The Chairman, Senate Committee on Media and Publicity, Senator Ajibola Basiru, has said that it would be uncharitable for anyone to work against the signing of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) into law.
He said that the three per cent earmarked for the host communities in the bill would account for over $523.8 million.
The Senator Representing Osun Central Senatorial District made the disclosure in Ilorin while speaking with THISDAY.
Basiru, who spoke against the backdrop of an alleged move by some members of the National Assembly to persuade President Muhammadu Buhari not to sign the bill into law, said: “I will not say that it will jeopardise the entire process and I’m saying with sense of responsibility that it will be uncharitable for any legislature to say that the president should not sign because three per cent petroleum OPEC of host community requirement.
“That amount three per cent although looks very easy to call but it amounts to $523.8 million annually.
“So, are we saying that the President should not allow the host community to earn that amount of money with prospect of possible improvement on that amount in the nearest future and of course aside the three per cent to the host community.
“By section 104 of Sub Section 4 of Petroleum Industry Bill as passed, the penalty for gas firing also expressly provided that we go to the host community for environmental remediation and the welfare of the host community.
“So I think the legislature in question is only taking the position in isolation and it’s also oblivious of the fact that the benefit the community will realise from the rejuvenated competitive oil and gas market.
“And I believe that democracy is all about majority and of course as a southern senators, our position was five per cent but because of the conviction that our oil and gas market must be competitive and we also believe that there must be a stepping point for the past thirteen years or so that we have been on this Petroleum Industry Bill.
“Since 1965, we have not had any democratically enacted legislation to drive our oil and gas sector. So, I believe with this positive development it should not just be thrown overboard because some of us feel strongly about what have been provided for host community.
“You cannot throwaway the baby with the bath water and that’s my opinion, my view and the view of the majority of the senators.”
The lawmaker debunked the recent insinuations from the certain quarters that, there was division in the senate chamber during the consideration of electoral act amendment bill particularly the clause that has to do with electronic voting and transmission of election result.
He said: “I think it’s very important to first set the record straight that, the question of did you vote and what are we voting for must even first be examined because the mischievous and propaganda machinery of the PDP and some unsuspecting members of the media just went to town saying the APC senators voted against electronic transmission.
“This is far from the truth and very mischievous. In a provision – section 52, there are 5 subsections there; the 5 subsections should be looked at holistically and not looked at separately. In subsection 1, it was expressly provided that the INEC have the power to adopt the electronic voting system and of course open secret ballot, there’s no issue about electronic voting.
“When it comes to transmission of election result, the wordings that was used in Section 52 subsection 3 by the Senator Gaya’s Committee was that INEC can transmit election result where and where practicable.
“I’m a legal practitioner, even for a lay man when you say where and where practicable, what you are doing is to put unfettered, unbridled and uncontrollable nebulous discretion on INEC to determine into staccato manner where and when to transmit election result.
“Some of us felt strongly that we should be able to provide for possibility of electronic transmission but not the way the Gaya’s committee crafted the law. So far from it!
“We did not vote against electronic transmission but we said electronic transmission may be adopted where the NCC satisfy the security and adequacy of the network coverage to support that and with approval of National Assembly but people just went to town before we left the plenary around 6:30pm that night that APC senators voted against electronic transmission.
“The wording of what we voted for was that the commission can transmit electronically where the NCC satisfy as to security and coverage of network with the approval of the National Assembly.
He added: “Then the other leg of the argument was that it was said that it constitutes an erosion of independence of INEC.
“There is nothing like absolute independence of any arm of government, even the President will have to submit the budget to the National Assembly. INEC itself will have to submit its budget to the National Assembly.
“Then by item 22 of the Exclusive List; the National Assembly is vested with the power to make law for the election into the office of the President, Vice-President, Governor, Deputy-Governor and any other offices created under the law.
“Mode of election means of transmitting election and so on and so for are part of electoral process which the National Assembly has the power to make law.
“Section 87 that talks about the independence of INEC only talks about INEC independence when the law has been made.
“You cannot for instance direct them on how to conduct their election in line with their Act already maid”.
