The house of representatives has resolved to investigate the N1.1 trillion Sukuk road projects from 2017 to 2024.

The lower legislative chamber passed the resolution during the plenary on Wednesday following the adoption of a motion of urgent public importance sponsored by Gaza Gbefwi, a lawmaker from Nasarawa.

The investigation aims to uncover and identify “instances of diversion, inflation, or contractor non-compliance” in the execution of the road projects.

While moving the motion, Gbefwi said a report by the Debt Management Office (DMO) shows it raised over N1.1 trillion through six sovereign Sukuk issuances to finance 124 federal road projects spanning 5,820 kilometres across the six geopolitical zones.

The lawmaker highlighted the breakdown of Sukuk financing as follows: N100 billion in 2017, N100 billion in 2018, N162.557 billion in 2020, N250 billion in 2021, N130 billion in 2022, and N350 billion in 2023.

He said reports suggest that an additional N150 billion was issued in October 2023, bringing the cumulative total to approximately N1.242 trillion by the end of 2024.

“Despite this significant investment, Nigeria’s road infrastructure remains in a deplorable state, with over 70 percent of the country’s 200,000-kilometer road network still unpaved, as noted by S&P Global Ratings in January 2024,” he said.

“Without robust accountability mechanisms, the Sukuk programme risks becoming a conduit for mismanagement or corruption.”

The motion was adopted when it was subjected to a voice vote by Benjamin Kalu, the deputy speaker, who presided over the plenary.

Consequently, the house mandated the committee on works to conduct a “forensic probe” into the allocation, expenditure, and outcomes of the N1.242 trillion Sukuk fund.

The parliament also directed the federal ministry of works to provide detailed records of all Sukuk-funded projects, including financial disbursements, project statuses, and updated contractors’ performance.

The senate has called on the federal government to take urgent action to address the rising cost of data services in the country.

During Wednesday’s plenary, lawmakers debated a motion sponsored by Asuquo Ekpeyong, senator representing Cross River south, highlighting the financial strain caused by recent hike in data tariffs.

Ekpeyong warned that the surge in data costs was a major setback for young Nigerians who depend on the internet for their livelihoods.

He argued that many young people use digital platforms for freelancing, e-commerce, content creation, and software development, making affordable internet access crucial to their economic survival.

“Telecommunication providers in Nigeria have recently increased the cost of data services by as much as 200%. A move that has placed significant financial strain on millions of Nigerians, especially young people who rely on the internet for their livelihood,” he said.

“Young Nigerians have embraced the digital economy, leveraging the internet for various income-generating activities including freelancing and remote work, direct marketing and social media management, e-commerce, content creation on various platforms, online training, software development, web design, mobile app creation, content creation of various platforms, online education, etc.

“The senate notes that young Nigerians have embraced the digital economy, leveraging the internet for their livelihood, leaving them heavily dependent on mobile telecommunications companies for internet access, and that the sudden and substantial increase in data cost threatens their economic survival and limits access to critical digital services.

“The senate is further concerned that the reasons provided by telecom providers for the data price hike, including high operational costs of favourable exchanges, are untenable, and appears that instead of addressing the root causes of the high cost of doing business in Nigeria, the burden is being unfairly transferred to end-users.

“Senate is aware that the high cost of doing business in Nigeria is driven by multiple challenges, such as increased operational risk and insurance costs.

“The senate believes that urgent government intervention is required to ensure that affordable internet access remains available to all Nigerians, particularly to the young Nigerians who are at the backbone of Nigeria’s digital economy.

“The senate accordingly resolves to urge the federal government to engage with telecommunication providers to review the recent increase in data costs and ensure the pricing remains fair and affordable for all Nigerians.”

The motion was seconded by Titus Zam, senator representing Benue north-west, and received the support of other lawmakers.

Victor Umeh, senator representing Anambra central, criticised not just the rising cost of data but also increases in telecom charges and Pay TV tariffs, accusing regulatory bodies of failing to protect Nigerians.

“If you buy airtime or data, within minutes, you are out of it. Nigerians are suffering so much, and we cannot turn a blind eye,” he said.

Sadiq Umar, senator representing Kwara North, warned that the price hike disproportionately affects young people, who form a significant part of Nigeria’s workforce.

“These service providers must make life easier for young Nigerians, not harder. The government needs to step in before this situation worsens,” he said.

Lawmakers urged the federal government to engage telecom providers to review and reduce the recent increase in data costs.

They also called on the ministry of communications, innovation, and digital economy to develop a policy framework for affordable internet access.

Lawmakers further recommended the creation of tech hubs across the country to provide free or subsidised internet for entrepreneurs, students, and innovators.

They also directed the senate committee on communications to investigate the factors driving high data costs and propose solutions to make the telecom sector more business-friendly.

Following the debate, Senate President Godswill Akpabio put the motion to a vote, and it was unanimously adopted.

Akpabio praised Ekpeyong for raising the issue, saying the intervention would support young entrepreneurs and ensure fair pricing in the digital economy.

“This motion, when implemented, will assist our young entrepreneurs, not only to remain in business but also to ensure that they have affordable pricing that allows them to generate profits,” he said.

Seven Governors of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have Instituted a suit before the Supreme Court of Nigeria, challenging the six months suspension of the Rivers State governor, Siminalaye Fubara.

The Governors of Bauchi, Adamawa, Bayelsa, Enugu, Osun, Plateau, and Zamfara, are questioning what powers the President has to carry out such action (suspension).

Mentioned as respondents in the suit are President Bola Tinubu and the National Assembly.

The seven state governors, who termed the suspension as unconstitutional, through their Attorneys-Generals, urged the Supreme Court to declare that “the President has no powers whatsoever or authority to suspend a democratically elected governor and deputy governor of a state in the Federation of Nigeria under the guise of or pursuant to the proclamation of a state of emergency in any state of the federation, including the states represented by the plaintiffs.” based on the provisions of sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Governor Siminalayi Fubara
The governors also urged the apex court to declare that the president has no powers to suspend a democratically elected House of Assembly of a state pursuant to Sections 192 (4) (6) and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

The appellants (seven state governors) sought a declaration that “the suspension of Governor Siminalaye Fubara, his deputy, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly was unconstitutional, unlawful, and in gross violation of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)”.

The governors argue that President Tinubu lacks the statutory powers to suspend a serving governor and appoint a Sole Administrator in his stead.

The governors urged the Supreme Court to nullify the appointment of the Sole Administrator appointed to govern the affairs of Rivers State.

They challenged the constitutionality of the voice votes used by the National Assembly to ratify President Tinubu’s actions.

They argued that the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by the defendants did not comply with the constitutional requirements set out in Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Furthermore, the litigants contended that the proclamation by President Tinubu failed to meet the stipulated conditions and procedures for such a declaration, stating that it was made for reasons beyond those specified in the Constitution.

They also argue that the National Assembly’s approval of the state of emergency via a voice vote was invalid, stressing that the Constitution mandates a two-thirds majority vote of members of each legislative chamber.

They prayed the Supreme Court for the following reliefs, “An order nullifying the proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State made by the first defendant and wrongfully approved by the second defendant.

“An order restraining the defendant, by himself, his servants, agents, and privies, from implementing the unlawful suspension of the governor and deputy governor of Rivers State.

“An order restraining the defendant, by himself, his servants, agents, and privies, from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the execution by the governor and deputy governor of Rivers State of their constitutional and statutory duties, as well as their electoral mandate.

“An order restraining the defendant from attempting the suspension of any other governor of any state in Nigeria, particularly the plaintiffs, or from interfering with or undermining their constitutional and statutory duties”.

Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu and the Rivers House of Assembly members were suspended for six months by President Tinubu after he declared a state of emergency in the state on March 18 and appointed a sole administrator to carry out the duties of the governor in the state for the duration of the suspension.

The legislature supported the president’s decision to implement the suspension.