TheCable

BY ADEJOH MOMOH

From events which have unfolded in the past one week, logistics and facilities company, Intels, has flouted the Nigerian Constitutional provision regarding revenues accruing to the Federal Government and their prompt remittance to the Treasury Single Account. The company has received revenues on behalf of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) for boat pilotage operations including monitoring and supervision since 2010.

The constitutional provision regarding revenues and their remittance has existed since 1999, it is therefore curious that a Nigerian company will sign an agreement with a government agency without recourse to the constitutional provision governing its contract and the limitations inherent.

For the avoidance of any doubt, should there be a conflict between an agreement executed by a government agency and the Nigerian Constitution, the Constitution must take precedence and is superior to whatever laws or agreements existing in Nigeria.

With this in mind, it is curious almost to the extent of baffling why Intel Nigeria feels the need to continue to operate as a managing agent for the Nigerian Ports Authority on the one hand while blatantly disregarding the Nigerian Constitution on the other. The Nigerian Constitution is the one document that is supreme as regards all laws and policies that govern the Nigerian Nation.

In fairness to the company, this illegality thrived following business connivance between the Goodluck Jonathan appointed management of the Ports Authority and the company itself. In 2010, the NPA contracted INL to collect revenues on its behalf, and retain 28% of these revenues as commission for its collection.

The above is indicative of companies taking advantage of government agencies by proposing defective and even disadvantageous provisions during contract negotiations. This anomaly should not be tolerated in a country seeking to bolster revenues.

This also exposes a deficiency inherent in government that has led to multiple failures in negotiated agreements and their capacities to result in public good, the fact that certain government agencies negotiate and accept lopsided conditions or clauses that may not be in their best interest because of political patronage or some other unknown agenda. This kind of deficiencies cannot be allowed to thrive in economies where the delivery of public good is a priority of government.

In all its defence, Intels has not once denied the illegality of its actions, it has however argued that the NPA’s actions are preposterous on the grounds that it was not invited for negotiations and the NPA did not take consideration of the terms of agreement that specify conditions before a party exits the contract. This is a case that cannot be argued for two reasons.

First, the agreement with Intel itself was predicated on illegal presumptions, thereby rendering it void from the start. Secondly, this claim that Intel wasn’t invited for negotiations is not true has evidence provided by the NPA in newspaper reports, evidence which has not been contradicted by INTELS.

Since the implementation of the TSA policy, the NPA has tried to get Intel to abide by the provisions of the law. It was only after all these attempts failed that the NPA sought the advice of the Attorney General and Minister for Justice and then proceeded to terminate the contract based on his recommendation.

Perhaps the most benefit this termination will do for us all as a country is the fact that it will, in essence, end the monopolistic hold INTELS has long held on Nigeria’s ports. Monopoly in a sector that is one of the nation’s biggest revenue earners distorts Nigeria’s revenue base and negates the principle of wealth re-distribution since all the commissions from collections are accrued to only one business entity or corporation. This in itself, is some form of corruption.