Senator Peter Jiya represents Niger South Senatorial District on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). He served in the House of Representatives from 1999 to 2007. In this interview with George Mgbeleke, Sen Jiya expressed optimism that the effects of the subsidy removal, though harsh on the citizenry in the interim, will ultimately help rejuvenate and revolutionize all facets of the economy to the benefit of the people.
He also speaks on the just concluded screening of the ministerial nominees by the Senate, clarifying various ethno-religious and social imperatives that influenced decisions and actions taken by the apex legislative Assembly during the exercise.
Except:
Q: Nigerians are currently groaning because of the failure of this government to put shock absorbing measures in place before the fuel subsidy removal. What is the way out of this agonising situation?
While one cannot ignore the hardship faced by Nigerian citizens, the sad story is that this fuel subsidy removal was well packaged by the last administration but the exigiency, and the exigency being the general elections held on to it, so that it does not negatively affect the fortunes of the ruling party in the general election, now, one must commend the courage, boldness and principled stand of Mr. President, Ahmed Bola Tinubu in hitting the target from day one in the sense that planning for it in our kind of environment will be counter productive because at the end of the day, there will be terrible and many write-ups why it should not even start now. And how long are we going to drag on or stay in this environment where a few are making a hell of money month in month out. I want to plead and appeal to country men and women to exercise patience because things will get better.
When Nigeria transited from the analogue telephones to the digital phones that we now operate, it wasn’t everybody that could afford it. In fact, it was for the super- rich, because even as civil servants, even as directors, it was not likely for you to buy the phone that time. It was just a few people that were able to buy it. Why? Because it was expensive. But today, virtually everybody is having something in his hand as a telephone because yes, the prices were astronomically high, but today, it is now available to everybody. So, having regard to the fact that we do not produce goods and services that will bring in resources, to counter balance the value of the Naira, the best thing will be to let go at once. Though hardship will be encountered but within six months, twelve months and two years, the difference will be significant and noticeable. And even within the first two months, we have seen the difference.
The aspect of food on the table, but as it were, there is a renewed hope. And for the first time in many months, FAC had never declared anything close to two trillion Naira for sharing by the three tiers of government but in the last two meetings, N1.9 trillion was declared, and N1 trillion kept as savings to be deployed into the economy at a later date. In fact, I don’t know when last FAC declared up to N1 trillion for sharing by the three arms of government. Sometimes, it was about six hundred billion, eight hundred billion. Even nine hundred billion was scarce. Within a space of one month of that declaration, you can see the huge gain. That is to say that a few people were sharing about N1.1 to N1.2 trillion on monthly basis. So, we now have one trillion down. If at the end of the month we have another trillion down, then we are talking about this infrastructure that infrastructure; the government may decide that on sectoral basis, instead of distributing money to all MDAs that will not be productive, let us face one aspect of the economy, for example the road network and deploy this fund there so that people can travel, save and their cars too will enjoy drive on the road, devoid of the potholes, the ditches we have on our roads, thereby extending the lifespan of our vehicles, which will be a delight to a lot of us. And of course, that will assist in fighting crimes and criminalities because you want to fight criminals and you don’t even have good roads. They must have extorted the entire environment and exploit it where necessary, when you as an official of government want to pursue, you will be handicapped because the road network is not good for you to accomplish what it is designed for your accomplishment.
Yes, the times are hard; there is no denying that fact. But some of us are hopeful that at the end of the tunnel, light will certainly show up. I am confident of that and I believe that this government will do far better because they are bringing people. We have see even from the ministerial list, that they are not all on the same pedestal, and we have seen excellent presentations from a lot of the nominees. And if the President will set up a monitoring team, which I believe he will, then we will be in for good results. But then, it’s painful for now. Again, in management, the rule in management is that when you come in to take over the management of an institution, government or any corporate setting, the first thing is to break down and then rebuild, and I think that’s the process in which we are. So, we won’t have it easy but certainly, it will be much better at the end of the day.
Q: The Senate has confirmed the list of 48 ministerial nominees forwarded to it by President Bola Tinubu. How would you describe the entire process?
So far so good. It was not a bad process; it was a screening process. In screening, all that we required is data with respect to each of the nominees, and basic information about their past; capacity and capability, depending on the Ministry that Mr. President may assign them. The Senate has done a good job so far. We may not be perfect, but for a team of 109 people, out of which over 70% are new comers, I think that is a credible exercise to an extent.
Q: The President did not attach portfolios to the list of the ministerial nominees forwarded to the Senate. Don’t you think that this lacuna made the exercise more cumbersome?
Well, quite to a reasonable extent, I can say yes but when we take into cognisance your claim both geographical, social and political circumstances in which we find ourselves as a people. While that is a better or an ideal situation, the pressures that may be mounted in the process may not be easy to handle. I think we will get there; but again, in a country like the United States of America, they don’t have a wholesome list of nominees. They come in batches and obviously, their portfolios are announced. Then, on that basis, the Parliament is well positioned to scrutinise them, and to drill them as to their capacity and capability for the particular assignment that the President intends to give them.
From the current crop of minister-designates, we were able to glimpse, but that is speculative too, that certain individuals will go to certain ministries because of their background, exposure and experiences, and of course their capacity. So, it’s all speculative but I think, that is the view expressed, and the President of the Senate made it very clear, that nobody should go to bed thinking that the ministry speculated during the screening is the ministry he or she is going to be assigned. The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the prerogative to assign portfolios to his team members. He has nominated them, having known them and found out about their background, about their capacities and what they can bring on the table, to join him in the administration of the country.
Q: Nigerians are concerned that the tradition of “bow and go” adopted by the Senate is obstructing proper scrutiny of presidential nominees, as witnessed in the last ministerial screening. Don’t you think that it should be jettisoned by the Red Chamber?
Well, for any process, growth process is key. Initially, that was not the case on 1999 when we started this democracy. But along the way, people went through the House of Representatives and the Senate and found themselves nominated to serve as Ministers. Then that bow and go doctrine or principle is premised on the fact that, for any one who won election to the House of Representatives and the Senate, particularly the Senate, is a distinguished individual, and the process of screening beyond the issue of capacity and competence is premised on the issue of his pedigree vis-a-vis dependability and truthfulness, and that the person is not a fraudulent individual. So, when you take that away, I think the other aspects, I think are straightforward. That is the essence of screening and confirmation; to dig into the past of each and every nominee, as whether or not he is competent and capable. And competence and capability is not all about professional experience or business experiences or work experience but your history or pedigree as an individual; the character that you have developed along the way, that can be trusted and for which society at large can be hopeful that they are in safe hands.
Q: During the screening process, it was observed that most of the Senators, rather than objectively interrogate the nominees, became advocates, counsels and mouthpieces to the people they should scrutinise. What is your take on this?
Nothing of such. You will agree with me that we all come from different backgrounds. We are to represent people who have been nominated from our constituents; and the nomination of a candidate from your constituency is an aggregation of the opinions of the majority of the stakeholders. If you look at it from that perspective, and a Senator from the constituency where the nominee comes from stands as it were to present and to defend. That is what it ought to be. The procedural challenge I see is the fact that, possibly as a guideline, the Senate leadership can State the guideline and say before Senators from the constituency speak, others should be allowed to raise issues and questions, and then their representatives should now round off.
At least out of three, one should present him to the Senate while others wait until the generality of the members of the Senate have expressed their views, ask questions and then for them to round off as it were, in defence of their nominee. So, it’s not uncommon because the nominees are from constituencies. And as I said earlier, their nominations are premised on the aggregation interests desired and expressed.
Q: Looking at the composition of the Senate leadership, it will be observed that some of the Senators in the leadership cadre are first timers. Therefore, the question is has the Senate jettisoned the ranking principle?
The Senate has not jettisoned the ranking principle because it is part of our rules but again, expediency sometimes determines what happens. Now, the American democracy can boast of over 200 years, and that is where things are entrenched. Now, to look at American democracy, you will agree with me that they have an established system that irrespective of leadership, there is the barest minimum standard to which no official is to fall below. In Nigeria, we are just in the 25th year of the phase of this democracy, and you will agree with me that things have changed from 1999 till date, particularly if you look at the election pattern. In the last elections, the party lines are there but the electorate in a good number of cases, decided to vote for candidate rather than party.
As I speak to you, I am a product of that, because is the relationship that you have created over the years. Those that you started with in the same party and are now in another party, and those who were in another party and are now in your own party; a combination of them and having regard to your antecedents, believe that you have the capacity to do what they want in their representative at this level. So, things are changing, and it will take time for an overwhelming result of what we expect. Now, going back to the ranking principle, it was not jettisoned because you will realise that the present composition of the Senate leadership is a mixture of both ranking and non-ranking members.
Again, expediency; the diversity of our nation, the socio-religious diversity too contributes to this non-adherence to the doctrine or principle of ranking. But by and large, it’s a good mix. Even the person who became the Deputy Leader of the Senate, David Umahi, yes may not have had the legislative experience but having been in politics and gone from one stage to another, to the extent of being Deputy Governor and Governor, has the quality and governance experience. And will agree with me that it didn’t take him time to fit into the leadership work because we saw that when the Leader was not there, he did it very well too.
So, experience in governance is an added advantage and time augment for ranking doctrine. Again too, as I said earlier, we are just in the 25th year of this democracy. And I believe that with all we have seen in the past 24 years, now having gone round the cycle and starting again, there will be consistent, upward improvement and respect for Parliamentary procedures, customs and traditions.
