Image: Femi Adesina
In defense of his principal that was accused of eating yams from the Dasuki barn, Femi Adesina quoted a 1999 military decree that entitled his principal to 3 vehicles that are replaceable every 4 years.
Frankly, that statement by Adesina is pathetically misleading and an attempt to pull wool over the eyes of Nigerians.
1. We are running a constitutional democracy and relevant laws are the constitution and acts of parliament. I don’t know how lawyers put it but I know that all “good decrees” must necessarily be passed again by the national assembly to survive.
Will Femi Adesina go to court and quote a 1999 decree for his own salary as a presidential aide?
2. In 2006 the national assembly under Obasanjo debated entitlements to former leaders but it was shot down because Nigerians didn’t want to reward coup plotters who truncated democracy. I recall the heated debate and at the end of the day no such law was signed. Even Femi Adesina wrote scathing articles then.
The national assembly introduced the proposal again in 2010 and even the last national assembly via the pension proposal for former leaders.
Mr Adesina knew that we do not have current laws supporting any entitlement to ex-Head of State Buhari and hence resorted to quoting decrees to mislead people.
3. Buhari as at the time of the Boko attack in Kaduna was constitutionally entitled to benefits as a retired General. A friend told me he has been receiving his benefits as a Retired General in the Army.
Key question to ponder on: is it the office of NSA that normally delivers retirement benefits to former military chiefs or even former leaders? I thought it is the office of the SGF that handles issues related to privileges?
4. If Femi Adesina claims that Buhari was entitled to 3 vehicles every 4 years then let him provide evidence that he has been collecting those benefits from all the former NSAs every 4 years. He should also convince us that the contentious largesse came within the 4 years cycle.
And please let us note this: if a retired civil servant collects his due pension and was robbed of it on his way home he cannot claim that a benevolent President who dashed him money afterwards is giving him his “entitlement”. He has already collected his entitlement.
Femi lied when he claimed that the replacement vehicle was an entitlement. The entitlement, if any, must have been the vehicle damaged by the attack.
Dasuki dashed him a replacement, at best.
Prince Charles Orode Jibromah
Why is Femi quoting decrees and lying all the way?
Answer is simple: he and his people do not want to tell Nigerians that what they are “probing” is simply the security vote of the former President.
Nigerians know that our Presidents and Governors are entitled to security votes which they spend at their discretion. From that vote they spend on all sorts of things including political campaigns and patronage to former leaders.
Our current President Buhari is also collecting security vote and spending as he wishes without any obligation to account to us. I am not aware he is collecting less than President Jonathan. He has never accounted for it and is not expected to account for it.
Why are we not asking for abrogation of security votes? Because many of us are still collecting yams from the current NSA’s barns. APC bloggers are also likely getting paid from that account.
APC is muddling up a supposed $2.1b arms procurement scandal with an indirect probe of the former president’s security vote expenses. They lied to us that $2.1b contract was awarded for arms procurement but once former President Jonathan denied awarding any such contract and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala led direct evidence that only $322m was approved they started fishing for escape pads. More so when individuals and companies linked to APC were involved in the alleged arms procurement scandal.
The truth is that if Femi Adesina had admitted that Buhari’s cars were “replaced” from security vote it would have made nonsense of the propaganda against Obaigbena, Dokpesi etc. if you convict them for collecting money from our security vote then you must necessarily convict Buhari. Corruption includes receiving cash or material gifts. Just like Buhari, they probably didn’t know the account from which they were paid. But they, like Buhari, knew security votes are not supposed to be subjected to probes. Whatever parameter you use to condemn those who received cash must be used to convict those who got expensive cars gift.
Prof Tam David West was jailed for receiving gold wristwatch gift.
Bottom line is that if everyone who collected “yams” from Dasuki’s barns is a thief then our President is also a…
Solve this quagmire by telling Nigerians the truth: you are probing security votes; not arms procurement.
John Okiyi Kalu