The petition to the EFCC was signed by the Secretary to the State Government, Rufus D. Bature.
But Senator Jang’s legislative aide to,
Olivia Dazyam, who was in Port Harcourt with him for the People’s
Democratic Party’s (PDP’s) convention, said that she was surprised
because they have not received any petition whether from EFCC or the
government of Plateau State “to the extent of probing the former
governor.”
While speaking with newsmen yesterday,
Dazyam said she would contact the senator and “necessary and
appropriate” actions would be taken.
The key allegations raised by the Plateau State Government in the petition to the EFCC are as follow:
*That the sum of N2 billion released by
the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) for the Small and Medium Scale (SME)
businesses in Plateau State remains unaccounted for.
*That a total sum of N6.1 billion was
deducted from the accounts of the State Universal Basic Education Board
(SUBEB), Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and the Ministry
for Local government and Chieftaincy Affairs without recourse to the
ethics of public service.
* That the sum of N982, 526451.02 was
paid as consultancy fee to a front company for a purported, non-existent
recovery of N7.56 billion from Nasarawa State.
* That millions of naira was debited
monthly from the accounts of the 17 Local Government Areas (LGAs) to be
used to construct one 5km road in each of the councils. “But most of the
roads were never constructed. Just a few LGAs in Jang’s Plateau North
Senatorial District benefited from this scheme but the funds disappeared
from the state accounts before the emergence of the new administration
of Simon Lalong.”
* Questions were also raised on how
SURE-P funds were disbursed. Saying “the previous administration in
their handover notes, did not provide the needed information on how much
was released, how much was received and what the funds were used for.”
*Also being investigated is the “double
award of the computerization of the Ministry of Finance to a company for
the sum of N97,925,000. Saying the “firm is a front company, and that
the contract was awarded twice (with money paid in both instances”.
ViewPoint