Senate probes corruption allegation against CCT chairman
The directive followed a petition by Senator Obinna Obah, a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) member from Ebonyi State, to the Senate over alleged corrupt practices of the CCT chairman.
The petition which was signed by one Ajaso I. Ajaso, came barely six weeks after the House of Representatives commenced a separate investigation on the same petition after receiving it from the same anti-corruption network on the 10th of October, 2015.
It was learnt that the two chambers were already working towards getting the CCT chairman removed, an assignment that would require the two chambers to muster two third majority in support of the motion that might be moved when the time is ripe.
The constitution stipulates that ”A person holding the office of Chairman or member of the Code of Conduct Tribunal shall not be removed from his office or appointment by the President except upon an address supported by two-thirds majority of each House of the National Assembly praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office in question (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body) or for misconduct or for contravention of this Code.”
Among the allegations was the payment of N1million in July 2011 from the coffers of the CCT to sponsor his wedding. Umar was also alleged to have spent N15.2million to purchase a Toyota Prado Jeep “without following due process.”
The House gave the directive after a member from Taraba State, Mr. Rima Shawulu, laid a petition before the legislature detailing the alleged infractions of the CCT chairman.
In March 2011, Umar was said to have awarded contracts for supply of office furniture and fittings in the sum of N11.3million. The contracts were reportedly executed by a “supposedly engineering company and not a furniture or supply company.”
He also allegedly paid N4. 2million for the “purchase of welfare items” in a contract executed by a private individual. Another N4.2 million for the procurement of external light bulbs was described by the petitioners as “entirely fictitious contract.”