House of Representatives on Thursday took a swipe at the Executive for poor implementation of the 2013 budget, especially as concerns the capital component of the Appropriation Act.
The lawmakers, who suspended plenary Thursday last week, to embark on a two-week oversight of the various Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) of Government across the country, observed with dismay that the budget was being poorly implemented.
Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Rep Emanuel Jime, who addressed journalists after a two-day tour of some capital projects in the territory lamented that the greatest problem of Nigeria as a country was that budget implementation was never taken seriously by the Executive arm.
He expressed concern that the House was always accused of ulterior motive whenever it tried to intensify its oversight function on the MDAs to get them judiciously and promptly implement national annual budget.
Jime, who went with other Committee members to examine the level of implantation of the 2013 capital budget at the Karshi satellite town infrastructure project within the FCT, regretted that the project received zero allocation as at the time of the visit.
“That is what we have been saying in the House of Representatives, that the greatest problem facing us as a nation is that budget performance is never taken seriously. And the House is always accused of ulterior motive whenever we stress that budget should be implemented as specified in the Act”, he stated.
The director, Satellite Town Development Agency, FCDA, Engr. Ibrahim Tukur, had told the Committee that the Karshi Water project was awarded at the sum of N19.4 billion, out of which N1.6 billion was released as takeoff fund. He also noted that the takeoff was not yet cash-backed.
Members of the team expressed displeasure to the director for awarding the project without money being made available for its execution, arguing that such was contrary to the rule of contract.
Rep Jerry Manwe, who expressed serious concern over the contract, pointed out that awarding contract without fund usually resulted in contractors coming back to ask for upward variation of contract sum. He frowned that this method was as sure way of wasting the nation’s meager resources.
Earlier on Wednesday, the Committee said that it would investigate the disparity in the level of work done and the percentage of the contract sum released to Salini Nigeria Ltd for the execution of the Idu Industrial Area Project.
Deputy Director, Engineering Services, FCDA, Engr Benedict Ukpong, who represented the Director, Engr A.A Abu, told the Committee that the contract, though awarded in 2002 at the sum of N3 billion, 73 million Euros, work actually commenced on the project in 2003.
He also noted that it was later revalued in 2009 to the tune of N6 billion and 180 million Euros. Jime and other members of the Committee however, questioned the valuation of the contract in two currencies- Naira and Euro.
The Committee members expressed dissatisfaction that despite the fact that a sum of N5.7 bn of the N6 bn and 102 million Euros had so far been released, the project was still at 68 percent completion whereas 90 percent of the contract sum had been released.
Deputy Chairman of the committee, Hon Nnanna Igbokwe, who was also not comfortable with the level of implementation, said that Nigerians deserved an explanation on this because the project was being done with the tax payers money.
His words: ” it is displeasing to hear that the project is still at 68 percent completion when over 90 percent of the contract sum has been released to the company. The organisation has no excuse for not achieving more than 68 percent completion.”
He contended that it was surprising that the contract was valued in Naira and Euro, questioning the legality of the arrangement.
Defending the valuation in different currencies, Engr Ukpong said the Euro component was to enable the company purchase machineries and other equipment from the European market with ease.
He explained that valuation of contracts in dual currencies was an acceptable practice at the time the project was awarded. According to him such practice is no longer accepted in the country.
His explanation was however faulted by Hon Jerry Manwe, who argued that it was nonsensical that a contract would be awarded in a foreign currency for a project that was totally funded by a Nigerian government, describing it as strange.
He equally criticised the delay in the completion of the job, arguing that the delay was responsible for the variation of the contract sum.
The chairman of the committee, therefore, mandated the company to furnish the Committee with a detailed explanation on why the stage of completion was at 68 percent as well as what the Euro component in the contract was used for .
.