Nigeria: Reps probe $662mln approved for 500,000 low-income houses
The House of Representatives during Thursday's plenary unveiled plans to investigate the Family Homes Funds Limited over the utilisation of N1.5 trillion approved for the construction of at least 500,000 houses for low-income earners across the country.
The resolution was passed sequel to the adoption of a motion sponsored by Hon. Esosa lyawe.
In his lead debate, Iyawe observed that the housing sector has consistently played a pivotal role in the economic fortune of nations and contributes about 16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in advanced countries.
He, however, lamented that 'in 2021 the World Bank estimated that Nigeria's housing deficit stood at 15.56 million units, and in 2023, the Federal Government put the housing deficit statistics at 28 million units with an estimated funding need of N21 trillion.
'The House is concerned that some of the housing schemes initiated by the Federal Government have been mired in controversy, the consequence of which is the rapid growth of informal settlements, and slums on the edge of Nigeria's major cities, with obvious drawbacks for economic development, health, safety and security.
'The House is aware that in a bid to address the housing deficit in 2018, the Federal Government established the Family Homes Fund Limited with a mandate to utilise the sum of N1.5 trillion for the construction of at least 500,000 houses for low-income earners across the country.
'The House is also concerned that to date, not only has Family Homes Fund Limited failed to live up to expectations, but the few houses built are in obscure locations and unaffordable to the target audience for the scheme.
'The House is cognizant that the undelivered project has tied up government funds, potentially leading to deterioration of the houses and further economic loss, if not addressed promptly.'
To this end, the lawmakers mandated its Committee on Public Assets to investigate the Family Homes Funds Limited over the 500,000 Units Housing Scheme funded by the Federal Government and ascertain the status of the project and report within four weeks for further legislative action.
Copyright © 2022 Nigerian Tribune Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
13 hours ago
- The National
The LA protests were exactly what Donald Trump has been waiting for
It's a real-life film noir in the City of Angels. US President Donald Trump is once again hurling Americans through the looking glass, this time – fittingly – in Los Angeles. It feels lifted from 1930s hard-boiled pulp fiction in which nothing is as it appears and everything is the inverse of what powerful men assert. It's genuinely shocking, while also seemingly inevitable, that US military forces are being deployed to major cities with the express purpose of trying to intimidate, quash and, ultimately, violently confront Americans who dare raise their voices against Mr Trump's policies and practices. It is one of the most significant inflection points since the last election took America on the road away from constitutional democracy and towards the kind of repressive lawlessness this President admires in other leaders and is seeking to emulate in the US. Yet the astonishing gap between rhetoric and reality, and what this underlying system of untruth versus truth reveals, bears precise unpacking. It reveals much about the current national condition and trajectory. Mr Trump says Los Angeles has been invaded, and so it has. But not by the protesters, who appear to be almost entirely Southern California locals outraged that federal immigration authorities are now using school pickup zones, areas where men gather seeking day labour, and, worst of all, routine immigration check-ins – thereby punishing the law-abiding – for seemingly arbitrary deportations. The evolving "system" typically lacks due process – or any legal process whatsoever. That this outrages communities that directly overlap with targeted or threatened migrants and their (often US citizen) families is hardly surprising. But it has shocked consciences sufficiently to bring out thousands of protesters in Southern California and gain the rest of the country's attention in the process. It's exactly what Mr Trump has been waiting for, not just for months or even years, but very possibly decades, if his rhetoric on immigration over his adult lifetime is taken seriously. The President didn't wait for the situation to get out of hand or even become remotely challenging to local authorities and systems. Los Angeles police and other authorities were having no apparent difficulty in handling largely peaceful crowds. These were mainly made up of chanting protesters relying on words and not deeds, punctuated by the occasional extremist, hothead or agitator employing excessive rhetoric and engaging in vandalism. By all accounts, including countless independent live video streams flowing online beyond the control of any content creator or editor, the protests were almost entirely peaceful and manageable. Some youths threw bottles, rocks and concrete at police, but few if any major injuries, and no deaths, have occurred. It really wasn't a big deal and certainly no crisis. There was never a question of either the California governor or Los Angeles mayor – albeit both are liberal Democrats – requesting federal troops. The soldiers weren't wanted and they clearly weren't needed. Some youths threw bottles, rocks and concrete at police, but few if any major injuries, and no deaths, have occurred. It really wasn't a big deal and certainly no crisis Yet Mr Trump jumped at the soonest opportunity to deploy federal troops under his control to a staunchly Democratic city experiencing angry protests against his policies. Six thousand federalised California National Guard troops and 700 Marines were dispatched to deal with Americans who Mr Trump called "animals" who "hate our country". Offering the usual complete absence of evidence, he accused California Governor Gavin Newsom of financing the protests, presumably because he called the troop deployment 'unconstitutional' and "authoritarian". California is suing the White House, hoping a court orders Mr Trump to remove his forces. The president preposterously countered that without the soldiers, Los Angeles would be "burning to the ground right now" as it did when wildfires ravaged the city in January. The deeper purpose of the deployments – and especially the open-ended executive order authorising them that apparently applies to any protest or even potential protests anywhere in the country in the coming weeks – is to acculturate Americans and their political system to the use of the military to suppress peaceful political demonstrations. It's likely Mr Trump is anticipating a growing wave of such protests over the next three years, and he's probably not wrong. During his first term, Mr Trump wanted to deploy federal troops against protesters insisting that "black lives matter" after the murder of George Floyd in May 2020. He was rebuffed by then-defence secretary Mark Esper and military Chief of Staff Mike Milley. But both men and all the other "adults in the room' during the first Trump term are gone, replaced by personal loyalists without any evident allegiance to US institutions or even the Constitution beyond this president's personal and political interests. This same lack of institutional or personal restraints has led the military to disgracefully agree to stage a highly provocative, entirely improper military parade through the streets of Washington DC on Saturday – Mr. Trump's 79th birthday. In his first term, he was bluntly told that the US military did not perform such sycophantic spectacles, which are incompatible with American republican traditions. Now, Mr Trump is getting everything he wants, at least from all of his executive branch subordinates, no questions asked. Mr Trump knows that peaceful street protests are a highly effective tool against would-be strongmen, and he's making it clear at the earliest possible opportunity to let everyone know that he intends to use the military to suppress street-level opposition to his policies and rule. They could, after all, be the nucleus of an American "colour revolution," in the style of European and Asian societies that resisted their own aspiring caudillos not merely at the ballot box but also the barricades. Mr Trump has been clear that, unlike most previous presidents, he doesn't regard peaceful protests as legitimate opposition, threatening that, "those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force". Once upon a time in America, peaceful demonstrations constituted free speech and assembly, steeped in the finest traditions of a country literally founded upon political protests. But Mr Trump wants protesters who burn US flags to express outrage – which the Supreme Court repeatedly found to be protected speech – to be subjected to an 'automatic' year in prison. The land of the free is certainly 'going through some things'. As Los Angeles, home of Hollywood and setting of many of the greatest films noir, famously explained about arbitrary power, "forget about it, Jake. It's Chinatown".
The National
a day ago
- The National
The longstanding Baghdad-Kurdistan feud is about more than just energy
In Iraq, the end of every parliamentary term brings with it an electoral campaign filled with populist posturing that undermines public policy, the national economy and any semblance of unity in the country. Iraq's next parliamentary election is due to take place in November, and predictably, the federal government in Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government in Erbil have already started their ritual indictment of one another. Over the past few weeks, a two-year effort to settle an ongoing dispute on the management of oil and gas resources has fallen apart, with both sides rushing to rile up what is left of their respective bases. Last month, the KRG announced that it had entered into new contracts with international providers to increase the production of natural gas. Baghdad immediately rejected the arrangements and retaliated in part by cutting off financial transfers to the KRG, which effectively means that the latter will be unable to pay basic salaries for public sector employees. This is the third time that Baghdad has cut off the KRG over the past 20 years, which will have a lasting impact that will be difficult to overcome. The dispute over natural resources dates back to the drafting of the 2005 constitution. Despite the text being adopted in a referendum that was supported by 80 per cent of the population, its federal structure of government and the provisions on natural resources do not represent a real bargain between the country's main political forces, many of whom immediately denounced the federal system as soon as it entered into force in 2006. There are several arguments on how those provisions should be interpreted, but the reality is that the crushing majority of Baghdad's politicians do not agree with Kurdistan's way of reading the provisions and never have. Since then, the KRG has sought to build its own independent oil sector, despite Baghdad's insistence that all international contracts be signed by the federal ministry of oil. In 2013, the KRG even entered into an illegal agreement with the Turkish government by virtue of which it would use a pipeline that was jointly owned by Ankara and Baghdad to export its oil internationally (without Baghdad's approval). The federal government was enraged and brought a claim before an international tribunal, which ruled in its favour and ordered Turkey to co-ordinate all future exports with the oil ministry in Baghdad and to pay billions of dollars in reparations to Iraq. The reality is that these are technical problems to which solutions are available if there is sufficient political will to resolve them Since then, Ankara has insisted that the pipeline remain closed until Baghdad and the KRG agree on a joint oil policy, something that the two sides have been unable to do for the past two years. The dispute involves a number of complex issues that need to be resolved, including what should be done about outstanding debt that was incurred by the KRG. The reality, however, is that these are technical problems to which solutions are available if there is sufficient political will to resolve them. And that is what has been most lacking in this sorry saga. When the dispute first began back in 2005, the balance of forces was lopsided in favour of the KRG mainly as a result of civil conflict and dysfunction in Baghdad. The KRG had a golden opportunity to lock in a favourable agreement that would also have been acceptable to Baghdad. Instead, it overreached and pushed for an arrangement that Baghdad was never likely to accept in the long run. Two decades later, Baghdad is now economically and militarily far more powerful than the KRG. Many young Iraqi Kurds are now moving to Baghdad to seek economic opportunity, something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The federal government now has the opportunity to use its newfound clout to negotiate a new arrangement that would be more in line with both sides' interests. Instead, the two sides are now moving further apart. Baghdad's longstanding policy is that it needs foreign investment to assist in the overall effort to rebuild fundamental infrastructure. Whether Baghdad likes it or not, the KRG remains influential internationally, to the extent that a successful resolution on the management of natural resources will go a long way to satisfying the federal government's economic aims, even on issues that are not directly connected to the KRG. US policy towards Iraq on this issue has been consistent across time and various administrations. Recently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio put the matter succinctly when he said that Kurdish autonomy is the 'lynchpin of our approach to Iraq', part of which involves giving the Iraqi Kurds 'the economic lifeline that allows them to prosper and succeed'. It would be wrong to underestimate how difficult it will be to reach a satisfactory resolution. For any agreement to be sustainable, it would have to be based on a new overarching political agreement on what federalism is for, and what its fundamental principles are. Federalism in Iraq for now remains undefined. There is no common agreement of what it is for, or how it should function. If there is one thing that Baghdad should do, it is to enter into a meaningful and sustained dialogue with the KRG to define federalism and its fundamental principles. That would require accepting that federalism must be based on a sense of solidarity between its peoples and regions and not on distrust and populism. If that simple principle is accepted, then the immediate corollary is that the federal government can never under any circumstance cut off federal transfers to the KRG or to any other part of the country. To do so is to punish the local population in the KRG for a political dispute over which they have no control, which causes immediate pain and suffering to citizens who should be entitled to equal rights to a decent life. Baghdad may have legitimate concerns in its dispute with the KRG, but it must find other means to apply pressure. And to be fair to Baghdad, it has been reluctant to invest heavily in its relationship with the KRG considering lingering suspicions that it will make another attempt to break away from the union at the next opportunity. That concern would also have to be addressed if a durable agreement is to be possible. Given the context, it would be unreasonable to expect any progress on this matter until after the next parliamentary election. But if we hope to have it resolved, all interested parties should proceed with an open mind, in good faith and on the right basis. If not, readers of this article can expect to encounter similar laments and pleas in these pages again in 2029, just before the next parliamentary election.
Filipino Times
3 days ago
- Filipino Times
House members decry Senate's return of impeachment articles as ‘unconstitutional, insulting'
Incoming House prosecutors and several lawmakers strongly criticized the Senate's decision to return the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte to the House of Representatives, calling the move 'unconstitutional,' 'insulting,' and a dangerous precedent. Akbayan Rep.-elect Chel Diokno and Mamamayang Liberal Rep.-elect Leila de Lima, both set to join the prosecution team, condemned the remand, accusing the Senate of violating constitutional principles. 'This is a blatant abandonment of the Constitution,' said Diokno. De Lima questioned the legal foundation of the Senate's actions: 'Where does a court dismiss a complaint without first hearing both sides?' Members of the Makabayan bloc echoed these sentiments. ACT Teachers Rep. France Castro argued that the Senate had no authority to return the articles, stating, 'Our role is done. The Senate, as a co-equal chamber, cannot demand explanations from the House.' Gabriela Rep. Arlene Brosas warned that the move would further erode public trust in democratic institutions, while Kabataan Rep. Raoul Manuel accused the Senate of shielding corrupt officials through political maneuvering. House Assistant Minority Leader Gabriel Bordado Jr., a signatory to the impeachment complaint, said the remand was deeply disappointing. 'This has never happened before. It's insulting to the House, which fulfilled its constitutional duty,' he said. The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, opted not to dismiss the case outright. Instead, 18 senators voted in favor of Senator Alan Peter Cayetano's amended motion to return the articles to the House, without terminating the proceedings. In February, the House impeached Vice President Duterte with 215 votes, citing graft, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes.
