Paul Eiche
22 July 2007
opinion
Abuja — The rebuttal a fortnight ago by Tunde Ipinmisho, Head of Corporate Affairs Federal Housing Authority of our earlier article in ThisDay captioned "How FHA shortchanges its contractors" makes interesting reading.
Mr. Ipinmisho tried his best to defend the apparent ineptitude, insincerity and nonchalant attitude the management of FHA is handling the payment for jobs done by its contractors at Gwarimpa and Lugbe. However his best was not good enough as his porous defence of his management exposed them further as a team that lacks focus and prioritization of its various duties and obligations, a team that prefers to deceive its contractors, an important sector of its 'publics' a management that fiddles while its 'Rome' burns.
I will advise Mr. Ipinmosho that modern conflict management techniques has since abandoned the old stereotypes of defending the indefensible, chorusing of masters' voices, blackmailing the other party in the dispute and confusing members of the public with lies and fabrications. The trend these days is the resort to Dialogue, Negotiation and ConsensusBuilding among disputants. The resolution of the recent dispute between Labour and Federal Government through Dialogue and Negotiation when strong arm tactics and blackmail had failed readily comes to mind. He who comes to Equity must therefore come with clean hands.
The position of FHA management as espoused by Mr. Ipinmosho can be summarized as follows:
These assertions are full of contradictions, lies, deceit and bad faith.
One wonders what the FHA means by stating that many of the contracts did not follow due process when the Authority advertised for bids for construction of the houses in national newspapers, each tenderer paid a non refundable deposit of N25,000 for the bidding form, receipts of which were duly issued by FHA, the contractors notified in writing of the contract awards and agreements signed between the Authority and its contractors for the jobs to be done.
It is blatant falsehood for FHA management to claim that the contractors produced poor quality jobs when they have project managers and supervisors in all their sites who supervise every stage of work done on the sites and issue valuation certificates for completed jobs. If their supervisors and managers who certified the jobs are not competent to do so, the FHA management is telling the world that its technical staff should not have been recruited ab initio. In this case the top management who recruited them are either inefficient, ignorant of the educational and other requirements of its core staff, fraudulent or all of the above.
The management of the Authority proposed at its meeting with the contractors to pay all terminal valuations for jobs already done. Three other options were also offered the contractors: contractor financing to complete the project that is going and wait for same to be sold before payment for the job, project financing by a financial consultant who will be appointed by the Authority to broker the required funds at reasonable cost, and joint partnership between FHA and contractor to complete the building after which the building will be sold and the profit shared between the contractor and the Authority.
In a letter to the management of the Authority, the contractors appraised all the four options and considered that none of the options was suitable to them. However in consideration of the harmonious relationship between both parties, they reluctantly accepted the first option with modifications i.e. payment for existing valuations to all contractors immediately, to enable them settle existing credit obligations. The building and other projects 'as is' should be valued and the value arrived at paid to each contractor without delay.
They also requested that each contractor should be paid 50% of the outstanding contract sum as compensation for unilateral termination of the contract by the FHA. The so-called offer of payment of 10% loss of profit to the contractors said to be made to the contractors is therefore a figment of the imagination of FHA management. It was not so made at the meeting between both parties and even if it was made, it is totally unacceptable to the contractors.
It was the late Chief M.K.O. Abiola who stated in some of his anecdotes that you cannot shave somebody's head in his absence, or that you cannot clap with one hand. It is therefore surprising for FHA to engage independent quantity surveyors or its in-house surveyors to conduct evaluation of jobs done by its contractors in the absence of contractors. Shouldn't the surveyors and the contractors who did the jobs do the evaluation jointly?
All these excuses and alibi by the FHA management are delay tactics to cause unnecessary hardship and inconveniences to its contractors.
Mr. Ipinimosho in his lame defence of his employers did not counter the contractors assertion that the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation released the sum of N927m to the FHA for the debt it owed the Authority for purchase of houses for civil servants. The Authority also received N380m facility from the Federal Mortgage Bank for its operation.
The two payments totaling N1,285 billion were fixed in a commercial bank by FHA to yield interest while its creditors are left to wallow in poverty and misery. It should make economic sense to the FHA management to settle their contractors debts, said to be less then N600m, half of the amount it deposited in an interest yielding account to free itself from its debt burden. As long as its debts to its contractors remain unpaid and it continues to fail in its terms of contracts with its contractors and suppliers, so long will its new mandate of being a facilitator of housing provision through co-operatives remain a dream, a utopia. The Authority should commence the execution of its new mandate on a new slate, devoid of the problems and overhang of its old mandate.
One also wonders if the renting of Benue Plaza for N132m, with another sum of N85 million budgeted for furnishing of the property while the site for its permanent site, opposite the same Benue Plaza lies idle is part of the new mandate. N132million applied on the permanent site would have made more impact on its own land than paying same on rent.
Brigadier Reis Technical Committee definitely needs a new approach to financial management. If the committee stays in the country to do its job, it will give more time and serious attention to its responsibilities instead of traveling all over the world. The committee has not found funds to pay its contractors long outstanding debts but it had funds available to have traveled to South Africa and London recently. Another trip to another part of the world is already on as we write this piece.
President Yar Adua is kindly requested to direct serious probe into the activities of the Technical Committee of the Federal Housing Authority.
There is more that is happening at that Authority their meets the eye.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2007 This Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
