Connect with us

News

Reps Committee Summon Permanent Secretary Ministry Of Agriculture And Rural Development

Published

on

….accuse accuse him of frustrating their efforts
By Gloria Ikibah
The House of Representatives has threatened to invoke the provision of the 1999 Constitution as amended to compel the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Temitope Fashedemi to appear before it.
Chairman, House Committee on Rural Development, Rep. Marcus Onubun, gave the threat at the meeting between the committee and Ministry.
Onubun expressed displeasure that the Permanent Secretary has consistently ignored the invitation from the committee and has failed to  appear before the committee to answer questions on the activities of the rural development section of the Ministry.
Members of the Committee also frowned at the attitude of the Permanent Secretary and the Ministry, accusing them of undermining the House and provisions of the Constitution which empower the House to oversight all agencies of government.
Onubun however, said the Committee has decided to give the Permanent Secretary another opportunity to appear before it as a mark of respect for the two ministers in the Ministry who are products of the National Assembly.
Naijablitznews.com reports that the Minister of Agriculture and Food Security, Senator Abubakar Kyari from Borno state and Minister of State, Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi from Niger state served in the 9th National Assembly.
He said: “This is about the fifth meeting we have had in this committee on Rural development and the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security has refused to appear.
“I would like to correct one notion because the Director said he is not here to answer query. This Committee is constitutional bound to query every of your activities in terms of projects and policies of your ministry. If you don’t know, you must understand now that it is our responsibility.
“Members seating here represents over 200 million Nigerians. We put all our activities aside to have on the spot assessment of the ministry and we came to you because we wanted to work with you so that Nigerians will get the dividends of democracy through rural development. The Permanent Secretary was not at that meeting.
“But it appears that for some reasons best known to you, you have chosen to frustrate the efforts of this committee. We have the mandate of the House through the Speaker to carry out the exercise we are carrying out.
“I will yeild to the request of my colleagues that since we have two Ministers who are products of this National Assembly, we may not use the big stick at this point. We will course another invitation, attentioning the minister to release the Permanent Secretary to appear on our next scheduled date.
“If the Permanent Secretary likes, he should chose to ignore that invitation. Then we will know who is dancing behind who at the end of the day. The Permanent Secretary should appear before this committee on Tuesday, May 21.”
Earlier, a, member of the committee, Rep. Chinedu Ogah,  recalled how members abandoned their work to visit the ministry.
He said: “On that day, the perm sec was not there. It was you and the Director of Finance. The Director of Finance was not part of it, but he saw a call of the National Assembly, he decided to be part of it (the meeting).
“You know we are elected by the people and we speak for the people. Within your conscience, is what your agency doing part of the law, or out of the law, when you know we are empowered by the Constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria to oversight this agency, or you are neglecting the House?”
Committee members became furious, when a Director in the Ministry, Engr, Frank Satumari Kudla, the representative of the Permanent Secretary claimed that he was not in attendance at the meeting to answer queries, but on the instruction of the Permanent Secretary, so that it does not appear seems like they were snubbing the committee.
Engr. Kudla told the committee that the Permanent Secretary was attending an official function at a place he did not disclose to the committee.
“I am telling you on my own honour, this is what happened. Actually, if the Perm Sec could have been here, he is in the best position to answer questions on behalf of the Ministry”, he said.
The Director said he was not in the best position to answer questions.
“Our coming is not to query the position. You are calling the Permanent Secretary because the last time I was here, we discussed this. The perm sec is not deliberately dodging to come to see you”.
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

I regret obtaining NDA form for Lagbaja, says family head

Published

on

The head of the late Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Lt. General Taoreed Lagbaja’s family, Pa Tajudeen Lagbaja, has expressed regret obtaining Nigerian Defence Academic (NDA) form for the deceased.

Pa Tajudeen, the younger brother of the late COAS’s father, stated that he would not have bought the form had he known it would lead to his death.

Some family members also alleged that Lt. General Lagbaja may have been killed through diabolical means due to a land dispute in his hometown.

According to TheNation, In 2023 a dispute arose in Ilobu, the headquarters of Irepodun Local Government Area in Osun State, when representatives of the Nigerian Army planned to establish a hospital in the community.

Advertisement

Pa Tajudeen told TheNation that he initially obtained the NDA form for the late Lieutenant General.

“Everyone who is born must die. We give glory to God. The year that I obtained NDA form for him, if I had known that he would die before me, I would not have done so. I regret obtaining the form for him. But it is destiny.

“The death that killed Taoreed Lagbaja ought to take me. I took him as one of my children. We are greatly bereaved, we are sad. He constructed a borehole in his father’s compound and other places in the community.

“We can never forget him, his death is so shocking to us. I have accepted the fate, all the promises he made to me have hit a brick wall. He always gave us hope in the family, despite the sorrow, I give thanks to God,” the family head said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tinubu Reappoints Prof Abdullahi Mustapha As DG Of Biotechnology Agency NBRDA

Published

on

President Bola Tinubu has reappointed  Prof. Abdullahi Mustapha as the Director-General of the National Biotechnology Research and Development Agency (NBRDA).

Prof. Abdullahi is expected to serve another second term of five years as the head of the research agency.

His appointment was announced in a press statement issued by the Press Secretary to the NBRDA Director-General, Toyin Omozuwa, in Abuja on Saturday.

According to the statement, Mustapha’s reappointment was conveyed in a letter signed by the Secretary to the

Advertisement

Government, George Akume.

“Mustapha’s second term is effective from 31st October 2024 and is in line with the provisions of Sections 10 (1) and (3) of the National Biotechnology Development Agency (Establishment) Act, 2022,” the statement said.

Omozuwa stated that industry experts regard the reappointment as an expression of Tinubu’s confidence in Mustapha’s capability to drive innovation towards achieving food security.

He added that the reappointment would allow the Director-General to complete his work in enhancing pharmaceutical production, as well as positioning Nigeria at the forefront of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Advertisement

Mustapha is a Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry and hails from Dambatta Local Government Area of Kano State.

The National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA) is an agency established in 2001 under the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, that implements policies, explores resources, conducts research, promotes, coordinates and develops biotechnology in Nigeria.

The NABDA also controls and supervises the introduction of genetically modified organisms into Nigeria.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Legal Questions Arise Over Elon Musk’s Immigration History Amid Calls for Citizenship Revocation

Published

on

Elon Musk, a citizen of the United States could be at risk if it is proven that he misrepresented facts during his immigration process, according to legal experts. This debate comes I  the middle of calls for the revocation of his citizenship, fueled by Musk’s vocal support for Donald Trump and his controversial remarks on immigration.
Musk, originally from South Africa, moved to Canada before settling in the U.S., where he eventually became a naturalized citizen, but reports recently alleged that he may have worked in the U.S. without proper authorization in the 1990s.
According to ‘The Washington Post’, Musk was admitted to Stanford University in 1995 on a student visa but did not enroll, instead working on the startup that became Zip2. Court records and former associates cited by the “Post” suggested that he lacked proper work authorization during this period.
But Musk has debunked these claims, as he said that he was in the U.S. legally on a J-1 visa, which later transitioned to an H1-B visa. However, a 2005 email cited in a defamation case reportedly revealed Musk admitting that he applied to Stanford because he “had no legal right to stay in the country.”
Legal experts indicated that working without authorization and misrepresenting such actions during the immigration process could constitute grounds for revocation of citizenship under U.S. law.
The Legal Framework
The U.S. law permits the revocation of citizenship if it was obtained through “concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation.” Violations such as unauthorized work can be flagged during multiple stages of the immigration process, including green card and naturalization applications.
Amanda Frost, a professor of immigration law, explains that misrepresenting visa violations could lead to denaturalization. “If a person violated the terms of a visa and later failed to disclose that during the naturalization process, their citizenship could be deemed ‘illegally procured,’” she stated.
Stephen Yale-Loehr of Cornell Law School adds that while such cases are legally valid, they are rarely pursued unless the violations are deemed material.
Potential Outcomes and Implications
If evidence of wrongdoing were uncovered, Musk would not face immediate deportation but could be subjected to a lengthy legal process. Criminal penalties for making false statements during naturalization include up to five years in prison.
However, legal experts note that such cases often hinge on whether the alleged violations would have materially affected the individual’s eligibility for a green card or citizenship. Immigration attorney Greg Siskind believes it’s unlikely that Musk’s actions, if proven, would have prevented his eventual naturalization.
Political and Public Backlash
The controversy has reignited debates about immigration enforcement and denaturalization. Under the Trump administration, efforts to revoke citizenship increased significantly, with thousands of cases investigated and dozens referred for deportation.
Musk, a high-profile immigrant, has faced criticism for his frequent comments on immigration issues, with many accusing him of promoting divisive narratives. His extensive ties to government contracts and national security projects also add a layer of scrutiny to his case.
Calls for Musk to release his immigration records under the Freedom of Information Act remain unanswered. Meanwhile, legal analysts emphasize that any action against Musk would depend on clear evidence and prosecutorial discretion.
This unfolding situation underscores the complexities of immigration enforcement and the potential implications for high-profile figures.
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Naija Blitz News