 |
| Hon. Mawiyau, Commisioner of Justice, Plateau State |
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW:
JUDICIAL
COMMISSION OF INQUIRY: THERE WOULD BE NO “SACRED COWS”- MAWIYAU.
ON TUESDAY, JUSTICE PIUS DAMULAK OF HIGH COURT
1 JOS DISMISSED THE SUIT FILED BY SENATOR JONAH DAVID JANG ( FORMER GOVERNOR OF
PLATEAU STATE) SEEKING TO STOP THE CURRENT ADMNISTRATION LED BY RT HON SIMON
BAKO LALONG FROM PUBLISHING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF
INQUIRY SET UP BY IT. HON AYUBA JONATHAN MAWIYAU, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND COMMISSIONER OF JUSTICE IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW TODAY WITH AFRICAN DRUM SAID
THAT WITH THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT, THE WHITE PAPER WOULD SOON BE OUT AND
WHOEVER THAT IS INDICTED WOULD NOT BE SPARED. EXCERPT.
Sir, the high
court recently dismissed a suit filed by senator Jonah David Jang who sought to
stop the Plateau State Government from making public recommendations of the
Judicial Commission of Inquiry set up by it. What is your take on this?
About the judgment, I would say in summary that
justice has been served, because someone complained to the Court and that
complaint was against another person. I mean the former Governor complained to
the Court against some steps taken by the current administration. His complain
was adequately considered by the Court and the defence of the persons and
institutions that the former Governor took to Court also had the opportunity to
present their own side of the story and based on these the Court gave its
judgment. So, I would say that justice has been served.
Some observers
are of the opinion that indeed, Senator Jonah David Jang was denied justice
because according to them, former Governor Dariye challenged the Commission of
Inquiry set up by Jang upon his assumption of office as Governor in 2007 and he
got judgment in his favour. How come that judgment did not serve as precedent
or is there any difference in the Commissions of former Governor Jang and that
of Governor Lalong?
Yes, the difference is in the instruments
establishing the two Commissions of Inquiry set up by the then Governor of
Plateau state, Senator Jonah David Jang and the one set up by the present
administration under Rt. Hon. Barrister Simon Bako Lalong. You see, where an
instrument seeks to give Commission the powers that are only meant for regular
Courts of Law, the Court itself will not permit anyone to delve into what is
constitutionally its powers to exercise. And that is exactly the character of
the Commission of Inquiry set up by Jonah David Jang. What he did was that he
gave his Commission of Inquiry the powers to look into matters that pertains criminal
offences and also the powers to find someone guilty and to recover. But we were
very careful to couch clauses in the instruments that established the
Commission of Inquiry set up by this administration to ensure that we did not
encroached into matters that were exclusively within the jurisdictions of the
regular Courts. It is for the above reasons that judgment in Dariye’s suit was
delivered in his favour while that of Jonah Jang was delivered against him.
Also, Dariye only went to Court after the white paper was released but Jang
went to Court to prevent the government from releasing the white paper thereby
pre-empting its outcome which the Court said it’s speculative. From the
couching of terms of reference, it would become clear whether the Commission is
being required to perform judicial functions or quasi-judicial functions which
are quite different altogether. So in a nutshell, Jang gave his Commission
powers to even convict people and to recover as enunciated in terms of
reference but the Commission of Inquiry set up by Governor Lalong is a fact
finding one and that is the difference.
So, that is the
major difference between the Commissions set up by former Governor Jang and
Governor Lalong?
Yes, you can look for the instrument which set up
the two Commissions and you would see the differences and that is exactly what
the Court did so, the Court cannot be
accused of being bias. The Court merely applied the law the way it ought to be
applied.
Sir, what really
informed the decision of this administration to set up the Commission of
Inquiry?
If you have been following events in the State, you
would know that immediately this government came into power, a transition
committee was set up which was to verified the items that the immediate past
administration claimed to have handed over and to established whether the items
said to have procured for government were actually so. But after the transition
committee submitted its report, it was discovered that funds meant for the
State and other items needed to be accounted for. Consequently, the present
administration went on air and gave opportunity to those who served in the
immediate past administration (based on our discovery) to return whatever they
knew was for the people of Plateau State in their possession to be utilized for
the benefits of the State. The plea went on for quite some time but no one
heeded to that; instead, people went on taunting the government and even
challenge it that if it is not toothless, then let it bite. But the government
made it clear that it is not about biting anyone but all the government wants
is for people to account for their action or inaction. Because, if you feel you
have done the right thing and somebody says it is wrong, you have the
responsibility to explain to the person but as long as you keep away from
explanation, it leaves much to be desired more so to a sitting government which
can also be interpreted to mean that it has no power. So, in order to bring out
the truth based on the outcome of the transition committee and let the public
know what actually transpired, the Commission of Inquiry was set up by this
administration. As a matter of fact, the terms of reference were quite clear.
 |
| Hon. Mawiyau |
The first term of reference was to ascertain all
financial transactions, done or entered into by the Government of Plateau State
of Nigeria or through any of its Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs),
Parastatals, Institutions or officials, acting in its name from the 29th
day of May, 2007 to 29th May, 2015. Others were to ascertain and
establish all financial allocations, funds, grants or monetary interventions
and revenues which accrued to or in the name of the Government of Plateau State
of Nigeria directly or through any of its Ministries, Departments, Agencies
(MDAs), Parastatals, Institutions, Officials or Agents from the Federal
Government of Nigeria or any International Institutions or Donor Agencies from
29th May, 2007 to 29th May, 2015;
To ascertain and establish all loans granted to or
obtained by the Government of Plateau State of Nigeria directly or through any
of its Ministries, Departments, Agencies (MDAs), Parastatals, Institutions,
Officials or Agents from any public institution(s), organization(s) or
individual(s) from 29th May, 2007 to 29th May, 2015, and
the purpose for which such loans were obtained and whether the loans were used
for such purpose.;
To ascertain whether any property (corporeal or
incorporeal) belonging to the Government of Plateau State or any of its
Ministries, Departments, Agencies (MDAs), Parastatals and Institutions were
sold or in any way concession to any person(s), institution(s), government
official or agency by any Government Ministry, Department, Agency (MDAs),
Institutions or officials between 29th May, 2007 and 29th
May, 2015, the process or procedure followed to carry out the sale or
concession and whether the proceeds of such sale or concession were paid into
appropriate Government coffers.
To ascertain whether any property or properties
(corporeal and incorporeal) were purchased or acquired for or in the name
and/or on behalf of the Government of Plateau State or any of its Ministries,
Departments, Agencies (MDAs), Parastatals or Institutions between 29th
May, 2007 and 29th May, 2015, the process or procedure followed to
carry out such purchase or acquisition and to trace and obtain all documents
relating to such transactions as well as establish their values and locations.
Also to ascertain:
-
All contracts awarded by the Government
of Plateau State or any of its Ministries, Departments, Agencies (MDAs),
Parastatals or Officials between 29th May, 2007 and 29th
May, 2015, the process or procedure followed in the award of such contracts,
the value of each contract (including any variations and whether such
variations were necessary and done in good faith), the level of execution or
completion of each of them and the amount paid to the contractor as at 29th
May, 2015.
- If any contract was awarded at an
inflated cost and to determine what should have been the actual cost of the
contract.
- If any contract has been abandoned, the
amount paid for any such abandoned contract, and the amount required to
complete the contract.
-
If payments made to any contractor were
in keeping with the pace of work on the project and if not, to ascertain the
difference
-
If the contract was executed in
accordance with its tenor:
To ascertain:
-
The total amount paid by the Government
of Plateau State as salaries and allowances of serving and retired State Civil
Servants, Local Government Employees and Political Appointees from 29th
May, 2007 to 29th May, 2015;
-
Whether any person or employee of
Government or any of its Ministries, Departments, Agencies (MDAs), Parastatals,
or Institutions received multiple payments or salaries or pensions, and the
role played by any persons(s) toward such payment(s); and
-
The total difference in terms of figures
between the actual payments made in the name of salaries or pensions and what
should have been paid by Government for that purpose.
So
these were the terms of reference of the committee which none stipulates that
if for instance anybody collected multiple salaries should return the money. So,
it was a fact finding commission. It is also clear by the terms of reference
that the commission of inquiry performed within its terms of reference and
submitted its report to government.
However,
it is unfortunate that somebody who has governed this state for eight years and
also set up series of committees and commissions of inquiries to investigate certain
issues and came out with white papers based on the recommendations of such
commissions rushed to Court asking it to stop this administration from making
public its findings of the commission of inquiry set up by it. It is ironic and
ridiculous.
You
see, an incumbent chief executive who after tapping from the reservoir of power
through the fountain of governance cannot after leaving office said that those
who now occupy the position he occupied should not tap from the same reservoir,
So, these are the issues that really informed the decision of the government to
set up the commission of inquiry and those that were invited came and clarify
issues before a large audience who turn up for the event. Even those who had
denied so many things appeared before the Commission and confirmed doing
certain things which they had earlier denied to the amazement of all, as the
truth was revealed. Now, having observed what transpired at the commission the
people of Plateau definitely expect the government to act on its recommendation
only for someone to start making efforts aimed at stopping the government to
make these recommendations known to the people.
Now
what does the judgment portend for the people of Plateau State?
It means that the government of Plateau State
is now in a good position to make public whatever findings and the
recommendations made by the commission of inquiry. Thereafter, if they are
certain steps to be taken (which of course would be defined by the decision of
the white paper committee) then the government would decide. So, we would
pursue this to logical conclusion and whatever that is meant for the people of
Plateau which was taken illegally must be returned.
When are we expecting the white
paper?
Very
soon.
What is the guarantee that the
recommendations that will be contained in the white paper would be fully
implemented taking into cognizance previous experiencers?
It is often said that if someone promises you
an apparel, you need to take a close look at the one he is wearing.
This government has demonstrated a high degree of
commitment on issues which has made it quite different from previous
administrations. For instance, there are projects that have been abandoned for
so many years, some up to 13 years but when this administration came in, it
started giving attention to these projects along with the ones the
administration inherited from the immediate past administration which it
started but could not finish even including the ones immediate past
administration inherited from its predecessor but refused to do something about
it claiming that it was somebody’s else project. So, you see, we are portraying
governance in a difference perspective so as to entrench the spirit of continuity
in governance. So whatever the past administration did or left is for this
administration to look into. For instance, if it is asset, it is for this
government to look into; if it is liability, it is also for the incumbent
administration to look into objectively. So it’s not right for somebody to
claim asset but reject liability. Again, there was a Committee set up by the
previous government to look into the activity of local government in the State
(it was a verification exercise) and some recommendations were made. So, when
this government came on board, it also looked into the recommendations and
begin to implement them immediately. With these commitment by this
administration is a clear indication that it will definitely implement the
white paper.
 |
| Hon. Mawiyau |
Finally sir, if
the white paper is out and Senator Jonah David Jang is eventually indicted,
would this government prosecute him?
Well, that is too direct because like I said
earlier, the Commission of Inquiry was not set up to witch hunt anybody or for
personal vendetta. The Commission of Inquiry was not about Jonah David Jang but
it was set up to look into the acts and activities of an institution; that is
the government of Plateau State from 2007 to 2015. But in the course of
considering the findings and recommendations, anyone that is found to have done
what he or she ought not to do or taken away what he or she ought not to have
taken away, certainly, they would be ask to return them. And if such persons in
the cause of their actions or inactions committed crimes and there is enough
evidences that indeed crimes were committed, the law will definitely take its
course. But this would only be considered after the white paper is out, we
don’t want to pre-empt (just like somebody did) and begin to say we will do
this or that to ABCD. We wouldn’t want to pre-empt.
Thank you very much Sir.
You
are welcome.
Post a Comment