Magu ‘shielding Buhari’s loyalists from probe’

Ibragim Magu, chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is untruthful about petitions against chieftains of the All Progressives Congress (APC), the Ekiti Justice Group (EJG) has said.

The group described as “shameless falsehood”, the assurances of Magu that the commission did not have any petition against APC leaders, else it would have gone after them.

“It is on record that petitions were submitted to the EFCC office in Abuja against former governor of Ekiti State, Dr Kayode Fayemi, by the State Government and concerned groups,” the group said.

While trying to defend allegation of political witch hunt against the EFCC, Magu had said: “Such accusations have come up a lot, but, we
work with petitions before us, in fact, I am eager and waiting for something from the other side, but nothing has come so far.”

But reacting through a statement by Ebenezer Olaleye, its national secretary, EJG said it was on record that the Save Ekiti Coalition (SEC) wrote petition dated September 26, 2014 to the EFCC and ICPC, and the petition was submitted in Abuja on September 29, 2014 and that the state government even wrote a letter to EFCC in September 2015, reminding the commission of its petition.

“It is a clear confirmation of EFCC partisanship for Magu tovclaim ignorance of the SEC petition duly received by the commission
with attached documents on September 29, 2014,” it said.

“The EFCC chairman should rather come clean and tell Nigerians that under the President Mohammadu Buhari-led APC government, only those opposed to the federal government must be presented as corrupt while APC chieftains who are supporting the President can never be corrupt even if there is evidence that they stole their states blind.”

In the SEC petition signed Oke Ayodeley, its secretary, and titled ‘Complaint of fraudulent practices against Ekiti State Governor, Dr. Kayode Fayemi and others: call for investigation and prosecution’, the group alleged that the frauds were perpetrated through N2.6 billion construction of new civic centre, N383.9m earthwork for new governor’s office, diversion of State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) and Local Councils funds through contracts worth N4.2bn, inflation of road contracts worth over N10bn and diversion of N1.2bn FADAMA fund.

The petition read in part: “Contract for the construction of a New Civic Centre was awarded to TIANJIN-YUYANG Construction Eng. Limited on August 30, 2012 at the cost of N2, 573,584,395.75, while Consultancy on the construction was awarded to CASA Nig Ltd on June 11, 2012 at the cost of N137, 611,325.07.

“Curiously, as at the end of 2012, a sum of N643,396,098.94 (representing 25% of total contract sum) had been paid to TIANJIN-YUYANG Construction Eng. Limited while the consultant, CASA Nig. Ltd was paid N89,801,901.06 (representing 80% of total contract
sum).

“In 2013, a sum of N350, 116,245.17 was paid to TIANJIN-YUYANG Construction Eng. Limited, making a total sum of N993, 512,344.11 (representing 45% of total contract sum). While the Project contractor was paid 25% of the contract sum in 2012, why was the consultant paid 80% of the contract sum? Information available to us indicates that the Consultant was hurriedly paid 80% of the contract sum so as to enable some officials of the government get N50m of the contract sum.

“Also, payment to the contractor was changed to N350, 116,245.17 in the 2014 Capital Projects Report, as against the sum of N643,
396,098.94 presented in the 2013 Capital Projects Report.

“Contract for the construction of earthwork for the New Governor’s Office was awarded to PONTI-ITALWARE Nig Ltd on March 3, 2012 at the sum of N383, 900,911.06, with a sum of N115, 170,273.32 paid to the contractor. The New Governor’s Office was proposed to be constructed from the N25bn Bond obtained by the State Government, with N3,474,700.000.00 earmarked for the project. “However, with N115, 170,273.32 paid to PONTI-ITALWARE Nig Ltd form earthwork, as at today, the site has been abandoned, with no significant work done. By our own assessment, what was spent on the site cannot be more than N5m.

“Also, in the 2014 Capital Projects Report, the N115, 170,273.32 paid for the earthwork was deleted, raising poser as to why the payment was
missing from the 2014 updated account. In 2012, contracts worth N4, 246,094,751.14 were awarded through the Bureau of Special Projects (under the Governor’s office), headed by Mr. Kelekun. The contracts were for renovation of schools, supply of school furniture and construction of classrooms. Funds for these projects were taken from SUBEB and Local Governments accounts.

“Of these contracts, N3, 672,078,820.14 were for renovation of schools alone. Atlantic Offshore & Properties got N1, 152,562,555.14, Strabic Nig. Ltd got N1, 107,744.408.21, Bam Darley Nig. Ltd. got N924, 977,310.95 while Fatub Nig. Ltd got N486, 794,545.84.

“Immediately the renovation contracts were awarded, Atlantic Offshore & Properties was paid N750 million (70% of contract sum), Strabic Nig. Ltd was paid N600 million (65% of contract sum), Bam Darley Nig. Ltd was paid N600 million (70% of contract sum) while Fatub Nig.
Engineering Ltd was paid N150 million (60% of contract sum).

“A total of N2.1bn was paid from SUBEB and LG accounts to these contractors even before the commencement of work, and over 40% of the payment was diverted into private pockets.

“In the 2014 Capital Projects Report, payments to the contractors were presented as; a: Atlantic Offshore & Properties – N1,022,130,415.64; b: Strabic Nig. Ltd – N957, 237,829.62; c: Bam Darley Nig. Ltd – N742, 730,990.25; and d: Fatub Engineering Nig. Ltd – N431, 327,270.41.

“As at the time N1, 022,130,415.64 was paid to Atlantic Offshore & Properties, only 60% work had been done, meaning that Atlantic
Offshore & Properties was only entitled to N691, 537,551. Bam Darley Nig. Ltd that was paid N742, 730,990.25 had done 60% work too and
ought to have been paid N554, 986,386.57.

“Using the State Public Works Corporation (PWC), rehabilitation 5km township roads were embarked upon in each of the 16 LGs. Contracts for the rehabilitation of these roads were awarded without any input from the respective LGs while fund for the project was deducted from the local councils allocation.”