HAVING lost out in the power play of Rivers State politics, nothing seems to have been heard of the former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Austin Opara.

But Opara disagrees with this notion. He explains that he's been into private business hoping to venture into politics when the time is ripe. In this interview, the former parliamentarian speaks on Nigeria , 48 years after and states why the present crop of leaders are yet to get it right. For him, corruption seems to be the bane of Nigeria and urges government to stop paying lip-service to fighting corruption.

Aside, he opens up on the crisis rocking his state, Rivers, just as he welcomes the creation of a Niger Delta ministry. He also bares his mind on national and sundry issues. Enjoy it. Excerpts:

SINCE you left the corridors of power as the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, nothing much has been heard about you politically. Are you out of politics?

It will be difficult for a politician to leave politics. I am doing my private business and living my quiet life, but there is nothing much happening politically because there is a government in place. When it is time for politicking, we shall actually participate in politics, what we are doing now is to pray and wish government well, wish the government to succeed. But basically, I am not out of politics.

Looking back at your days as the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, what would you say was your greatest challenge?

I have said this a couple of times that my tenure as Deputy Speaker was exciting. I can say precisely that the four years was exciting. The most challenging time was the period of constitution amendment, I am sure you will recall that I led the House Committee on Constitution Amendment and that was the most challenging time of our tenure. I thank God that we came out of it unhurt with our head and shoulder, but sincerely, that was a very challenging period.

You claimed to have had an exciting tenure as the Deputy Speaker, were there no banana peels in your time?

I have said recently that banana peels started and ended in the Senate. We did not have another peel in the house at least till I left. Na'Abba served for four years. Masari had his tenure, so the issue of banana peel did not exist in the house at least until the point we left.

Maybe that did not happen because you and Masari were seen by some people as Obasanjo boys and that you were in the good books of Obasanjo, that was why the issue of banana peels never arose?

Certainly not correct. The issue of Obasanjo boy or Obasanjo pet does not arise at all. What we did, because there were moments and issues we disagreed with the president, we also disagreed with the party, but the advantage was that, we were able to resolve such issues. Banana peels did not exist because our leadership was open to our colleagues, we consulted and we carried our colleagues along on critical issues especially financial issues.

So, the time of the constitution amendment is a time you will never forget. Why?

Honestly, it will be difficult for me to forget what transpired, the processes and the difficulties that we went through during the constitution amendment.

What is the major thing you can point to, that your tenure left behind, as a major achievement in the House of Representatives?

The major thing we left behind is stability. The stability of the House of Representatives is one thing we can say the Masari-led leadership can boastfully say we achieved and left for the house. We ensured that the four years was crises free and the records are there. We had the highest number of bills within the period; an improved administrative system was put in place for the House of Representatives.

What will you say is the difference between that House then and the present House of Representatives in place?

Well, one thing that is very clear is that we never changed a speaker. Those four years, Masari led that house, but now there is change in the leadership of the house. That is a clear difference and so you can differentiate from what we had. I was the deputy speaker for four years.

Now within a period of 16 months, we already have a second deputy speaker. So, amongst others, we can see it is a clear fact that is known to everybody and it is only buttressing what I've said, that we provided leadership and we ensured that the house was stable.

Having said that, will you say the quality of this house has improved from what we had before?

The problem is the attrition rate. You will recall that about 20 or 25 percent of the members of the last house returned. So, for a parliament that you have about 70 to 75 percent as new members, they will need time to learn the rules, they will need time to understand the rules of the house, they will need time to understand parliamentary procedures, those may be some of the difficulties.

So, you also support continuity in the National Assembly?

For parliament, it is very necessary that there should be continuity, this issue of turn by turn should not arise, people should see parliament as a carrier because the democracies we are learning from, that is what is obtainable, that is what they are practicing.

We should encourage continuity in the parliament and it is envisaged in the constitution, the constitution envisaged that and that is why there is no time limit. Unlike the executive where you have four years, two term maximum, for the legislature, it is limitless.

But, if we continue this system of you have done four years, let it go to another family or let it go to another community, we will continue repeating the same process, that means each new parliament will learn and go through a new process and by the time you learn the rules and the parliament procedures, almost two years would have gone.

There is this feeling people have, that because members of the House of Representatives are always younger, that is why there is always fighting in the house?

My four years as the Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will not say the same about us. But, disagreement is part of the parliamentary activities because it is a place where you have people with divergent background, religion and opinion gathered under one roof.

The way I approach issues will be different from the way you approach issues and also consider the age bracket, the average age of the members of the House of Representatives, I see that chamber as very active.

People who want to make a mark for their country, people who wish their country well, whatever you see there is expected to happen, disagreement, but what is critical and important at the end is the ability to resolve issues and I think the house has really displayed that since 1999, you disagree to agree and that is what is important. But, we need to understand that disagreement, arguments and debate are all part of parliamentary activities.

You claimed that the leadership under you and Masari was a stable one. But from recent discoveries during the various public hearings now, it seems you failed in your oversight functions. How come you were not able to uncover most of these things that are being discovered especially in the power probe and other sectors. What went wrong?

It is wrong to say that we were not carrying out the oversight functions. The extent of the revelations that has come out, how true and how false they are, we are waiting to know, because you will recall that the report has not been adopted by the house.

I heard they have submitted the report, but it has not been adopted. So, it will be hasty for us to conclude that the things we were told are all correct or false. But, you and I know that power especially the turbine, the generating plants is not what you buy across the counter.

If you appropriate money, it takes at least 24 months to build such plants, so for those that were appropriated money, this period will be seen as gestation period, we are getting to a period of maturity, period of implementation, that is the period we are.

So, for these current parliament to actually ensure implementation, they must go back there, that is when they will see whether it was actually implemented or not. We appropriated money, it is a process. When you appropriate money, they will go through beats, they will do the award, in most times, by the time you realise it, a year is gone, one year budgetary year gone.

The implementation and placing of order has to be in the following. So, most of the things we'd done will mature or is expected to mature within this tenure and that is for this current parliament to ensure that they are executed.

Let's look at the state of the nation. Nigeria is 48years. Is it worth celebrating?

Of course, it is worth celebrating that we have had 9 years of uninterrupted democracy, so we have reason to thank God. Celebration does not mean going to the street, but we have reason to thank God that we are still united as one nation, we have reason to thank God.

You and I will agree to the fact that Nigeria today is better than what it was before. In terms of infrastructure and few areas, better than what it was prior to 1999, so we have cause to thank God.

But, certainly, I agree to the fact that we are not where we are supposed to be as a nation, I agree with that, but looking backward, we have reason to thank God that we are still united as a nation and we are learning from our mistakes, the bad aspect is if we make mistakes and we are unable to learn from it, if we fall and we are unable to get up, then that is when it becomes critical. At least we thank God for being one nation.

People have complained that some of the countries that gained independence almost the same time as Nigeria have gone far in terms of development. What do you think is responsible for Nigeria's situation?

Two kids born at the same time, you will find out that the growth rate for one will be more rapid than the other. I believe that what has happened to Nigeria is very unfortunate, but people give different reasons for it.

As far as I am concerned, 48 years, we have not grown at the rate we are supposed to grow, there is no need going through what are the reasons because the common thing everybody says is the military, military squandered. Let us not go back to history.

The fact is that 48 years after, we are not where we are supposed to be as a nation. Some can also say and may be right too that the nine years of democracy has not really yielded results to the extent that it should yield because there are nations, that within 9 years, have achieved much more.

Power for example, the fact that in 9 years we were unable to get sufficient power generation is a mark of failure, but if there is need to go into it, people adduce reasons for it, but the most important thing is that we are not where we are supposed to be.

So, how do we move forward?

The bane of this our country is corruption, it's endemic at different levels and the fight should be sustained and I think we have not done well in the fight against corruption, we have done more of lip service. We have not done too well in the fight for corruption.

How much do we generate annually as a nation? Let us not even talk about the informal sector that cannot be captured, think of the formal one, over N2 trillion a year, juxtapose that with the level of development on ground, does it in anyway give us that feeling that yes the money that is being generated is properly utilised?

The simple reason is that, there is a drain and that is corruption and any government that wants an end to this, should find a way of blocking that drain, ensuring that there is no wastage and the money is utilized properly and once that is done, we are going to see higher level of development. I can say categorically that what we have generated at the level of development is not enough.

So are you saying that government has not done much in fighting corruption?

That is what I am saying. I do not think that we are really responding to the anti-corruption drive the way it should be, it is more of lip service that what I have just said.

The argument out there is that nothing much has been achieved in the nine year rule of PDP in this country?

No, it is not right to say nothing has been achieved in the nine year rule of PDP. As you can see and everybody can attest to it, this GSM you people are holding now is one of the achievements.

Looking at the opposition party in Nigeria , it seems they have not been able to checkmate the ruling PDP?

It is unfortunate that we do not have opposition in this country and a system that does not have an opposition encourages dictatorship. Lack of opposition encourages dictatorship, opposition is non existent in the politics of Nigeria and even the government should encourage the opposition. The ruling party that we all belong to, should encourage opposition of ensuring that what we are doing is right, that is a way of monitoring the activities.

Everybody wants to belong to the ruling party, wants to be in government and the only way to do that is to support the government and the ruling party whether they are doing things right or wrongly. The fact is that the opposition has not done well in this country.

But don't you think it is the style of the ruling party that contributed to the non existence of the opposition because people have argued that PDP is averse to voting in the elections, they would rather decide to rig, they seem to have the power and that is why everybody wants to join the party...

(Cuts in) What is the percentage of PDP to the larger population? What is the percentage of PDP as against the population of Nigeria . If Nigerians are serious, they will decide that this rigging must end, that this problem of rigging must end, but you find out that even in the polling unit, some members of the opposition aid and abate rigging because where the results are written, members of the opposition would approve and sign.

Their agent will sign that such votes were cast. So, it is unfortunate, but the opposition really needs to sit up because either you are in the opposition or you are in the ruling party. If they think they want to be part of the ruling party, they should get out of the opposition.

Let us now form one party system and let it become an internal opposition, but that is not what is envisaged in our constitution, the constitution envisaged multi-party system and they are supposed to provide an opposition that is required of them by the constitution.

Going to Rivers State, during the last gubernatorial elections in your state, many things happened and since then it has never been the same because people frowned at the way the primaries were conducted, that is why a lot of problems on ground in the state still persists. Kindly comment on this.

We have gone beyond that. But I agree with you that mistakes were made and things were not done properly, but we have gone beyond that. Where we are now is that, there is government in Rivers State, but things are not going well both in terms of providing leadership.

It is an issue of give and take, that is where we are in Rivers State. Things are not properly done, things are not done well, it goes beyond the issues of primaries. I was an aspirant and things went the way it went. I have put that behind me.

But the governor has alleged that people who were not happy with his emergence especially people he calls the power blocs are the ones sponsoring all these criminal elements to discredit the government and as it is, you are also a power bloc in Rivers State. To what extent are those of you who are power bloc...

(Cuts in) I am not aware he said that, but I am sure you know better that it is not correct.

What is happening in Rivers State is very unfortunate, but I can tell you categorically that there is no political leader that is behind what is happening in the state. To a large extent, it goes beyond the Niger Delta struggle.

But will you blame the Supreme Court for the judgment?

Although they say the law is an ass, we do not have a choice than to obey the Supreme Court judgment which is the highest court in the land. But, I know that morally and before God, that decision has some problems.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission is in place and put together by the Rivers State government to address the problem on ground in the state. To what extent do you think this will achieve peace and do you believe in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

Well, we are waiting for them to see how far they can go. I have said in the past and I am repeating that reconciliation is not achievable. If you talk of genuine reconciliation, it is usually done behind the scene. You have to talk, you have to canvass opinion, you have to cajole, you have to appeal, then you can do the ceremonial reconciliation in public.

I have appeared before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the case against me was that I sponsored a cult group, I went there and spent about five minutes and there was nobody to substantiate the allegation against me.

I have asked my lawyer to go to court against the people who sent my name, I have asked my lawyer to go to court against them. But the fact is they may have a better strategy, but we are going to sit and watch and see how it ends. But for me Austin Opara, I think the strategy is not working out.

So, are you saying the Truth and Reconciliation Commission may not achieve the reason why it is constituted?

That is what I think. Perhaps, they have been on it for about six months or more. For those who are witnesses and that have showed before them and for the petitioners, what has happened so far? Has there been any form of reconciliation? Has the public hearing and the presentations helped the situation? The bad blood, has it been resolved.

From the way it is now, what is your relationship with former Governor Peter Odili, Abiye Sekibo, Omehia and Governor Amaechi?

I do not have problems with any of those persons you have mentioned. I can tell you that I have no problem with anybody and I try to relate with all. Peter Odili is not in government, I have a fantastic relationship with him, I relate with him and speak with him. Abiye Sekibo and Omehia, I have no problem with them, I relate with them.

The governor of Rivers State, not quite, a couple of times, I have made my opinion known I have had cause to talk to him on phone once or twice and what I think of his leadership style

I am a Rivers man and a stakeholder, I will continue to air my view on it, but I think that, we need to be a little more pro-active in Rivers State to change our leadership to ensure that we get much more because a situation where so much is given to Rivers State monthly and little is seen on ground.

You will recall that I said we still have problem with time, constraint of time, so you conserve money because there is crises or are we saying that the militants have taken over that place. Are we ceding that area to the militants, so there should be no development? The federal and the state governments have been overwhelmed, is that what we are saying?

The Niger Delta ministry created by the Federal Government has been seen as a welcome idea by some leaders of the region. But in some areas, it is felt that it is not going to achieve much. What is your assessment of the idea of this new ministry?

I think we should welcome it. I want to say this is one of the achievements of this government, but it has to be backed up with action. The ministry has been created and time is going, we need to see development.

We have talked so much, we need action, the ministry has been created and I expect with the pronouncements of the Federal Government on the creation of the ministry of the Niger Delta, that a supplementary budget would have been sent to the National Assembly to fund the activities of that ministry because the ministry has been created and the developmental activities is supposed to commence immediately.

In the 2008 budget, there is no provision for a Niger Delta ministry, so if a supplementary is not sent, what it means is that we have to wait till 2009 budget is passed and implementation commences, we have lost couple of months. The creation of the ministry should be backed up with action and that action should be by sending a supplementary budget to the National Assembly for that ministry.

Part of the development of the Federal capital territory, a certain percentage of the total revenue of the country, not the Federal Government portion is usually being appropriated to the FCT before the Supreme Court upturned that in their landmark judgment of onshore and offshore dichotomy, but the FCT is still being funded from the federation account.

So, creating a ministry requires funding and it should be backed up immediately by funding and that can only be achieved if a supplementary budget is sent to the National Assembly.

But the bone of contention now is who heads the ministry, especially when various ethnic groups are laying claims of picking their own people to head that ministry?.

That is administrative decision and that is within the purview of the president. All we say and wish is that the president takes the right decision.

But various names have been highlighted. Who do you think should be picked to head the ministry?

For me, let the minister come from the Niger Delta. Let it be somebody that understands the region and the problems, somebody who's pedigree can attest to the fact that he can do the job. But we need to put the structures on ground and that can only be achieved if that place is funded.

Would you say the Federal Government has initiated enough political will to tackle the problems in the Niger Delta region?

The answer is no. You set up a committee, you want to hold public hearing, you want to hold a summit, it does not immediately translate to solving problems, what the people want to see is the physical development.

I think we have talked enough, we have had a lot of interactions, let us provide the development and when you provide these infrastructure, even criminals and militants will see it because what everybody is hinging on is the fact that the place is underdeveloped. Now prove them wrong by developing the place, let us see whether there will be another reason for what they are doing.

Are you saying so far, the government has not been able to prove the militants wrong?

I think so far, we have not done well in developing the region, not just this government, but the past government have not done well for the region. What is done is more of lip service.

But the NDDC has been in place right from time and the argument out there is that nothing much has been achieved and that this new ministry might not achieve much either while some are even calling for the scrapping of NDDC.

No I do not agree. The reason why I said I do not agree is that, the Niger Delta Development Commission got about N40 billion plus. I know of a road in Rivers State called Opobo - Andoni road, as at that time when we are in government, it was over N11billion. More than 90 percent of the community in the region are riverine areas and you can only build bridges to link them. So, the funds given to the NDDC is not sufficient certainly, so you do not expect much.

So, are you advocating for more funds for the NDCC?

I think more funds certainly should go to the region because more funds will take us to the next level of implementation. How is it going to be implemented? We now have a ministry and the work of the ministry is the provision of infrastructure, youth empowerment, good as this pronouncements are, they are still on paper, until they are backed up with actions.

Let us look at the administration of President Yar'Adua. The argument out there is that things are moving at a very slow pace. What is your assessment of the present government?

I do not want to flow with that general opinion because people are saying it. I think a lot of things are slow. Fifteen months into government, we should see more than we are seeing in terms of provision of infrastructure, in terms of implementation of policies and programmes. I will give you one example, almost at the inception of this government, the unbundling of the NNPC became an issue and it is taking too long.

I know it requires the amendment of the NNPC Act and all that, but it is taking so long for a government because we do not have all the time in the world. But I think this government needs to be more pro-active.

Can we relate this slow pace with the choice of the cabinet members?

I do not know that and I am not in a position to comment on whether it is the choice of the cabinet members or not. But collectively, we need to see more than what we are seeing.

You were the chairman of the constitution review in the last dispensation and we are about embarking on another one now. One of the contentious issues is the removal of the immunity clause amongst others?

The amendment is good. The problem we have is that a lot people are hiding under it to perpetuate evil. The amendment is good so that the chief executive would not be distracted, he would focus on the job. When you make a law, in the cause of implementing it, you look at the difficulties and that is why you talk about amendment.

For me, considering our experience and what we have seen, I feel that the immunity clause should not be total as it is now, but what we have now is bracket total immunity and people hide under it and so, it should not be total. If we remove immunity in one aspect and we practice and see the difficulty, there is nothing wrong to also amend it. But for now, immunity should not be total.

But the constitution amendment as it were then, was it not out to achieve tenure elongation?

It wasn't. It wasn't because the constitution amendment committee was formed since 1999 and the issue of tenure elongation started sometime in 2004, 2005, but the constitution amendment has been on since 1999. So, that committee was not created for tenure elongation.

But were you not approached for tenure elongation?

No and believe me, I said it in my presentation and apart from what I presented as the leader of the house committee, apart from what I presented which was the position of the committee which I presented on the table. I made my personal presentation and I said, nobody spoke to me not even Obasanjo on the issue of tenure elongation, never, that I should support tenure elongation, Obasanjo never did.

You as the Deputy Speaker then, were you saying you never played a role to either support or getting members to work against it?

Democracy is all about numbers and to amend the constitution, you need to have two thirds of the members of the house and as we were progressing, it became obvious that it will not achieve that result for tenure elongation, it was obvious. So, for me, I saw the National Assembly embarking on an impossible mission or some people were pro-tenure elongation embarking on impossible mission, it was obvious.

Looking back into your days as the Deputy Speaker, what is that particular thing you regret not doing and you will encourage the present house to critically look into?

I think that the electoral law in particular, probably because were hasty or we did not have enough information in passing that law and I will advise the current National Assembly to look at Electoral Act critically because the foundation of any government, the foundation of a republic is based on fallout of elections. And the elections is guided by the Electoral Act, but I think that this is one area that I believe we would have done better and doing better means saving this nation some of the problems we are having today.

What particularly is wrong with the Electoral Act?

There are provisions in that Electoral Act which needs to be worked on.

For example, in the Electoral Act, there is a place where it was said that substitution must be cogent and verifiable. That provision was made believing what we're trying to guard against in the last elections, but you can see the interpretation that it has been given.

Even in the parliament today, people are still being substituted, you serve for one year, after a year or thereabout, a new person is coming to take over and based on that clause, the court gives interpretations that were not intended.