APC Primary: Reps suspend probe of NILDS DG over lack of evidence

The House of Representatives Committee on Legislative Library, Research and Documentation has suspended further consideration of a petition against the Director-General of the National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies (NILDS), Suleiman Abubakar, pending the submission of evidence to support allegations against him.

The committee took the decision on Thursday during an investigative hearing in Abuja after petitioners failed to present documentary proof that the NILDS boss participated in the APC governorship primary election in Kwara State while still serving in office.

Chairman of the committee, Yusuf Galambi, said the panel could not continue with its investigation based on allegations alone, stressing that credible evidence was required before any conclusions could be reached.

He directed the petitioners to submit relevant documents, including party records, nomination forms and expression-of-interest forms allegedly linked to the director-general.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

According to him, the committee’s mandate is to establish facts and not act on speculation or unverified claims.

“The committee is unable to proceed in the absence of credible and verifiable evidence to substantiate the allegations before us,” Mr Galambi said.

The probe stems from a House resolution following concerns about compliance with constitutional and administrative provisions regulating the involvement of public office holders in partisan activities.

The resolution followed the adoption of a motion of urgent public importance sponsored by Salisu Yusuf (APC, Katsina) and 12 other lawmakers.

Mr Yusuf told the House that publicly available records showed that the NILDS DG purchased nomination forms, participated in screening exercises and contested in the APC governorship primary election in Kwara State.

The lawmakers argued that his actions appeared inconsistent with public service rules, the Code of Conduct for Public Officers and a presidential directive requiring political appointees and public officials seeking elective office to resign on or before 31 March.

The House thereafter mandated its Committee on Legislative Library, Research and Documentation to investigate the allegations and report back within one week.

The lawmakers are specifically investigating claims that Mr Abubakar contested or participated in a governorship primary election without first relinquishing his position, as allegedly required under existing laws and civil service regulations.

Mr Galambi said the committee would decide on further invitations after reviewing any additional evidence submitted by the petitioners.

He added that the investigation would continue irrespective of whether the NILDS Director-General appears before the panel, noting that an official invitation had already been sent to him.

Earlier, committee member Harrison Anozie (APC, Imo) criticised the DG’s failure to honour the invitation extended to him.

According to the lawmaker, all parties connected to the matter were invited to assist the committee’s work and ensure a fair hearing.

“He ought to be here to state his own side of the story. A proper notice was served on him, and ample time was given for him to appear before this committee,” Mr Anozie said.

Despite his absence, the committee member maintained that the investigation should not be stalled.

READ ALSO: Nigeria’s security challenges demand bold, fresh thinking, Reps Speaker says

Another member of the panel, Chinedu Obika (NDC, FCT), sought to know whether the petitioners had video recordings or any other direct evidence showing the alleged participation of the NILDS chief in the primary election.

Responding on behalf of the petitioners, Williams Amuga of the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP) admitted that the allegations were based on reports and materials circulated on social media.

Following the exchange, the committee adjourned the hearing and directed the petitioners to return with additional evidence before the matter could proceed further.