Why Independent Review Panel Cleared Adesina (See Full Report)
The high-level independent panel set up to review the report of the Ethics Committee of the Boards of Directors on the allegations made by whistle blowers against the President of the AfDB Group, Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, has exonerated the bank’s president.
On 1 July 2020, the Chairperson announced the selection of a High-Level Panel of Independent Experts to conduct that Review. The members are: Mrs Mary Robinson, Chair, Justice Hassan B Jallow and Mr Leonard F McCarthy. b) The task of Enforcement of the Code, was conferred by Article 18 of the Code on the Ethics Committee which was given “general responsibility for determining all questions relating to the Code of Conduct and for enforcing the standards set forth in the Code of Conduct.”
b) The Ethics Committee is not assigned any express role in respect of the Policy. However, Section 2.2 states that: “The Auditor General is designated as the advocate for whistle- blowers and is authorized to implement this Policy. The Anti-Corruption and Fraud Investigation Division in the Office of the Auditor-General shall be responsible for undertaking investigations under this Policy.
“The Ethics Committee shall conduct a preliminary examination of the complaint or allegation to determine whether it is based on apparently solid justifications with a view to submitting it to the Chairperson of the Bureau of the Board of Governors under the following conditions: c. The Resolution mandates a strict distinction between a preliminary examination and an investigation.a) Following the receipt of the complaints the Board of Directors of the Bank Group, as disclosed to the Ethics Committee at its meeting on 27 February, held a closed session and decided to refer the complaints to the Ethics Committee. The complaints had, in fact, already been transmitted to the Committee.
. e) The Ethics Committee proceeded to conduct the examination of the complaints as required by Resolution B/BG/2008/11 of 14 May 2008. The Committee held a series of meetings on 27 February, 12 March, 26 March, 2 April and 9 April 2020 with a view to performing its function of conducting a preliminary examination of the sixteen allegations contained in the complaint.
o TheGeneralCounseladvisedtheCommitteeon26Marchandthe Committee accepted that the whistle-blowers’ complaints were formally admissible since they were made against an elected officer. Thus, they fell within the Committee’s mandate. Substantive admissibility could be determined only following a point-by-point examination of the individual allegations,
ii. The Director explained that, while the Committee’s mandate focuses on elected officers, the mandate and jurisdiction of PIAC cover only employees and contractors. The investigation of elected officers is beyond its mandate. In the event that PIAC encountered a matter concerning an elected officer, it would, however, be bound to report it to the Ethics Committee.
The Auditor General. The Committee also invited the Auditor General to attend its meetings with a view to finding out which, if any, of the whistle-blowers’ complaints had been audited by his office. As already noted, the Auditor General had formerly been authorised to implement the Whistle-Blowing and Complaints Handling Policy. However, the Auditor General had not received the whistle-blowers complaints, which had been sent to PIAC, until they were supplied to him by the Committee.
The Committee decided to continue its deliberations at its next meeting on 9 April in relation to complaint number 4, which concerned alleged mismanagement of an agricultural programme and complaint number 10 concerning awards received by the President and potential costs borne by the Bank for such awards.
The Committee then conducted a preliminary examination of the two outstanding allegations, numbers 4 and 10. It decided unanimously that both allegations were unsubstantiated and that they should be dismissed. In relation to each of these cases, it decided as follows: a. The Ethics Committee: Under Article 18 of the Code of Conduct, as stated at Chapter III b above, the Ethics Committee, which is a Committee of the Board of Directors has “general responsibility for determining all questions relating to the Code of Conduct and for enforcing the standards set forth in the Code of Conduct.”
f.
k. The proceedings of the Ethics Committee are recorded in the Minutes of five lengthy meetings held on 27 February, 12 March, 27 March and 2 and 9 April 2020. The Minutes show that the Committee engaged in detailed analysis and debate on each of the sixteen complaints. It used an excel template provided to it by its Vice Chairperson to assist in a point-by-point examination.
The Panel would add that it does not necessarily follow from the dismissal of a complaint that there are not matters worthy of investigation. This has prompted the Panel to make comments in some cases. These do not detract from the Panel’s conclusion that the complaints, which were all made against the President were correctly dismissed at the stage of preliminary examination.
The complainants declined to provide any evidence to support any of these allegations. The complainants declined to proffer any evidence of the alleged dismissal of the staff member or of the personal involvement of the Bank President in her recruitment as a consultant to the Bank or of any protest or resignation by the head of HR of the Bank. The complaint was unsupported by any evidence. The Committee found the allegation to be unsubstantiated and dismissed them.
The complainants declined to provide any evidence to support any of these allegations. The Committee decided that the allegation was unsubstantiated and should be dismissed as it lacks credible evidence and was weakened by the inclusion of hearsay in it. The Panel finds this allegation to have been rightly dismissed by the Ethics Committee.
The allegations made against the named individual in this respect and also the President are totally false and unfounded, and the Committee was right in dismissing them.
The complainants failed to provide any evidence to support their allegation or, indeed, any evidence of alleged impropriety. In addition to these considerations, the Committee itself has sufficiently explained the circumstances surrounding the departure of the staff member as well as the level of theseverance package that he received and the Panel is satisfied with that and with the decision of the Committee to dismiss the allegation.Resignation of a named staff member – The complainants allege first that this staff member signed two service contracts through direct procurement amounting to $2.
The complaint is that instead of being sanctioned by the Bank, the staff member was allowed to resign and receive what the complainants called a “golden parachute” as part of an amicable settlement. The complainants have not provided any particulars, and elements of this alleged golden parachute. There is no evidence provided by the complainants that the President de facto or de jure has the authority to grant leave of absence for such officers and to refrain from sanctioning them for unauthorized absences. They provided no evidence, other than surmise, that the President in fact knew or authorized. For that reason, the Committee was right in dismissing the allegation against the President.
The Panel concurs with the Committee in its findings in respect of all the allegations against the President and finds that they were properly considered and dismissed by the Committee.
• Complaint No 1: The first complaint is a general and sweeping allegation that the President regards human resource matters as his personal fiefdom, inserts himself in shortlisting processes, is actively involved in recruitment and implies that the delays, vacancies and lack of succession planning may be part of a “strategy to reward countries for the support to the President’s re- election”. The President does not directly deal with this allegation.
In respect of complaint number 9, it should fall within the knowledge of the Board of Directors and the Board of Governors who initiated, updated, and approved the Bank’s organizational structure when the country office was established. It is alleged that the President promoted Nigeria to a fully- fledged region, giving preferential treatment to its nationals.
Nigeria Latest News, Nigeria Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
AfDB: Independent Review Panel Clears Adesina - THISDAYLIVEThe high-level independent panel set up to review the report of the Ethics Committee of the Boards of Directors on the allegations made by whistle blowers against the President of the AfDB Group, Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, has exonerated the bank’s president. The high-level panel of experts chaired by a former President of Ireland, Mrs. Mary …
Read more »
JUST IN: AfDB: Independent Review Panel clears Adesina of all allegationsThe three-member Independent Review Panel include Mary Robinson, who is a former President of the Republic of Ireland.
Read more »
AfDB crisis: Independent review panel clears Adesina of wrongdoingsA much awaited report by an Independent Review Panel has cleared the President of the African Development Bank (AfDB) Akinwumi Adesina of any ethical wrongdoings. The Independent Review Panel was s…
Read more »
Independent Review Panel clears Adesina of all allegationsThe three-member Independent Review Panel include Mary Robinson, who is a former President of the Republic of Ireland.
Read more »
BREAKING: AfDB: Independent panel clears Adesina - Daily Post NigeriaAn Independent Review Panel has exonerated the President of the African Development Bank (AfDB), Akinwumi Adesina, of any ethical wrongdoings. The panel
Read more »
![[BREAKING] AfDB probe: Independent panel clears Adesina as election holds Aug](https://i.headtopics.com/images/2020/7/28/mobilepunch/breaking-afdb-probe-independent-panel-clears-adesina-as-election-holds-aug-1288000311970406401.webp?w=640)
[BREAKING] AfDB probe: Independent panel clears Adesina as election holds Aug
Read more »