In defense of his principal that was accused of eating yams from the Dasuki barn, Femi Adesina quoted a 1999 military decree that entitled his principal to 3 vehicles that are replaceable every 4 years.
Frankly, that statement by Adesina is pathetically misleading and an attempt to pull wool over the eyes of Nigerians.
We are running a constitutional democracy and relevant laws are the constitution and acts of parliament. I don’t know how lawyers put it but I know that all “good decrees” must necessarily be passed again by the national assembly to survive.
Will Femi Adesina go to court and quote a 1999 decree for his own salary as a presidential aide?
In 2006 the national assembly under Obasanjo debated entitlements to former leaders but it was shot down because Nigerians didn’t want to reward coup plotters who truncated democracy. I recall the heated debate and at the end of the day no such law was signed. Even Femi Adesina wrote scathing articles then.
The national assembly introduced the proposal again in 2010 and even the last national assembly via the pension proposal for former leaders.
Mr Adesina knew that we do not have current laws supporting any entitlement to ex-Head of State Buhari and hence resorted to quoting decrees to mislead people.
Buhari as at the time of the Boko attack in Kaduna was constitutionally entitled to benefits as a retired General. A friend told me he has been receiving his benefits as a Retired General in the Army.
Key question to ponder on: is it the office of NSA that normally delivers retirement benefits to former military chiefs or even former leaders? I thought it is the office of the SGF that handles issues related to privileges?
If Femi Adesina claims that Buhari was entitled to 3 vehicles every 4 years then let him provide evidence that he has been collecting those benefits from all the former NSAs every 4 years. He should also convince us that the contentious largesse came within the 4 years cycle.
And please let us note this: if a retired civil servant collects his due pension and was robbed of it on his way home he cannot claim that a benevolent President who dashed him money afterwards is giving him his “entitlement”. He has already collected his entitlement.
Femi lied when he claimed that the replacement vehicle was an entitlement. The entitlement, if any, must have been the vehicle damaged by the attack.
Dasuki dashed him a replacement, at best.
Prince Charles Orode Jibromah
0 comments:
Post a Comment