Clarification on My Boarded Vehicles

My attention has been drawn by more than person about a false accusation made on Facebook by some political appointees in the immediate past Bauchi State Government. Apparently irked by the ongoing effort by Committee on Recovery of Government Property, which is making progress in recovering property of the State government that was improperly disposed by the Yuguda administration, they alleged that I too carted away with three vehicles that were not sold to me!

I hesitated thinking that I did not need to reply on every accusation made on Facebook. However, my silence seems to embolden the accusers and may make even innocent minds think that the allegation is true. A friend called and advised me to please say something about it.

When I went to brief the Recovery Committee last Tuesday about the preliminary observation of our Transition Committee on the items we advised should be recovered and as if I knew the matter will come up in the media, I, as usual, humorously started by saying, “Let it be on record that I am a beneficiary of the boarding of vehicles policy during the Mu’azu administration” (and laughed over it).

The issue at hand, I continued, is not on the policy of boarding but on vehicles that were carted away without any boarding or were improperly boarded through waiving most part of the assessed cost by the immediate ex-Governor. The difference is that during Muazu, as far as I know, all vehicles sold at the end of his tenure were properly boarded in accordance with the 2006 guidelines; many which did not mature for boarding were left behind, including some used by Muazu himself. I had the privilege of seeing a complete list of all vehicles bought during Muazu’s tenure and how each was disposed of.

The two vehicles I bought, therefore, I can say here, without any fear of contradiction, were sold to me properly and paid for by deduction at source from my severance allowance in 2007. (This can be confirmed from the Treasury). In fact a week after we left office, I went to the then temporary site of the treasury along Murtala Muhammad way and collected the receipts to the two vehicles from an accountant named Garba Mukhtar. I used that in immediately registering the two vehicles at Toro Licensing office. One was a Peugeot 306 vehicle allocated to me since 2000; the other a Honda Civic allocated to me when I became adviser on education in 2003.

The third vehicle was a Honda Civic that my Vice was using at the Board that I chaired. The vehicle was bought along with the buses that the Taskforce on Special Schools purchased in 2000. I left it with the Board and the Vice Chairman, Mal. Babayo Tata, who continued using it as an official of government. I did not return it to the SSG’s office because it was bought by the Board, not attached to me by the SSG’s office.

The beauty of it is that Babayo Tata, Garba Mukhtar, and the Director of the payroll who deducted the money for the vehicles boarded at the end of Muazu administration (Mal. Ibrahim Maigari) are all alive and living in Bauchi. The records are also there in the relevant offices.

That is the end of my own story. Now begins theirs.

If political appointees of the Yuguda administration had followed due process in boarding their vehicles, nobody would have raised an eyebrow because the boarding policy is still substantive and legal, albeit in a watered down form. There are hundreds of vehicles properly boarded to civil servants and some commissioners by the Yuguda administration and nobody is questioning that. What is in question are only three categories of vehicles:

1. Those that were taken away by people who were not officials of government. In the 2009 revised guideline formulated by the ex-Governor and his Executive Council, the second to the last paragraph categorically stated that people that are not officials of government must not benefit from the policy. So if there was any non-official who carted away with a government vehicle that was attached to him for one reason or another, it is in violation of the guideline. We accordingly advised that it be returned. Simple. The vehicles returned by the ex-Governor’s wives belonged to this category.

2. Vehicles that were not boarded at all, in any form or way, neither rightly nor wrongly. We confirmed from the Permanent Secretary at the Office of the Head of Service handling boarding matters that there is no provision in the law that allowed officials to cart away with vehicles without any auction or boarding. So we advised that such vehicles be returned too.

The last tranche of vehicles used by the Governor and Local Government Chairmen belonged to this category. In the latter case, the Chairmen applied for approval of the ex-Governor to go away with their official jeeps and he correctly and categorically minuted, “not approved.” Yet, they carted away with them. The ex-Governor is expected to return his on this basis, while the Chairmen have already started returning theirs.

3. Vehicles improperly boarded: These are vehicles which the ex-Governor waived the attachment maturity period of three years and went ahead to also approve a waiver of 70% – 80% of the assessed cost of the vehicles to his political appointees. It includes the super-luxury jeeps belonging to his last batch of commissioners, his SSGs, Chief of Staff, etc. The contention here is the waiver on the assessed cost because it contradicts what the 2009 guideline stipulated that even in the case where the waver on minimum attachment period is granted by the Governor, other guidelines on boarding must be “strictly” adhered to.

In this case they were not adhered to when after the Committee on Boarding has assessed a vehicle for N8million (usually half the cost of its purchase in case of a new vehicle), the official, unable to pay the amount applies to the ex-Governor to waive 70% - 80% of the cost and he approves it. We asked the Permanent Secretary whether there is a provision for anyone to waive the assessed cost of the vehicle or its part. His answer was no.

The problem was confounded by some officials having many of such high-cost vehicles, mostly jeeps and their severance allowance could not just cover the assessed price, hence the resort to applying for waiver on the cost. A Jeep bought for N16million recently, for example, was assessed at N8million, but the official applied for a waiver and he got it at N2m. Another bought brand new and attached for only five months was assessed at N15million, and the price was waived by the ex-Governor to just N5million. Why couldn’t such officials simply leave the vehicles behind if they were unable to pay the assessed price?

4. Other property: there are other things that the Recovery Committee may find fit for recovery such as many of the 5,000 Chinese air-conditioners, LG generators, houses, buses, etc. We have advised the committee to follow the history of every items, ascertain the position of the law regarding its status before moving into action. Our job as a transition committee is to highlight the problem and recommend a solution. Full investigation is left to the implementation committee or organ of government.

Conclusion

That was my story. I was boarded the two (not three) vehicles properly in 2007 and paid for them. The vehicles that the present administration is recovering are those improperly boarded or not boarded at all. The importance of our advice and the present recovery exercise is not even directed against any personality. Rather, it is, more importantly, to set a precedence that will prevent future occurrence of officials carting away with vehicles in an improper manner. One can see how impossible it will be to repeat this impunity in 2019 or 2023. That will save the State billion of naira. No governor in the state will recklessly think that public property is his, ready to treat it anyhow he wishes.

Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde
Member/Secretary
Bauchi State Transition Committee

June 20, 2015 ·