The House of Representatives on Wednesday resolved to set up an Ad-hoc Committee to investigate the circumstances that led to the termination of the multi-billion naira contract between the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) and Integrated Logistics Services (Intels).
The House also urged the federal government to remain “status quo” prior to the termination to avoid “injury” to the company’s employees.
It would be recalled that the federal government on September 27 terminated Intels contract for the monitoring and supervision of pilotage districts in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Nigeria.
The contract which was signed in 2000 also permits Intels to receive revenue generated in each pilotage district from service boat operations in consideration for 28 percent of total revenue as commission to Intels.
The resolution follows the adoption of a motion moved by Hon. Diri Douye wherein he noted that the agreement included the construction and operation of Apapa, Warri, Federal Ocean Terminal Port and Onne in Port Harcourt, which Intels spent $900 million.
Duoye expressed concern over the negative effects the termination of the contract would have on the 7000 Nigerians working for Intel’s as well as their dependents and on local content and unemployment.
He noted the need for the House to ascertain the process of termination of contracts between both bodies.
Similarly, Hon. Ekpo Attah said the motion is important and “status quo” should be maintained. Intels employs a lot of people. I submit that this motion is very pertinent and Intels should be returned to status quo,” she said.
In his contribution, Hon. Isa Baba-Kaita lamented the manner with which Intels runs its affairs in the sector as well as its flagrant disregard for the laws of the land.
“Let’s not allow one company take over our ports operations in such a way that we do not know what is going in it. Intel’s is not an indigenous company yet, it wants to-do business in this country without recourse to laws of the land”.
Similarly, Hon. Aliyu Madaki frowned at the impunity with which the company carried out its business even as he alleged non-remittance of revenue accrued to the government as provided by Section 80(1) and 162