18/09/2023
The more these busy bodies try to explain away the Government House renovation matter in Cross River State, the more silly it appears.
If not for anything else, it is a legal requirement for the identity of the funders of this absurd gesture to be made public for the purposes of fairness, transparency and accountability.
Fairness because, people in the same line of business with the so called donors should know them in case the donation presents them with an unfair advantage in future contracting processes.
Transparency because legally speaking, the pact between the giver and the receiver aught to be public knowledge in order that the conscience of the state governor does not become amenable to the demands of the donors- all to the detriment of the state as a whole.
Accountability because, for the purpose of tax exemption and deductibility on the part of the donors (assuming they are a non for profit organisation), their identities and the precise amounts committed should be public knowledge.
On the surface, it would seem that the gesture is not a constitutional issue - I do not pretend to be a lawyer or know the answer to that, but the spirit of Section 10 (3) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act 2004 (which limits p***c officials to receiving only personal gifts or benefits from relatives or personal friends as recognised by custom), provides a glimpse into the minds of the framers of the Constitution as it relates to gifting in any guise.
In addition, the fifth schedule, part 1 of the constitution addresses the issue of conflict of interest with duty. It states that, a public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts his his duties and responsibilities.
Accepting favours such the renovation of government house for instance, exposes the governor to bias, favouritism, injustice and preferential treatment and these are all against the requirements of the code of conduct of public officials.
Have these people trying to defend this issue wondered how it would feel, had this favour been instead offered to the judicial arm of government - the attorney general for example ?
Governor Bassey Otu should therefore not play down the enormity of the issue at hand. He should rather be distancing himself from this inconsiderate favour which is capable of putting him in a compromising position.
