.

Former Lawmaker Claims ₦50m Was Minimum Payment Offered to Some Reps Over Obasanjo’s Third-Term Bid

Farouq Aliyu

Former Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, Farouq Aliyu, has alleged that some lawmakers were offered at least ₦50 million each to support the controversial constitutional amendment linked to former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s reported third-term ambition.

Aliyu made the claim during an interview on the Naija Unfiltered podcast published on YouTube on Friday, while recounting events surrounding the 2006 constitutional amendment debate.

According to him, larger sums were allegedly offered to key lawmakers in an attempt to secure support for the proposed amendment. He claimed that former Speaker Aminu Masari was offered ₦400 million, while then Majority Leader Abdul Ningi was allegedly offered the same amount.

Aliyu said he personally rejected an alleged ₦250 million offer after being contacted by then Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Chairman Nuhu Ribadu during discussions over the constitutional amendment.

He maintained that the alleged offers demonstrated that the third-term agenda was genuine, despite Obasanjo’s repeated denials that he sought to extend his presidency beyond 2007.

> “Third term agenda was real. In fact, 250 million was given to me. I did not take it,” Aliyu said.

He further alleged that smaller payments of about ₦50 million were offered to other lawmakers who could support the constitutional changes.

The former lawmaker also credited former military Head of State Muhammadu Buhari, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation George Akume with helping to frustrate the proposed amendment.

The National Assembly rejected the constitutional amendment proposals in May 2006. Obasanjo subsequently completed his two terms in office and handed over to Umaru Musa Yar’Adua in 2007.

Obasanjo has consistently denied that he attempted to secure a third presidential term. Aliyu’s latest comments therefore represent an allegation about the events surrounding the 2006 constitutional amendment, rather than an established finding that the alleged payments occurred.

Recommended For You

About the Author: Akelicious

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *