Kyari, Farouk: Curtailing the misplaced aggression of Philip Agbese, By Tunde Olaniyi

Agbese’s comments were as unfortunate and unacceptable as they were embarrassing. In his zeal to be seen as protecting the interests of a Nigerian businessman, he compromised one of the key principles of parliamentary procedures – the principle of fair hearing. By castigating and condemning the NNPCL and NMDPRA without providing them opportunity to state their case, he had constituted him him into the accuser, witness, judge and jury.

Last week Philip Agbese,  a member of the House of Representatives representing the Ado/Ogbadibo/Okpokwu Federal Constituency in Kogi State, waded into the disagreement between Mr Aliko Dangote, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited  (NNPCL), and Nigerian Midstream Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority  (NMDPRA) over the supply of crude oil to Dangote Refinery, as well as NMDPRA’s allegation of the poor quality of diesel produced by Dangote Refinery. In that intervention, Agbese had, in a biased manner, attacked the leadership of NNPCL and NMDPRA for conspiring with foreigners (represented by International Oil Companies) to frustrate a Nigerian businessman.

It has turned out that Agbese’s colleagues in parliament, who I thought condoned his faux pas, are just as displeased as I and many others are, who had spoken out against his unfortunate outburst.

Leading a-50 member strong House of Representatives group, Honourable Billy Famous Osawaru (Edo State)   told journalists in Abuja that jumping to conclusions in a matter still under investigation by a designated committee of the House, was against parliamentary culture. He said the parliamentary culture entailed affording parties in investigation the right of fair hearing and called on the committee handling the probe to be impartial.

“Nigerians will recall the hike in fuel prices and associated challenges are fundamental concerns. The House of Representatives vide its resolutions mandated the joint committee of the house on Midstream and Downstream Petroleum to investigate issues in the oil and gas sector.

“We are aware  that investigation is ongoing and final decision has not been reached. However, our attention has been drawn to some media reports calling for the removal of the Group Chief Executive Officer of the NNPCL and the Chief Executive Officer of NMDPRA while the above investigation is subsisting.

“We wish to state that it is in the parliamentary culture to afford parties in an investigation that right to fair hearing. Therefore,  the cal for removal of anyone while investigation is pending is premature. We Therefore call on all Nigerians to be patient and law abiding in expectation of a better Nigeria”, Osawaru said.

Agbese’s comments were as unfortunate and unacceptable as they were embarrassing. In his zeal to be seen as protecting the interests of a Nigerian businessman, he compromised one of the key principles of parliamentary procedures – the principle of fair hearing. By castigating and condemning the NNPCL and NMDPRA without providing them opportunity to state their case, he had constituted him him into the accuser, witness, judge and jury.

The intervention of Agbese’s colleagues at this time is crucial. Whilst we must ensure that all businesses operating in the same sector are on an even keel, the necessity of ensuring that they operate within guidelines provided by Nigerian laws is just as is important, and it is the duty of agencies like NMDPRA to ensure that this happens.

As I observed in my last intervention on this matter, there is a reason that government in its wisdom set up institutions to regulate the activities of business organisations and entities.

That the NNPCL itself is a business organisation operating in the same field as Dangote Refinery and is thus not obligated to mollycoddle or babysit it, was conveniently lost on Agbese as is the fact that the NMDPRA, as the regulatory agency overseeing the Midstream and Downstream sectors of the Nigerian oil and gas sector, is constitutionally mandated to scrutinise the operations of business entities like Dangote Refinery.

If Agbese felt for any reason that Dangote as an indigenous businessman had been unfairly treated by the NMDPRA or that the NNPCL had colluded with foreigners to undermine it, what he ought to have done was to call for a parliamentary inquiry into the whole affair, instead of taking the ill-advised route he followed.

So, why should the NMDPRA be demonised by legislator for doing its job to the extent of calling for the sack of the head of that agency?

Why should our lawmakers, including the leadership of the two chambers, troop like school children on excursion to the Dangote Refinery? What do they intend to achieve? Why should Representative Agbese, a lawmaker elected to protect the interest of all Nigerians, weigh in on behalf of one individual and give him a clean bill of health without subjecting his operations to serious scrutiny?

These are questions begging for answers. The NMDPRA was created to oversee companies like Dangote Refinery operating in the Midstream and Downstream sectors of the Nigerian petroleum industry. If any member of the National Assembly is displeased by the manner it is carrying out its duties, it can summon the head of that agency to parliament for questioning, instead of denigrating both the agency and its CEO publicly without conducting an impartial and independent inquiry as Rep. Agbese has done.

One of the reasons for regulation in any sphere of human activity is the need to ensure compliance, fair practice and to provide a level playing field for everyone regardless of status, religion or creed.

It was the reason the philosophers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, justified government. In fact, Hobbes said the absence of a measure of control over individuals through laws and the threat of punishment would create a Darwinian jungle of survival of the fittest, where life would become nasty, brutish and short.

Business regulation exists to ensure that no one business is given advantage over others in the same industry. If it is allowed to happen, a monopoly would created, which would in addition to crippling competition, lead to the exploitation of consumers by the monopolistic entity.

In Europe and America, the bastions of free market capitalism, regulation is serious business.

In the United States, in particular, the issue of one business dominating a field is something seriously frowned at. In that country, three laws – the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. – form the tripod of antitrust laws that regulate the conduct of businesses. They promote competition and prevent the emergence of monopolies. These laws can be enforced in both civil and criminal matters.

To underscore how seriously the American government frowns at monopoly, for two years, from 1999, it was locked in an anti-trust battle with IT company, Microsoft, accusing it of illegally monopolising the web browser market for Windows, primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programmes such as Netscape and Java.

The company was brought before a US court, which ordered its break up. Following an appeal by the company, and subsequent discussions between the parties, a settlement was reached, leading the US Department of Justice to announce on 6 September, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft, for its part, decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.

As recently as two months ago in the same United States, the Federal Aviation Administration, the body regulating the aviation industry in America, has been engaging aircraft manufacturing company, Boeing, in discussions over the safety of its aircraft.

The FAA became worried after the crash of a Boeing aircraft in January this year and increased its oversight on the manufacturer. Boeing has been compelled to come up with a roadmap intended to set a new standard for safety and effective transform their safety culture.

Aside Boeing other top companies in the United States, like Facebook, have come under the radar of regulatory authorities. In the midst of all of it, the regulatory bodies were left by parliament and the executive branch of government to do their job.

Tunde Olaniyi writes from Oshogbo.