Call it one of the most controversial bills ever presented in the Akwa Ibom State house, one will not be wrong. The truth is that the real property charge bill which has already passed through its second reading has raised so much dust and it is threatening to cause more harm than good.
Described as “obnoxious and anti-people,” the real property charge bill, a private-member bill seeks to bolster the revenue of the state government through property tax. Its lead sponsor is Usorosh Akpanusoh who represents Esit Eket/Ibeno state constituency in the 26-member assembly dominated by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and who also chairs the appropriation and finance committee.
Soon after the bill had gone through second reading, some members of the assembly who had hitherto supported the bill during plenary began to distance themselves from it, describing it as ill-timed, obnoxious and anti-people.
One of the lawmakers who openly criticised the intent and purpose of the bill is Aniekan Ukoh, a member representing Ibesikpo State Constituency, a one-time speaker of the 6th assembly.
Ukoh believes that the bill will further worsen the economic hardship that people are facing, adding that he will always be guided by his conscience in supporting any bill.
His remarks which have been widely circulated both in the mainstream media and the social media appeared to have been the tonic that other members who had supported the bill earlier had waited for.
Soon after Ukoh had voiced his opposition to the bill, others came out openly to dissociate themselves from the bill and accused the lead sponsor of smuggling their names to the list of the sponsors of the bill.
According Mark Esset, a member representing Nsit Atai state constituency who has also distanced himself from the bill, his name is also smuggled into the bill as one the co sponsors.
“I challenge my colleague, Usoro Akpanusoh, who is the lead sponsor of the contagious bill to make public, any document(s) that can verify if truly I appended my consent to be a co – sponsor of the Real Property Charge Bill,’ he said in a statement.
He accused his colleagues of being ignorant of legislative procedures adding that he sees nothing wrong on his conviction to kick against a bill ‘filled with controversies.’
According to him, his opposition to the bill has resulted in him being seen as anti leadership of the assembly adding that he would not regret doing so.
“I want to place it on record that if dissociating myself from this obnoxious bill has attracted the views of some persons to label me as an anti leadership of the sixth assembly, I gladly affirm my stance, I say no to the real property charge bill.’’
A new twist was to be added to the controversial bill when the leadership of the assembly saw opposition to the bill as being instigated by lawmakers who are nursing plans to impeach the speaker of the assembly, Onofiok Luke.
Ime Okon, chairman, house committee on information who represents Ibiono Ibom state constituency told a press conference in Uyo, the state capital that members still have the right to register their objections against the bill even at the committee stage lampooning a member who granted ‘frivolous interviews’ and took to cheap social media postings distancing themselves from a bill that he had originally supported.
“Whereas every member has the right to disagree with the contents of legislation, the attempts to take advantage of perceived public condemnation of the bill and try to seek cheap popularity tantamount with respect to an afterthought, cowardice and utter disregard to spirit de corps and parliamentary ethics,’’ he said.
Apart from the disagreement by the lawmakers over the bill that has split them into two opposing camps, members of the public have risen to condemn the bill in its entirety.
But if the position adopted by the leadership of the house was meant to douse the tension generated by the bill , it failed woefully because many questions have remained unanswered.
For instance, why should a bill seeking to increase the revenue of the state be a private member bill? Similarly, what does the lead sponsor of the bill stand to gain in the event of the bill being passed into law?
While answers to the questions were being earnestly contemplated, it emerged that some powerful tax consultants who are interested in getting contracts on revenue collection from the state government have been behind the bill.
This has made some lawmakers in the assembly to believe that something is fishy, vowing that they would not have anything to do with the bill.
Again, while opposition to the bill by other lawmakers could be taken lightly that of Ukoh, a former speaker has been seen in a different light.
Having been a speaker for a short while until his election was annulled by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in 2015; Ukoh later returned to the house after another round of election but could not retain his seat. His opposition to the bill is seen in some quarters as anti-leadership, an attempt to get at the leadership of the assembly.
It is against this background that the leadership of the house has frowned at the opposition to the bill apparently led by Ukoh, thinking that the former speaker could still be nursing an ambition to wrest power from the present speaker.
Opposition to the bill has continued to swell, with a non-governmental organisation, Policy Alert, saying the bill cannot be accepted until it is retouched to protect the ordinary people, adding that since most of the buildings are owned by politicians, it is likely to be abused.
“Politicians, who own all the big properties will get tax waivers and the tax burden will fall on lower income brackets,” the group said in a statement issued by its executive director, Tijah Bolton.
The real property charge bill was read the first time on May 24, 2016 and was listed for second reading on February 14, 2017 before the uproar began.
