Former Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister, Mallam Nasir El
Rufai, has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of jumbling
facts to free himself from the alleged non-transparent deals carried out
under his leadership as the Chairman of Bureau of Public Enterprise,
especially with the privatisation of the Nigerian Telecommunications
Limited (NITEL). Atiku had, in an interview, accused El-Rufai of
responsible for the failure of NITEL’s successful privatisation as a
result of personal interest.
He said: “The Pentascope scandal was one of the issues investigated
by the National Assembly and it accused El-Rufai of ignoring wise
counsel by imposing the company on NITEL.
“Despite proven allegations that Pentascope was not financially
capable and technically competent to handle NITEL management contract,
the former Bureau of Public Enterprise Director-General (El- Rufai)
ignored public outcry and forced the Dutch company on NITEL. “Before
Pentascope came, NITEL was making an estimated N100 billion profit
annually.
However, as soon as Pentascope took over, NITEL’s profits were
nose-diving incredibly.” But in a statement signed yesterday by his
Media Advisor, Mr. Muyiwa Adekeye, El Rufai said it was understandable
that Atiku would be enduring some unease at the disclosures made in El
Rufai’s recently-launched memoir: “The Accidental Public Servant” The
statement reads: “The former vice-president’s media team has tried to
engage in obfuscation about their principal’s serial interference with
contract award processes that were detailed in the book.
“Against this, they have reproduced El Rufai’s assertion that Atiku
did not meddle in privatisation processes, which are very different and
distinct in nomenclature and substance from seeking contracts for
friends. “Now that Atiku himself has spoken on the controversial NITEL
GSM contract involving Ericsson and Motorola, it is obvious that the
attempt at confusing issues persists. 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.
On Pentascope, the statement said: “We see the same pattern of
muddying the waters with falsehood. As Chairman of the National Council
on Privatisation (NCP), Atiku gave his approval in writing on
February21, 2003 for the management contract with Pentascope to be
signed.
“The memo on which Atiku signed 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 April 28, 2003, shortly before El Rufai left the BPE
to become a minister.”
The statement added: “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.
“When a former vicepresident asserts that NITEL was making N100
billion profit annually, the mind must boggle that someone so
unconstrained by fidelity to facts had once been saddled with
significant responsibilities. NITEL never made such profits
No comments:
Post a Comment