Rivers Assembly: PAMO University N28bn Probe Faces Legal Challenge

• The Rivers State House of Assembly is probing PAMO University of Medical Sciences over N28 billion in state funds disbursed since 2017.
• The legislative inquiry follows the Assembly's rejection of a N6 billion allocation for PUMS in the 2026 state budget due to alleged lack of transparency.
• PUMS's lawyer, Chukwuma Chinwo, asserts the university's Vice-Chancellor will not appear, arguing the Assembly lacks jurisdiction over the private institution.
• The Assembly, led by Deputy Speaker Dumle Maol, maintains its constitutional right to investigate under Sections 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution.
• This dispute highlights a significant legal challenge regarding the extent of legislative oversight powers concerning private entities receiving public funds.

This development highlights a critical dispute over the scope of legislative oversight powers concerning private institutions receiving public funds.

The Rivers State House of Assembly (RSHA) has initiated a comprehensive probe into the financial dealings of PAMO University of Medical Sciences (PUMS), focusing on over N28 billion in funds disbursed by the state government since 2017. This inquiry intensified after the RSHA, on September 3, rejected a N6 billion allocation earmarked for PUMS within the N1.8 trillion 2026 state budget, which was submitted by Governor Siminalayi Fubara. The rejected funds were intended for scholarships for Rivers State indigenes pursuing medical studies at the institution.

The legislative body, led by Speaker Martin Amaewhule, expressed concerns regarding the transparency of fund management by PUMS, an institution owned by former state governor Dr. Peter Odili, who also serves as its Pro-Chancellor. Following the removal of the N6 billion allocation from the budget, which Governor Fubara subsequently assented to, the Assembly constituted an ad hoc committee a few days later. Chaired by Deputy Speaker Dumle Maol, this committee was tasked with investigating all funds disbursed to the university since 2017.

The committee subsequently issued invitations to the PUMS Vice-Chancellor, along with key state officials including the Accountant General, Commissioner for Finance, and Commissioner for Education, requesting their appearance to account for the expenditure of the appropriated funds. After the initial summons for September 16 went unheeded, the committee rescheduled the appearance for Thursday, September 24. The RSHA committee has explicitly warned that it may invoke constitutional powers to issue an arrest warrant should the invitees fail to comply with the new directive.

A significant legal dispute has emerged, with PUMS's lawyer, Chukwuma Chinwo, firmly stating that the university's Vice-Chancellor will not appear before the Assembly's ad hoc committee. Speaking to reporters in Port Harcourt, Chinwo contended that the state legislature is overstepping its jurisdictional boundaries, asserting that the RSHA did not directly appropriate funds *to* the university. He drew an analogy, questioning whether parents funding their children's education at a university would then invite the institution to account for the spending of those funds.

Chinwo emphasized that while PUMS regularly provides certification to the Ministry of Education, the current demand for appearance before the Assembly committee lacks legal basis. He advised his clients against appearing, citing concerns about legality and the potential for setting an undesirable precedent. The lawyer stressed that any invocation of power by the Assembly must be legally sound, arguing that the committee lacks jurisdiction over PUMS under these specific circumstances.

Conversely, the RSHA ad hoc committee, through its chairman Dumle Maol, has vigorously defended its authority to conduct the inquiry. Maol cited Sections 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution, which he stated empower the Assembly to investigate how funds appropriated by the state government have been expended. This constitutional backing, according to Maol, grants the legislature the right to demand accountability from any entity, including private institutions, that has received public funds.

The core of the Rivers Assembly PAMO University N28bn probe revolves around substantial financial flows and alleged inconsistencies. Deputy Speaker Dumle Maol revealed that documents obtained from the state Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Education presented contradictory information regarding the university's funding. Specifically, records from the Ministry of Finance indicate that PAMO University has received over N28 billion from the Rivers State government since 2017.

This significant sum reportedly includes N1 billion received in 2026, a detail that underscores the scale of public investment in the institution. Maol asserted that the sheer volume of these disbursements, particularly the N28 billion figure, unequivocally grants the Rivers State House of Assembly the constitutional right to inquire into the expenditure of these funds. The Assembly's position is that its oversight powers extend to any institution that benefits from state appropriations, regardless of its private status, to ensure fiscal responsibility and transparency.

This escalating confrontation between the Rivers State House of Assembly and PAMO University of Medical Sciences carries profound implications for the interpretation and application of legislative oversight powers within Nigeria. The dispute highlights a critical debate over the extent to which state assemblies can compel private institutions, particularly those receiving substantial public funding, to account for their financial management. The university's challenge to the Assembly's jurisdiction, grounded in the argument that funds were for scholarships rather than direct institutional appropriation, sets a potential precedent for how similar situations might be handled across the country.

The outcome of this Rivers Assembly PAMO University N28bn probe will likely clarify the legal boundaries of Sections 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution, specifically concerning inquiries into private entities. It will also influence how private institutions engage with state governments and how legislative bodies assert their constitutional mandate for accountability. The resolution of this standoff will be closely watched by legal practitioners and institutions alike, as it could redefine the scope of transparency expected from private organizations benefiting from public coffers.

This development highlights a critical dispute over the scope of legislative oversight powers (Sections 128 & 129 of the 1999 Constitution) concerning private institutions receiving public funds. Lawyers advising such institutions should closely monitor the outcome to understand the legal limits of state assembly jurisdiction and the grounds for challenging summons or inquiries, particularly regarding financial transparency and accountability.

Source: Original reporting via Punch Newspaper