The Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, remains under intense scrutiny regarding his company’s alleged involvement in a N438 million scam contract within the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation.
The contract, associated with his company, New Planet Project Limited, forms part of the contentious N3 billion social register project during the tenure of Dr. Betta Edu.
In his defense, Tunji-Ojo refuted personal gains from the N438.1 million, asserting that despite resigning as a director in 2019 to run for the House of Representatives, he maintains a shareholder position, contending that it is within legal bounds.
However, Human Rights Activist and Constitutional Lawyer Inibehe Effiong expressed skepticism during a candid interview on Arise TV, deeming Tunji-Ojo’s explanation unsatisfactory. Effiong underscored the need for a meticulous examination of the contract award process, emphasizing the constitutional foundation for conflicts of interest.
Effiong stated, “It is not a very simplistic matter; it is not one for which a simple yes or no can explain. One would have to examine it in great detail; one will have to look at it from different spectrums.”
He highlighted the constitutional principle preventing public officers from putting themselves in positions where personal interests conflict with their duties. Effiong questioned the transparency of the contract award, particularly given the substantial amount involved and the private nature of New Planet Project Limited.
“The starting point for me is to say that if you look at paragraph one of the fifth schedule to the 1999 Constitution, it states that a public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts with his duties and responsibilities. That is the constitutional foundation for the principle of conflict of interest in our country.”
According to Effiong, “If you have a contract that is close to almost half a billion, and the company in question is not a public company, not listed, not tradeable, not a company that is publicly available, it is a private Company Limited by Shares.”
The activist raised concerns about the potential influence and reference to the minister in the awarding of the contract, even if he has officially resigned as a director. Effiong highlighted the necessity of examining the ownership structure of the company, suggesting that the minister’s interest in the firm could have played a role in securing the lucrative government contract.
He continued, “If you look at the ownership of this company, you would want to ask yourself genuinely, can anybody convince me today that this company has not enjoyed the patronage of the government on account of the influence, position, and status of the minister who is the owner of the company? The director runs the company, but in terms of ownership, it belongs to the shareholders.”
Effiong underscored the lack of proper investigations into corruption allegations associated with social investment programs, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive examination. He questioned the purpose of the President’s invitation to Tunji-Ojo, stating, “Now you have a situation where the president has invited him. What was the purpose of the invitation? Why was it not the other way around?”
As Tunji-Ojo navigates through the ongoing controversy, substantial questions linger regarding his role in the alleged scam contract, and the activist’s comments echo the sentiments of those calling for a thorough investigation into the matter.
See his full statement below
“It is not a very simplistic matter; it is not one for which a simple yes or no can explain. One would have to examine it in great detail; one will have to look at it from different spectrums. The starting point for me is to say that if you look at paragraph one of the fifth schedule to the 1999 Constitution, it states that a public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts with his duties and responsibilities. That is the constitutional foundation for the principle of conflict of interest in our country.
“Now you have a situation where the Minister of Interior is said to have a company that has a significant interest, a beneficiary of a contract award by the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs.
“The question you would want to ask is, was this contract advertised? Did it go through the procurement process? Was it in compliance with the procurement act? How did this come about? What were the requirements for the award of this contract?
“If you have a contract that is close to almost half a billion, and the company in question is not a public company, not listed, not tradeable, not a company that is publicly available, it is a private Company Limited by Shares. These issues have to be examined carefully because, under the current law, the controlling mind of the company, the owners of the company, is quite limited.
“If you look at the ownership of this company, you would want to ask yourself genuinely, can anybody convince me today that this company has not enjoyed the patronage of the government on account of the influence, position, and status of the minister who is the owner of the company? The director runs the company, but in terms of ownership, it belongs to the shareholders.
“I find his explanation unsatisfactory, and I think that at the heart of this is even the question of the so-called social investment program that the government has given to it. These programs have been plagued by grave allegations of corruption over the years, and the government has never made an attempt to properly investigate it.
“When the minister says that he had divested himself from the company, that he had resigned as a director, of course, you cannot be a director while still serving as a minister; that would itself be a direct contravention. However, that doesn’t mean that you don’t have an interest in the company.
“Let us not kid ourselves; we know how these things happen in real life. Even public officers who engage in money laundering and corruption do it through proxies, using companies that they have an interest in. I cannot sit here and say that this company got this contract solely on his own accord without the possible influence and reference to the minister who has an interest in it.
“Beyond that, we have a situation where the president has invited him. What was the purpose of the invitation? Why was it not the other way around?