Snippets of the report of the Ekiti State Judicial Commission of Inquiry raised to probe financial transactions by the former Governor Kayode Fayemi’s administration were released late on Wednesday. The report indicates that Fayemi must account for the whereabouts of N2.75 billion allocated from the N25 billion bond obtained by his administration for the construction of the Ado Ekiti Ultramodern Market.
The seven-member panel submitted its report to Governor Ayo Fayose at the Executive Chambers of the Governor’s Office in Ado-Ekiti.
The panel led by Justice Silas Oyewole (retd) in its report said the project was never executed.
It also said the contractor that handled the furnishing of the Government House built by the Fayemi administration should be made to refund N324.8 million, noting that the contract should not have been more than N280 million.
The panel said it found out that Kitwood Nigeria Limited to which the furnishing contract of over N600 million was awarded had no traceable address and that “the address on the Letter of Award is a virgin land opposite the new Central Bank along New Iyin Road, Ado-Ekiti.
On the purchase of vehicles, the panel said “claim by Coscharis Motors that it supplied 235 and/or 250 vehicles was fraudulent and fraught with so many contradictions.
“That Coscharis Motors supplied some vehicles outside Ekiti State especially, at Ibadan Liaison office, when Ekiti State Government does not have a Liaison office in Ibadan. In respect of this, seven vehicles were supplied outside the state and signed for by unknown persons.
“That Coscharis Motors only supplied 219 vehicles to the Ekiti State government and that 17 Joylong Buses were supplied to the Ekiti State Government as gift but later carted away.”
On the controversial N852.9 million State Universal Education Board (SUBEB) fund, the panel alleged that the Fayemi administration hoodwinked the federal government into paying its own matching grant by obtaining N852, 936,783.12 loan from Access Bank on November 25, 2013 without perfecting documentation in respect of the loan, thereby flouting the provisions of Section 11(2) of the UBEC Act, 2004.
