Lessons from Senate probe of power sector

THERE is hardly anything Nigerian involving public spending that does not provoke suspicion of corrupt dealings. This is understandable for a populace that is perhaps justifiably fixated with the notion of widespread corruption in public office.

The irony of Nigerian corruption, however, is that the more the people denounce it, the less they seem able to prove it even against those individuals and institutions they generally perceive as corrupt. And quite often, when entities are indicted or punished for corruption, it is hard not to perceive the odour of some desperate power play in the mix, which gives a political taint to what would have been a genuinely moral and corrective action.

And one may argue that until dealing with corruption in Nigeria becomes a strictly moral issue, untainted by politics, the prospects of eradicating it will remain hazy even where its existence is indubitable. There is an inviolable link between success and sincerity of purpose.

One great challenge in today’s Nigeria is knowing who to believe, between those who would condemn the innocent ones they despise and those who would absolve the guilty ones they love. This quandary derives somewhat from our tendency to politicise morality and related issues like the quest to eradicate corruption, with the attendant lack of sincerity that continues to ensure that the quest remains just that – a quest.

One recent manifestation of that quest was the Senate probe of the power sector, which commenced on September 8, 2015.  There is a sense in which the exercise can be interpreted as a veiled corruption probe. This interpretation is justified by the probe’s goal of “seeking explanation for releases and expenditures made from May 29, 1999 to date” as reported in the story entitled “Senate probes power sector under Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, Jonathan”, published in The Guardian of September 8, 2015.

It is also reinforced by the request for the agencies in the power sector invited to appear before the probe panel “to submit 30 copies of reports detailing everything about finance, including expenses, remittances from the Federation Account, and accompanying receipts.” The agencies comprised the Ministry of Power, the Generation Companies (Gencos), the Distribution Companies (Discos), the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) and the Nigerian Electricity Regulation Commission (NERC).

In the specific case of the BPE, “the second arm of the committee’s mandate” was declared to be “in respect of the unbundling of the power sector, which was midwifed by the Bureau of Public Enterprises”, with the explanation, “the Committee would be seeking inputs from the establishment on the process of privatisation as it relates to funds committed to the privatisation process, funds generated, the settlement of laid off staff of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN)…”

Then, a related report said that the probe was an investigation “into alleged unwholesome practices in the power sector from 1999 till date” and quoted the clerk of the Senate committee on power, Cletus Ojabo, as saying “the investigation will centre on funds appropriated for the power sector since 1999 to the point of unbundling of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) and all matters connected therewith”.

And when we take in the remark attributed to the Chairman of the probe panel, Senator Abubakar Kyari, that “the abysmal performance of the generation segment is no longer news in view of the current deteriorating power supply which hovers around 4,600 megawatts for a population of over 170 million people, despite the huge resources committed into it”, it becomes clear that at the core of the probe is the intent to link some alleged huge expenditure to a supposedly non-commensurate result due to “unwholesome practices” (synonymous with corruption) in the power sector. Of course there were other motives declared – and reported – in connection with the probe. But it must be reiterated, based on the foregoing analysis, that it was essentially a probe of alleged corrupt practices in the power sector.

However, more important than exploring the motive behind the Senate power probe and its contribution to its success or failure is the need to apprehend the lessons from the exercise – for the purposes of this piece.

The lessons derive from some observations in a report of the exercise published on page 25 of This Day of September 22, 2015, entitled “Power Probe: Another Legislative Sham”. The observations state: “… some of the operators who appeared before the committee … failed to appreciate the reasoning of the committee in asking why revenues generated by the privatised power sector were not remitted to the coffers of government.” Also: “the committee, in showing its lack of up-to-date knowledge of the sector it is probing, asked the BPE how much it realised from the sale of privatised legacy assets of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) built under the National Integrated Power Projects (NIPPs), even when the sale of the NIPPs assets in this regard is yet to be concluded.”

he lessons, which can be drawn from the above observations is that our institutions and their officials should have adequate knowledge of the power sector before probing it.

I consider the Senate probe somewhat useful for these lessons and their revelation that some of the criticisms against the power sector would not arise if those behind them have adequate information about what transpires in the sector. I also think the probe was valuable for indirectly exposing the need for agencies in the power sector to always put out the right information on its operations to the relevant government agencies and the public in order to stem such misconceptions that the sector is a mere conduit for corruption.
• Oke wrote via email: ikeogu.oke@gmail.com