Former
Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mallam Nasir el-Rufai,
Sunday faulted the claims of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar that
he was above board in his conduct as the National Council on
Privatisation (NCP) chairman. The former minister, in a statement by his
media aide, Mr. Muyiwa Adekeye, accused Atiku of “serial interference
with contract award processes that were detailed in the book.” The
statement was a reaction to the claim by Atiku’s camp that el-Rufai, who
was the director-general of the Bureau for Public Enterprises (BPE),
had cleared Atiku of any misdemeanour in his book, “The Accidental
Public Servant”, which detailed his experience in the public service
right from his appointment as the BPE director-general.
As BPE
director-general, el-Rufai, was under the supervision of Atiku who as
vice-president, chaired the NCP. The statement faulted Atiku’s claim
that he did not approve the management of the contract involving
Pentascope to run Nigerian Telecommunications Limited (NITEL). “As
chairman of the National Council on Privatisation (NCP), Atiku gave his
approval in writing on 21 February 2003 for the management contract with
Pentascope to be signed. The memo on which Atiku minuted his approval,
BPE/I&N/NT/MC/DG/280, is dated 20th February 2003, and was initiated
by the director of BPE that was covering the DG’s duties at the time.
“By the virtue of the high office he then held, Atiku knows that
Pentascope was not foisted on NITEL but emerged from a properly
advertised and competitive selection process.
After the
failure of the first attempt to sell NITEL, it had been decided that
there was need for a management contractor to keep the momentum of
preparing the company to operate like a private entity and to preserve
its assets. Pentascope resumed in NITEL on 28 April 2003, shortly before
El Rufai left the BPE to become a minister. “The Pentascope contract
terms included obligations by the BPE to monitor the contract, and for
the NITEL board to set up an executive committee to supervise day-to-day
operations in NITEL. Between the new BPE leadership that neglected its
responsibilities, the NCP, which Atiku chaired and which failed to
supervise the BPE and the bureaucrats and politicians around the
Ministry of Communications, the management contract was frustrated and
terminated in 2005,” the statement added.
El-Rufai also denied
Atiku’s claim that NITEL was making N100 billion in profit annually,
adding that the company never made such profits. “NITEL had never paid a
single dividend to the FGN(Federal Government of Nigeria) until the BPE
forced it to pay N3 billion in 2001! While the politicians and
bureaucrats were fighting to reclaim ministerial control of NITEL (and
the inflated equipment contracts that came with it), the company was
fast losing market share to the new kids on the block, the GSM companies
that understood how to create and sustain value,” he said. According to
him, the former vice-president’s media team in trying to defend Atiku
against the allegations that he was interfering in contract award
processes during his chairmanship of the NCP, had reproduced el-Rufai’s
assertion that Atiku did not meddle in the privatisation processes,
which the statement said were different and distinct from seeking
contracts for friends.
The statement also said Atiku
influenced the award of GSM equipment contract for NITEL to Ericsson at
the expense of Motorola. It said: “It is untrue that the NITEL GSM
contract in question was split. Rather it was awarded to Ericsson, but
at the lower price submitted by Motorola, because of Atiku’s intense
lobby and smears deployed to advance Ericsson’s bid. Atiku and Abdullahi
Yari, his then ADC, at different times spoke to el-Rufai to favour
Ericsson. “It is Atiku’s responsibility to explain why he became an
Ericsson salesman, although the investigations conducted by Motorola
after the debacle makes clear he was not engaged in an altruistic
mission. “This incident had diplomatic repercussions as the American
government wrote to protest this loss by an American company that had
submitted the cheaper bid.
Atiku persists in his laughable
assertion that el-Rufai’s brother is a shareholder and member of
Motorola’s board – something any person can research and confirm to be
an outright falsehood
As BPE director-general, el-Rufai, was under the supervision of Atiku who as vice-president, chaired the NCP. The statement faulted Atiku’s claim that he did not approve the management of the contract involving Pentascope to run Nigerian Telecommunications Limited (NITEL). “As chairman of the National Council on Privatisation (NCP), Atiku gave his approval in writing on 21 February 2003 for the management contract with Pentascope to be signed. The memo on which Atiku minuted his approval, BPE/I&N/NT/MC/DG/280, is dated 20th February 2003, and was initiated by the director of BPE that was covering the DG’s duties at the time. “By the virtue of the high office he then held, Atiku knows that Pentascope was not foisted on NITEL but emerged from a properly advertised and competitive selection process.
After the failure of the first attempt to sell NITEL, it had been decided that there was need for a management contractor to keep the momentum of preparing the company to operate like a private entity and to preserve its assets. Pentascope resumed in NITEL on 28 April 2003, shortly before El Rufai left the BPE to become a minister. “The Pentascope contract terms included obligations by the BPE to monitor the contract, and for the NITEL board to set up an executive committee to supervise day-to-day operations in NITEL. Between the new BPE leadership that neglected its responsibilities, the NCP, which Atiku chaired and which failed to supervise the BPE and the bureaucrats and politicians around the Ministry of Communications, the management contract was frustrated and terminated in 2005,” the statement added.
El-Rufai also denied Atiku’s claim that NITEL was making N100 billion in profit annually, adding that the company never made such profits. “NITEL had never paid a single dividend to the FGN(Federal Government of Nigeria) until the BPE forced it to pay N3 billion in 2001! While the politicians and bureaucrats were fighting to reclaim ministerial control of NITEL (and the inflated equipment contracts that came with it), the company was fast losing market share to the new kids on the block, the GSM companies that understood how to create and sustain value,” he said. According to him, the former vice-president’s media team in trying to defend Atiku against the allegations that he was interfering in contract award processes during his chairmanship of the NCP, had reproduced el-Rufai’s assertion that Atiku did not meddle in the privatisation processes, which the statement said were different and distinct from seeking contracts for friends.
The statement also said Atiku influenced the award of GSM equipment contract for NITEL to Ericsson at the expense of Motorola. It said: “It is untrue that the NITEL GSM contract in question was split. Rather it was awarded to Ericsson, but at the lower price submitted by Motorola, because of Atiku’s intense lobby and smears deployed to advance Ericsson’s bid. Atiku and Abdullahi Yari, his then ADC, at different times spoke to el-Rufai to favour Ericsson. “It is Atiku’s responsibility to explain why he became an Ericsson salesman, although the investigations conducted by Motorola after the debacle makes clear he was not engaged in an altruistic mission. “This incident had diplomatic repercussions as the American government wrote to protest this loss by an American company that had submitted the cheaper bid.
Atiku persists in his laughable assertion that el-Rufai’s brother is a shareholder and member of Motorola’s board – something any person can research and confirm to be an outright falsehood
No comments:
Post a Comment