The present controversy surrounding the alleged missing money has been made more controversial with the removal by suspension of the Central Bank Governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi (SLS). An otherwise straightforward situation has been so deliberately dramatized, that the citizenry is now confused and polarized. The following is my own dramatization of the situation.
Afe Udia is a religious organization, whose membership is made up of only salaried employees. It is headed by the Overseer. The organization has different administrative departments for various roles. Part of the tenets of the organization is that each member must contribute 20% of his or her take home salary to the organization. The accounts department is responsible for collecting the mandatory contributions. There is a governing committee which decides how monies should be spent and an expenditure committee that does actual disbursements. As is typical in organizations and even religious ones like Afe Udia, members in typical fashion start grumbling that the huge financial chest is not being properly managed and several projects including funding for the organizations charities are unsatisfactory.
The governing council of Afe Udia decides to take steps to ensure accountability and boost confidence in the financial integrity of the Organization. An independent accountant is appointed by the overseer after approval from the governing council. In his contract of appointment, the accountant is to use his best professional skills to further the interests of Afe Udia under the headship of the overseer. As standard policy and to maintain his independence, the contract stipulates that should the accountant be found wanting, the contact can be terminated and his services dispensed with by the overseer only with the approval of the governing council.
The Accountant commences his work in earnest and puts different structures in place to ensure success. Part of the new initiatives is that every member should make their contributions via a standing order to the employers, for the money to be deducted directly from the salary and paid to the finance committee. Thereafter the finance committee renders an account to the accountant who will then collect all the money and hand over to the governing committee. In the process of doing his work, the accountant discovers that some unit treasurers have been taking liberties with funds entrusted to them. After scrutinizing available records he informs the overseer that in accordance with his powers under the contract of appointment, he will replace some of them and recover stolen Afe Udia funds from them. He duly carries out his threat but of course with serious protestations from the affected unit treasurers and their supporters.
From his observations and interactions within the Afe Udia, the accountant notices that whereas some officials are evidently living beyond their means, projects were suffering because of shortage of funds. He discusses this with the overseer who suggests that maybe the members should be levied a higher percentage. Still troubled by the anomaly and sensing that he was missing something, the accountant decides to seek help from the general tax office. He scrutinizes the returns made by the different employers of Afe Udia members under the Employee tax scheme. He does his calculations and is alarmed at what he discovers.
He makes a report to the overseer stating that from his records there was a huge disparity between what was being declared by the accounts committee and what should have been actually received based on the records of the tax office. The Overseer does nothing and after some months the members get wind of the essence of the report to the overseer. The resultant outcry by members creates anxiety in the organization and has the overseer and his inner circle worried.
The governing committee invites the Accountant and finance committee members to iron out the discrepancies. The meeting is deadlocked as the Accountant maintains his position that huge amounts are missing. The accounts committee explains that because of the poor power situation, it had to spend a huge sum replacing old generators in the branches and that reference to the expenditure committee would have occasioned delay thereby causing disruptions.
The explanations fail to close the matter or the grumbling among members. The overseer's intervention for the accountant to tell members that the explanations were acceptable and the accounts in order, fail to change the Accountant's stance.
The Overseer queries the loyalty of the Accountant to him and the governing committee. He asks the accountant to resign because by his attitude he will cause disaffection in Afe Udia which could jeopardise his position in the organization. The accountant refuses to resign on the basis of his letter of appointment. He says that if the governing council approves that the overseer should remove him, then he will have no choice but to go. The overseer is not sure of some members of the governing council and in fact some of them had become close to the accountant. Some of the overseer's staunch supporters sense his predicament and map out a plan to rescue the situation. A general meeting is called for the accountant issue to be discussed. The overseer's supporters are very vocal and one after the other they lambast the accountant. The meeting is told how the accountant although not a member of Afe Udia, has been going around criticizing the lifestyle of members of the governing committee. That he wants to cause disaffection in the organization hence he published the make and number of cars owned by the officials of the organization. That he was in the habit of flirting with female members of Afe Udia. That from the organization's money at his disposal to carry out his work effectively as he deems necessary he commissioned a restaurant to give free lunch to the indigent people who could make their way to the organizations premises every Monday and Wednesday. They angrily denounced this as reckless spending of the organizations money. That no similar organization had an accountant who behaved like Afe Udia's accountant! When a dissenting member asked whether, all contracts of appointment of accountants were uniform or whether this accountant had gone outside his contract of appointment he was shouted down and told that the contract was stupidly drafted and when they queried and tried to change it, it was foolish members like him that scuttled the process. Another member reminded the meeting how the accountant even had the effrontery to ridicule the contents of the Overseer's last end of year message. So many accusations but the accountant when called upon to defend himself maintained his position that he had acted within his contract and that money was missing.
The overseer in a surprising announcement to members following the meeting, says the accountant will be denied access to his office and the organizations records and that the governing committee will soon appoint a new more competent accountant. The Accountant's Assistant would replace him until a new appointment.
Some members are however confused and are asking only a very few questions. In the midst of all the noise, what is the true position with the alleged missing money?How tenable is the answer by the finance committee that it diverted some of the money to buy generators for the branches without clearance from the governing committee? Why does the Overseer's body language give the impression that he thinks that no money is missing? How can the Accountant know exactly how much is missing when he is not privy to how much exactly was diverted by the accounts department and for what purposes? And lastly, if the Overseer locks out the Accountant and prevents him from doing the work for which he was contracted, has he not effectively removed the accountant without the approval of the management committee?
For me as a member of Afe Udia, there is only one question each for the overseer and the accountant: 'WHERE IS OUR MONEY'? And 'WHY DO YOU TALK SO MUCH'? Only a fool does not know which should come first!
Edo Ukpong,
Legal Practitioner
No comments:
Post a Comment