Senator Abba Moro representing Benue South is the Minority Leader of the Red Chamber. In this interview, Moro says the Senate is facing needless credibility issues following allegations by the suspended lawmaker representing Bauchi Central, Senator Abdul Ningi, due to a controversial interview he granted BBC Hausa Service. Ningi alleged that the Senate padded the 2024 Budget by N3.7 trillion. Excerpts:
With all the drama in the Red Chamber on budget padding, can we really say the dust has settled based on what Senator Opeyemi Bamidele said?
The Senate is an institution and will continue to have debates on issues of national importance. So, as long as that is there, we will continue to have disagreements. Senator Ningi just accepted, but, of course, the issues are still there.
But how did you feel when the issue started? Did you think it was something that was probable in the budget that was passed?
I objected to the approach by Senator Ningi because, as a Senate, we have institutional procedures for addressing our concerns. Unless it becomes absolutely necessary, we don't have to resort to the court of public opinion. The budget in question was passed by the Senate. Ningi, as a senator, was a member of the Appropriation Committee, and so I am from the North, and he purported to speak for the North. The reason I was angry was that Senator Kawu Sumaila is the spokesperson for the Northern Senators Forum, and he came before saying he was going to address the press while the matter was going on, and I said "you don't do that". Why will an individual arrogate to himself the power of know it all? It's not correct.
But do you think the National Assembly has done enough on the N3.7 trillion and the misgivings it might have?
The Senate did the appropriate thing. I was there. Yes, budget padding may not be mentioned now in the 10th Senate, but this is the first time that a participating senator who was engaged in the whole process is coming out to say "what I did was wrong" and rubbing it on all of us. I think this is not correct. There are procedures for ventilating concerns in this case. Senator Ningi and Kawu Sumaila went to the Senate President to seek his audience with northern senators, and all of us across party lines attended that meeting.
When was that? Was it after the BBC interview?
Whether before or after, it wasn't appropriate because you cannot seek audience with the Senate leadership to express some concerns and grant an interview to preempt the reaction the Senate President would have. You have brought something, and the Senate President said "I was not aware of it, but it seems you have raised it, give me the document, let me go through it, and then I will get back to you". That was what we resolved in that meeting, and the next day, for whatever reason, the interview surfaced. And for me, it was uncalled for.
But why do you think he did that?
I don't know why he did that, but if you recall his translated interview, he also complained about the imposition of the minority leadership. As far as he was concerned, there are Hausa-Fulani who want to be Senate minority leader. So, if you put all this together with the fact that we had agreed to go through this and see how to come out of it, I think it's an act of mischief. It shows absolute irresponsibility to do that, because why would you want to seek to trash the institution that you belong to? Why would you want to, for instance, castigate the process you participated in? Everybody knows, and I know it is wrong.
But issues of transparency were raised, with some senators allegedly getting N500 million on constituency projects while others got less. Do you think sufficient transparency exists among the senators?
That is the damage that the misguided, unguided utterances of Senator Ningi have done to the institution of the Senate. Speaking from the perspectives of zones and regions, the National Assembly that is supposed to revolve around all was certainly inappropriate. As a pressure group, we want the best for the North, but is that the right approach? What he has thrown up is that the other sectors of Nigeria are now suspicious. The South-South Senators Forum has become virtually moribund because they now see a sort of gang-up by some part of the country against their own. That is not healthy for the Senate.
Do you think matters of transparency have been handled sufficiently among senators?
There's no system that is perfect. But again, how do you juxtapose the issue of N3.7 trillion that cannot be attached to any project with the issue of the salary of the Senate President? Why did that come up? Somebody rose up on the floor of the Senate to say ranking senators were given N500 million. When I faced him, he said he didn't mean N500 million in cash but N500 million in projects.
But how are these projects allocated?
The rules of the Senate provide for 300 per cent of your earnings from your constituency project, and you prioritize your constituency as a lawmaker, but outside of that, everybody has an allowance attached to it.
But is it equal?
No, it can't be equal. We have a leadership position that, by the estimation of the Senate, has more responsibilities.
Are other senators aware of how much other senators are getting?
They should be because it is an open process. If I tell you that 300 per cent is allocated to you as a senator for your constituency project, if I am a Minority Leader, and if Senator Akpabio is the Senate President, he is earning more.
Do you know how much Senator Akpabio is earning?
I don't know. What he's earning is personal to him. That is one of the inappropriate things we are arguing about. If you want to know, do you go to the finance department and find out?
But are all ranking senators are supposed to earn the same?
Yes, they earn the same, unless you are a principal officer. There was a time in the 9th Senate when I went to the Senate President to explain how I needed to attend to some projects, and he granted me N100 million allocation from his own allowance. Every senator knows this because it's not a secret matter that the Senate President has more allocation to himself because of the enormity of his responsibility across the country.
Are there areas we should make transparent because of what has happened?
Yes. Upon the assumption of office of the current Senate President, our rules were amended to take care of exigent situations that we saw as pitfalls. What happened yesterday was a wake-up call in the area of transparency. And that was why all of us supported what the Senate Chairman on Appropriation threw up yesterday. He said the money is not missing; "this is where it is, and this is where it came from". What many senators expected was that Senator Ningi would say that "your consulting firm has not given you the totality of what you requested from it". It would have been a better statement if he had come out to say that, with what you have presented, "I have seen that this money is not missing, and therefore, fellow Senators, I am sorry. I gave the information out based on what I knew". It would have ended there, simply.
You said his actions were inappropriate, but is the action of the Senate appropriate in suspending him?
Privileges are not absolute. You have privileges, and you have rights. If your action in the course of our conduct infringes on my privilege, I will voice it out. You can't speak for me unless you get my consent. So the rule of the Senate has provisions for suspension.
But is the rule superior to the Constitution?
I am not sure if any law says you cannot suspend a senator. We have a rule: if you breach the rules within the chambers, you are suspended for 14 days or 17 days. If it is outside the Senate and it impairs the integrity of the Senate, an individual, or the Senate as an institution, I do not know of any provision of the Nigerian constitution that says you cannot suspend a senator. If you know, you can help me.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
You gave Senator Ningi a get-out-of-jail free card to apologise; if he does that this week, would he be called back?
It is part of the parliamentary procedure that if people complain about your actions and you determine it to be misconduct, if he had said "what I said was within the context of what I knew, I would apologize", if I am the presiding officer, I will forgive him.
Don't you think the National Assembly should take a second look at the implementation of constituency projects by the nation's assembly?
There's been complaints from commentators that constituency projects were not implemented efficiently and effectively. There have been allusions that some lawmakers colluded with contractors to share the money allocated for constituency projects. Some of us have called for a proper and thorough investigation of the agencies of government responsible for that aspect, like the EFCC and the ICPC, which they have been doing. So, you cannot place that on everybody. The essence of constituency projects is that we are from diverse communities. My constituents expect that I should do certain things for them; others expect something else; therefore, to cushion the effect on the barrage of lawmakers, let's allocate funds for lawmakers. It's a noble idea as far as I am concerned, but if it is abused, we need to address it ourselves.
Has the Senate looked at its rules again ever since related cases on suspension went to court?
The rules of the Senate are a life instrument, subject to review and amendment; and as far as I am concerned, we amend rules based on the circumstances in which we find ourselves. For instance, on our assumption of office, we discovered that there were some conflicts arising from the context of the Senate President. We found the definition of ranking to look ambiguous, "so let us amend it and make it straight here". So the legal department of the National Assembly would have looked at the rulings you are talking about. But frankly, the Senate is open to amendments to block the loophole you foresee.
