensure the efficient performance of the functions of the Commission.

(f) Do such other things as are necessary and expedient for the efficient performance of the functions of the Commission.

 

I have heard talk from some people of the Chairman demanding that she be made a signatory to the NDDC account, suggesting that such is wrong and the cause of the ‘rofo rofo’ fight. While I do not hold brief for the chairman and cannot speak to the veracity or otherwise of that claim, I do not see anything in the NDDC Act that prohibits such or makes it illegal and why the Managing Director or anyone should have a problem with that, except some person(s) has something to hide. Indeed, in my humble and objective view, that would be in line with the spirit and letter of the Act establishing the NDDC.

 

Section 14, (3) (a) and (b) (pay particular attention to 14(3a) of the NDDC Act 2000 under “Financial Provisions”, dealing with funds accruable to the commission provides thus:

 

14 (3) The fund shall be managed in accordance with the rules made by the Board, and without prejudice to the generality of the power to make rules under this subsection, the rules shall in particular contain provisions –

 

(a) Specifying the manner in which the assets or the fund of the Commission are to be held, and regulating the making of payments into and out of the fund; and

 

(b) Requiring the keeping of proper accounts and records for the purpose of the fund in such form as may be specified in the rules.

 

Therefore, if the Chairman of the Board for reasons we all know are altruistic decides that she should also be a signatory to the account(s) of the Commission, there is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about that in my view. Indeed the NDDC Act supports that as I have shown above. The fact that past Chairmen of the Governing Board may have been less than interested or thorough should not make that an acceptable norm.

 

I have taken the pain to go through this in detail to help fellow Nigerians to see the facts and separate them from fiction. What is going on at the NDDC is nothing but trying to give a dog a bad name in order to hang it with some people trying to emotionally blackmail, intimidate and malign the Chairman of the Governing board who from the get go has left no one in doubt as to her intention and her determination that the NDDC is made to work for the generality of the good people of Niger Delta and Nigeria at large.

 

As I wrote in part one, part of their gimmick is to present the Chairman before her employer, Niger Deltans and Nigerians as the agent provocateur and a disagreeable person who does not want the Agency to function and as someone who is equally tainted and hopefully by so doing mobilize public sentiments and opinion against her, using the media and their well-oiled and financed propaganda machinery. That must not be allowed to happen.

 

In closing, I reiterate my call for the Presidency and the National Assembly to stand resolutely behind the Chairman of the Governing board, Mrs Lauretta Onochie.

 

I equally expect the governors and indigenes of NDDC member states to rise up in defense of this woman who is determined to fight for them. It is our interest that is at stake.

 

Finally, I respectfully call on the entire Board and management of the Commission to realize that it is the lives and welfare of the long suffering people of the Niger Delta that they represent that are at stake. It is time to bury the ego alongside the hatchet and cooperate with the Chairman of the Governing board for the good of the commission, the Niger Delta and Nigeria at large.

 

©️ Uche Diala

 

druchediala@gmail.com