About two months after the House of Representatives passed the controversial Maritime Security Agency (MASECA) bill, the Senate last week stepped it down, after an intense debate and a shocking revelation that the yet-to-be-legalized agency bill actually had a whopping N3Billion appropriated to it in the 2010 budget.
Though the highly contentious bill was sponsored by the Senate Leader, Teslim Folarin, it was roundly condemned by Senators last week when it was scheduled for first reading.
The MASECA Bill is cited as, “A Bill for an Act to establish the Maritime Security Agency to promote Maritime Security and other related purposes, 2010 (SB. 329)” on the Senate order paper for Wednesday May 19, 2010.
Our correspondent gathered, reliably, that the salvo of illegal appropriation for MASECA under the 2010 budget which was fired by the Chairman, Senate Committee on Petroleum (Upstream), Lee Maeba was deliberately programmed to deflate the Bill.
Not long after the debate started, Senator Maeba had reportedly told his colleagues that there was already an illegality committed with the bill.
“I raise this order to bring to your attention that in the current budget, (the law setting up) this agency that hasn’t even been passed and that has almost N5 billion, at least over N3 billion has been allocated for this agency and the Bill to establish this agency hasn’t even undergone the second reading”, he had alleged.
After the shocking passage of the Bill by the lower legislature about two months ago, some members of the House committee had assured Shipping Position Weekly that the bill would not scale through the legislative hurdles at the upper chamber, even as they blamed the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA).
Shipping Position Weekly was told shortly after the House passed the bill in March that the management of Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) practically went to sleep after the public hearing at the National Assembly, ignoring the persistent request of the committee’s chairman, Honourable Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi said that NIMASA and indeed other stakeholders who made presentations should also furnish the committee with documentary evidences.
“The chairman repeatedly told stakeholders to assist us to do a fair and thorough job by furnishing the committee with documents and written position papers, many did not do it, we still send reminders, but very few replied”.
“I expect that NIMASA which the new agency is seeking to strip of some statutory functions would rise up to the occasion immediately, but I am not aware of any further serious pressure on the committee”, he disclosed.
Shipping Position Weekly also learnt that the marine transport committee found loophole in the presentation of both the then permanent secretary, federal ministry of transport, Mr. Femi Olayisade who represented the then-minister, Alhaji Isa Bio.
Another member of the committee quoted the permanent secretary as submitting that at the moment, no agency is performing maritime security functions, even as he also faulted the seemingly clever position of the director general of NIMASA, Mr. Temisan Omatseye who allegedly expressed sympathy, loyalty and preference for existing, but ad-hoc memorandum of understanding between NIMASA and the Nigerian Navy.
“I had expected that NIMASA would come to the hearing to defend its statutory responsibility for maritime safety and security as enshrined in its Act and not to be canvassing for a further boost of its MoU with the Navy”, he opined.
Yet another lawmaker disclosed that the biggest culprit for the need to create a separate agency for maritime security is the immediate past director general of NIMASA, Dr Ade Dosunmu. He blamed Dosunmu for lack of proper understanding of the roles of the agency when he assumed office.
“He came in as DG in very controversial circumstances without being fully prepared for the office. I am aware that his attention was called to the consistent failure to do anything about maritime security, but either because he had no idea or he just wasn’t interested”, the lawmaker alleged, even as he pointed out that NIMASA had other aspects of its statutory duties on the burners, but ignored security. “NIMASA had its imprints in Shipping Development, Maritime Labour, Cabotage, a semblance of safety and even marine pollution and so on, but nothing on security”, he stressed.
But the story changed at the Senate last week also because of what a member explained as the attempt to use the Senate leader to get the Bill through.
Another source also disclosed that already there is a bill before the Senate on the establishment of a Coast Guard. The bill is sponsored by the chair of the Senate committee on marine transport, Senator Gbemi Saraki. “This bill is more acceptable to both the Senators as well as members of shipping community”.
Discussion about this post