Segun Awolowo defends honour and family against corruption allegations

 Breaking News

Segun Awolowo defends honour and family against corruption allegations

Segun Awolowo defends honour and family against corruption allegations
April 01
13:55 2016

• NEPC boss responds to perceived smear campaign by faceless detractors

Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront society with the perplexity of radical evil; but only a bigot and hypocrite whose mind is unhinged and starved of tact would attempt the heinous acts attributed to Segun Awolowo. Unlike the random politician whose judgment and conscience bends like a broken reed to every gale of dark delight, Segun Awolowo maintains that he is remarkably different. The grandson of late nationalist and political sage, Obafemi Awolowo, is peeved and mortified by the allegations levelled against him by his detractors at the Nigerian Export Promotion Council (NEPC).

In a strongly worded rebuttal addressed to the country’s Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, Okechukwu Enelemah, Awolowo has issued his defense to the various allegations levelled against him.
The rebuttal entitled: “RE-COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE RULES, FEDERAL CHARACTER PROVISIONS AND OTHER AND IRREGULARITIES BY THE MANAGEMENT OF NIGERIAN EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL (NEPC) IN THE CONDUCT OF 2012, 2013 AND 2014 PROMOTION EXERCISE,” offers Awolowo’s carefully thought out response to what he considers spurious claims made against his person.
Excerpts of his statement are presented below:

ADM/OM/267/14 28th January, 2016.
The Honourable Minister
Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade & Investment,
Old Federal Secretariat
Area 1, Garki,

Attention:Permanent Secretary

I wish to acknowledge the receipt of your letter with Reference No: T/FAL/952/T/113 dated 20th January, 2016on the above subject matter.

2. Before I go into the responses, let me observe here that none of the Staff had approached me or the Management on the issue of grievances regarding the promotion exercise; I only knew about it when the petition surfaced. Ordinarily, one would have expected that the internal resolution mechanism would be explored first before externalizing the issue.

3. For the purpose of clarity and in line with extant Public Service Rules (PSR), I wish to respond to the complaints of alleged violation and irregularities petitioned by some staff of the Nigerian Export Promotion Council (NEPC) as follows:

3.1 The Nigerian Export Promotion Council (NEPC) is a Federal Government Agency, established by Decree 26 of 1976 with subsequent amendments in 1986 and 1992 to perform the following key functions:
 Promote the development and diversification of Nigeria’s export trade.
 Assist in promoting the development of export-oriented industries.
 Play a leading role in the creation of export incentives .
 Actively promote the implementation of export policies and programmes of the Federal Government.
 The Council is a parastatal under the Federal ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment.
3.2. One of the challenges that confronted my Management when I assumed office as the Executive Director/CEO of the Nigerian Export Promotion Council on 18th November, 2013 was the retirement of four (4) Directors within a space of three (3) months of my assumption of office. Out of the four, three (3) were from the North West and one (1) from the South East. The second big challenge was the huge backlog of promotion inherited from the previous Management. Perhaps, the third constraint was the absence of a Governing Board who ordinarily conducts promotion exercises for the Directorate Cadre. We resolved to tackle the second challenge headlong by conducting the first promotion exercise under my watch in August 2014.and the second one in July 2015. This was done with a view to clearing all the arrears of promotion, so that subsequent ones could be conducted as at when due.

3.3 The allegation that promotion in the Council have tilted in favour of “Yorubas” is very unfortunate. This is complete falsehood that cannot be supported by the facts on ground. (Please see annexture A).

3.4 At this point let me state categorically that I met Mr. M. O. Ibrahim as the Director, Office of the CEO/Incentives when I assumed office. He was placed in that position by the previous CEO and as I learnt, later by the Governing Board. It is a coincidence that Mr. M. O. Ibrahim is from the South-West, and he happens to be the most Senior Director after the retirement of the four (4) other Directors. From NEPC records, Mr. A. L. Akowas the most Senior Director when Mr. David Adulugbawas the CEO from 2008 – 2011. They were both from Benue State.Mr. A. M. Lawal, who handed over to me became the most Senior Director from 2011. He is from Zamfara State. The above were mere coincidences.

Mr. H. O. Otowo, was the Director OCEO/Incentives from 2009 to 2013, when the Governing Boardbrought in Mr. M. O. Ibrahim. If the aggrieved staff had this in mind all along, why didn’t they bring up their petition against this Director before now?.

3.5 Hon. Minister, I present the true position of Directors’ placement in the Council. Upon my resumption I inherited the following:

Grade Level Number Names Region/Religion State
17 8 MrAliyuLawalMr. Sabo BelloMr. Idris KokoMr. SidiAliyuMr. H. O.Otowo

Mr. I. Mohammed

Mr. M. O. Ibrahim

Mr. D. N. Onwubiko










In a quick succession, four of them retired after the mandatory 35/60 years/8 years tenure. The import of this is that I was left with only four Directors (one of them, Mr. I. A. Mohammed is in Taiwan) as follows:


Grade Levels Number Names Region/Religion State
17 4 Mr. M. O. IbrahimMr. H. O. OtowoMr. I. A. MohammedMr. SidiAliyu  South/MuslimNorth/ChristianNorth/MuslimNorth/Muslim  OndoBenueNigerKogi

All the Directors mentioned above were present during the 2015 promotion exercise.

3.6 The vacuum created by the exit of the four (4) Directors upon my resumption no doubt poised a lot of challenges. As part of my learning process, I have to direct that the available Substantive Directors play supervisory roles for Departments that didn’t have substantive Directors. All the three (3) Directors namely: M. O. Ibrahim, H. O. Otowo and SidiAliyu were respectively given supervisory roles, which I later abolished after a short while (since 2014) to test the capacity of the Deputy Directors in handling their respective Departments.

3.7 It will seem that the petitioners are not in tune with the happenings in the Council, otherwise how could they now allege that only one (1) man is saddled with the responsibility for all the Departments? This is an indication of indolence, mediocrity and a deliberate attempt to be mischievous.


Grade Level Number Names Region/Religion State
17 8 Mr. M. O. IbrahimMr. H. O. OtowoMr.I. A. MohammedMr. SidiAliyuMr. N. N. Kwamegh

Mr. M. A. Iranloye

Mr.Enyiekpon, G.D


Mr. W. Ezeagu









Akwa- Ibom


The table and the chart below further clearly show that the petitioners are economical with the truth.


(Please See Annexture B)

3.11 The petitioners in their words alleged that ‘the Senior Staff Committee
(SSC) deliberately attempted to jeopardise the promotion opportunities of Staff by ……… The kangaroo arrangement….’ referring to an approval of a serving Permanent Secretary, as acknowledged by them, as kangaroo arrangement leaves much to be desired of the character and nature of the petitioners. As I earlier stated, I had conducted two promotion exercises to rectify the delayed promotion. It is therefore untrue that the promotion interview was delayed so as to suppress seniority.
3.12 On the allegation of SSC providing for accounting examination in the Directorate cadre which was not declared in the establishment budget to favour some. This is not correct, it was declared in the establishment budget. Specifically, it is a general norm in NEPC and acceptable practice in the Civil Service to provide professional questions namely – Operations, Administration, Accounting and Secretarial for candidates. Every candidate is aware of this.

4.0. The issue of alleged jerking up of pass mark to 70% and 75% as against 60% as stipulated in the Civil Service. The Guidelines for Appointments, Promotion and Discipline in the Civil Service stipulates under Part IV – Promotion Number 5 Paragraph 2 that ‘Eligibility for promotion shall depend on meeting the minimum score of 60%and satisfying all promotion criteria, including availability of vacancy. (Please see annexure C). The import of this is that scoring minimum of 60% is one of the criteria and it is not final determinant for promotion and besides, the Senior Staff Committee (SSC) has the prerogative to determine the cut-off mark, in line with contemporary realities.

4.1 The above were comprehensively addressed in my circular and memo to the Staff before the exam and the release of NEPC Export Magazine where all NEPC activities were documented. The Guidelines for Appointments,

Promotion and Discipline Part IV – Promotion Number 17 (i) – (vi) gave conditions for Promotion to Posts on Salary Grade Levels 15 – 17. Specifically, Number (v) states inter alia that ‘ Where Scheme of Service prescribes the passing of an examination and registration with a professional body as a condition for promotion, such examination and registration shall be regarded as a pre-requisite for consideration’.

4.2 Allegations against CMD. In order to ensure fairness and give all Candidates equal opportunities and level playing ground, Centre for Management Development, Federal Government Agency was appointed to conduct the interview. (Please see annexure D). The decision has a lot of advantages which include fairness, speed, fool proof of leakages/insider abuse. The use of professional organisation to handle critical task like this is the best approach being adopted locally (NIPC and FIRS) and internationally. If NEPC must deliver in the global arena, it must adopt international best practices that will aid the efficiency and productivity of the staff. If an unbiased Government approved external body conducted the exercise and some officers are making untrue allegations as we are witnessing now, perhaps the worst would have happened if handled by internally constituted SSC, considering the fact that, even before the exercise, some staff had expressed their lack of confidence in the Committee. (Please see annextures D1).

4.3 I have no doubt in the CMD’s integrity. On the question of officers scoring same marks, it could be seen that EPC No’s 797 and 798, 1348 and 1454, 1361 and 486 including numerous others scored the same marks. It was mere coincidence. (Please see annexure E).


5.1. Mutilation, falsification of information and distortion of Staff records leveled against Mr B. O. Faleke. In order to cover up their deeds, the petitioners refused to mention the date Faleke returned to the NEPC. His approval to return and join his colleagues was in 2009 and was duly approved by the Hon. Minister. (Please see annexure F). This is a case of vendetta. This issue was decided 8 years ago and the officer had been promoted within the period under review. He was promoted an AD on January 1st, 2011. The mention of this in the petition is contrary to the provision of PSR on petitions to be entertained as it has exceeded the mandatory six (6) months.

5.2 The alleged falsification of age by Mr. M. O. Ibrahim – The claim is ridiculous and untenable. The information from M. O. Ibrahim personal file and International passport indicated that he was born on 9th September, 1956. If the petitioners are sure of their claim, they should provide evidence.

5.3 The allegation that three (3) out of the four (4) existing Directors (Mr H. O. Otowo, MrSidiAliyu and Mohammed A. Ibrahim) were promoted at the time when there was no vacancy for the promotion of Director (2009) was not true. In fact it was the NEPC Governing Board that conducted and approved their promotion.

5.4 It is worth mentioning here that Mr A. G. Ganiyu sat for 2010 promotion and scored the same mark with MrBala Hassan. The SSC resolved to promote both officers. However, MrBala Hassan was promoted while MrGaniyu was not. As I stated earlier, Mr A. G. Ganiyu was denied his promotion due to no fault of his. His name was omitted. A representation on this matter was made to the then Hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment. The approval from the FMIT&I only came on 24th June, 2015, hence the directive was implemented. (Please see annexure G).
5.5 It is not true MrTijjani K. Zakari was deliberately denied writing promotion exam for the year 2011. This is a ploy to destabilise NEPC. Tijjani K. Zakari was employed in 1998 and placed on Grade Level 12 when he transferred his Service from Katsina State while on Grade Level 10 The regulation is that he should have been employed one step lower i.e. GL. 09, in which case he might not have been an Assistant Director now. (And nobody petitioned against him for this undue advantage). He was promoted to the post of a Chief Trade Promotion Officer with effect from 1st January 2005 and subsequently promoted to the post of an Assistant Director with effect from 1st December, 2010. How could this officer qualify for promotion to Deputy Director in 2011? This is mere fallacy that ordinarily should be penalized. (Please see annexture H).

5.6 NEPC as an Agency of the Federal Government encourages its staff to improve and acquire additional certificate to enhance their productivity. This is in line with the Guidelines for Appointments, Promotion and Discipline Part IV – Promotion Number 6 which ‘charged MDAs with the responsibility of recommending eligible officers for promotion/upgrading and conversion to post on Salary Grade Levels 07 – 14. The lateral conversion of the officer was done in March 2012 after acquiring the necessary qualifications in 2010 and was deemed eligible by the SSC.
It is germane to mention here that the lateral conversion of Mr. Rufus Durodoye to officer cadre was done along with fourteen (14) other eligible  candidates in March 2012 with effect from 20th September, 2010. (Please see annexure I).
7. Alleged exclusion of Hassan Bala from being considered in 2014. This is a high level of absurdity when the petitioners claimed Hassan Bala was deliberately excluded from the 2014 promotion exercise and at the same time claiming that he was invited and participated at the event. Hassan Bala transferred his service from Lagos International Trade Fair Complex with effect from 11th November, 2009 and accepted the conditions as given for his appointment by the NEPC Governing Board. He accepted the conditions in writing, but thereafter, without reference to the Board, Mr. Bala Hassan obtained a letter from the then Director Admin & Human Resources backdating his effective date to 1st January 2006 when he had not joined the services of the NEPC. The letter had been nullified by the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment. (Please see
annexure J).

8. The petitioners alleged that MrsOpeyemiAbebe was seconded to an organisation which had no relationship whatsoever with activities of the Council and the Nigerian nation. These petitioners are wicked, vindictive and pathological liars. Mrs. OpeyemiAbebe was seconded to the Canadian Embassy for the position of Trade Commissioner in line with PSR 020502 (iv) which states inter alia ‘Secondment of an officer to the service of another Government, or Approved body or recognised International Organisation at his own request shall be for a maximum period of two years in the first instance after which the officer must apply for extension, seek for transfer or return to his former post’. Her schedule of duties are in clear tandem with Trade Promotion activities. (See annexure K).

9. On allegation that examination questions were set days before the exercise, all I can say is that CMD came to the examination hall on that day with sealed envelopes containing the questions and opened them in the full glare of everybody. Could it then imply that the Petitioners were trailing the CMD to have a glimpse of the possible questions? Otherwise how did they know when the questions were set?
10. The Senior Staff Committee did not set, administer or mark the
questions, hence the body could not have adjusted any mark whatsoever. The SSC only sets the cut-off marks and all aspiring Directors that met the stipulated cut off marks were promoted.

11. In the absence of the Governing Board, the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, as the supervising Ministry, is always involved in the promotion excise of the Council. However, from the records available in the Council, the Civil Service Commission and Office of the Head Of Service of the Federation have never participated in NEPC’s promotion exercise.


12.1The allocation of fund in the Council is not lopsided. As I earlier mentioned in my introduction, NEPC is a specialised Agency with its peculiarities. In order to carry out key functions of the Council, a formula was agreed by Management. This formula coupled with the incessant travel of Management has made this statutory allocation sacrosanct. The Special Intervention Fund being referred to as contingency fund was not exclusively for the ED/CEO. It is meant as intervention funds to the various Departments and Zonal Offices of NEPC.

12.1 It is untrue that ED/CEO single-handedly allocates funds without recourse to the Fund Allocation Committee. The true picture is that on assumption of office, each time we received funds the Fund Allocation Committee (FAC) would meet to allocate the funds. This exercise was religiously followed in spite of the experienced challenges as you have to postpone meetings for members to attend. It was, however, observed that every meeting produced similar allocation pattern and as an antidote to the recurrent delays experienced in the attempts at making the Funds Allocation Committee to meet, I had to use my discretion to make funds available for the
smooth running of the Council by applying already established pattern from
several meetings of the Committee. It should also be noted that, there is
nothing like contingency, the miscellaneous provision is a stop gap measure to keep office running at all times and virtually all operational departments have benefited from it. I also wish to add that the anticipatory approvals were always ratified by the Fund Allocation Committee.

12.2. On the allegation of incessant travel by the ED/CEO – There is no way the Council can deliver on its mandate if efforts are not made to take advantage of the existing opportunities, locally and internationally. The need to diversify the economy can only be achieved by being active participant in non-oil export relevant events both at home and abroad. Part of the mistakes of the past is failure to engage actively the developing partners in realisation of the Council and the nation’s goals. The reports of all these engagements and empirical and verifiable benefits in terms of MOUs signed and contracts entered into by the private sector operators are contained in the respective operational files and well captured under the Key

Performance Indicators (KPI) of NEPC over a period of time. (Please see attached NEPC KPI report for year 2014 marked K1).

The Technical Assistants to the ED/CEO were neither on the payroll of the Council nor were included in the Senior Staff Committee (SSC) that conducted the 2014 promotion. They are with the NEPC to add value as we recognize the need for private sector inputs in our activities. We have three (3) working in the Office of the ED/CEO sponsored by:
(i) United Bank of Africa Plc
(ii) Zenith Bank Plc; and
(iii) Skye Bank
And these placements were approved by the Hon Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment.

All payments made to KPMG were in line with contract document. It is abnormal to just hand pick one document without considering the full contract of engagement. The components are professional service and reimbursable (Please see annexture L).

The petitioners alleged that the ED/CEO is using fleet of cars, six (6) in number including a siren blaring pick-up van. This is a wicked and fabricated lies in the dark imagination of the petitioners. On my arrival at NEPC, I met, both at the Headquarters and Zonal Offices, some rickety vehicles including two parked-up Land Cruiser purportedly meant for the ED/CEO and the Chairman of the Governing Board. I set in machinery to refurbish/repair the vehicles, however, on several occasions they broke down on the road. This necessitated the purchase of staff buses, hilux pick-up project vehicles and two cars to replace the 10-year old Land Cruisers. And these staff buses (both refurbished/repaired) andhilux pick-up project vehicles were deployed to NEPC Zonal Offices. These are verifiable facts.

14.1 The NEPC- GIS partnership is a collaborative initiative between the Council and the Graduate Internship Scheme (GIS) of SURE-P GIS. The partnership is an attempt by the two organisations to work together towards discharging our statutory responsibilities as well as achieving some of the targets set out by Federal Government in the areas of reducing unemployment, Skills Acquisition, Capacity Building and creating pool of trained graduates, capable of adding value to participating employers.

14.2 Interns are trained on export activities and then deployed to companies and export related organisations, while Government pays them a monthly stipend for a year. All the interns deployed to the Council and the companies are paid their monthly stipend directly to their accounts by the GIS.

14.3 While the funds released to the Council for the first phase of the project have been utilized judiciously and are accounted for accordingly. The retirement of first phase of the project that had been fully completed has already been made to the GIS Secretariat.

There is no iota of truth in this allegation. The work of NEPC is trade promotion and we cannot promote trade in Nigeria without going out for Trade Missions, trade promotion meetings, Solo Exhibition and Trade Fairs. And all the alleged trips were duly approved and due process followed. The Reports of various events mentioned are in their various files. Where
officers who were supposed to be part of the programmescould not attend refunds were made, accordingly. It should also be noted that the work of trade promotion is continuous and where programmeswere rescheduled/postpone officers were directed to withhold the fund pending the announcement of a new date. (Please see L1 – L2)

16.1 Although I was not in the Council when this event took place, but from the reports and records available, it was yet the most ambitious and most successful project the Council had ever carried out. Virtually the whole of ECOWAS converged in Lome for the solo Exhibition of Nigerian products for a whole two weeks.

16.2 Over 40 staff of NEPC, FMIT&I, Members of the NEPC Governing Board, Nigerian Customs Services and about 90 Private Companies from Nigeria participated in the event at various stages and in different capacities. The NTA in Accra, Ghana was full mobilized and the video recordings are available. It is ironic that some of the staff whose names were attached to the petition fully participated in the event playing different roles. While some of them travelled to different ECOWAS Countries to mobilise, some actually participated in the main event.

16.3 From the records, an intervention fund was granted to NEPC to implement theLome Solo Exhibition. Both the project document and the budget were approved by the NEPC Governing Board. It is instructive to note however, that although, Mr. M. O. Ibrahim co-ordinated this historic project, he was not given any cash as the usual practice. Rather the Accounts Department disbursed all payments to the beneficiaries. M. O. Ibrahim only collected his estacode allowance, just like all the other staff. It is important to also note that four (4) Directors were involved in the co-ordination of the exhibition in Lome.

16.4 From what I learnt, M. O. Ibrahim was commended by all, including the Board Chairman for doing a wonderful job inspite of the constraints of not being given the fund directly. It therefore beats one’s imagination to allege that this dutiful staff mismanaged N170 million by the petitioners. This is sheer treachery. (Please see annexture M1-M3).

This allegation is also intended to malign the Travel Agency that grantflight tickets to staff on credit within short notices. The staff offset their indebtedness to the agencywhen approved fundsfor the events are paid which usually takes some time.


18.1 Eleanor Roosevelt said and I quote ‘Great Minds discuss ideas; Average Minds discuss events; and Small Minds discuss people. This shows their level of IQ. I will leave the petitioners to their judgement.
18.2 On the issue of the Circular issued on 28th October, 2015, as an administrator, it is expected that after a thorough exercise on change, there must be resistance. This circular is in line with PSR 090101 that has given every officer who has any representations to do so, accordingly.
19. Honourable Minister Sir, the NEPC Governing Board was dissolved just before my appointment. So, all approvals for practically everything we did was sought and approval received from Hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, our Supervising Ministry.
20. Going through the petition and the above submissions, it can be observed that:
(a) The petitioners used foul language in their petition and exhibit acts unbecoming of a Public Servant.

(b) The petitioners did not route their petitions as required by the PSR No. 160601. Copies of the petition were made available to the DSS, Federal Character Commission, EFCC and SGF without passing through the Council and FMIT&I.

(c) The petitioners have no confidence in any system as copies of this petition had been sent to virtually every Institution in the Country viz:

– Directorate of State Services (DSS)

– Federal Character Commission (FCC)
– Hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment (HMIT&I)
– National Assembly (both Chambers)
– Public Complaints Commission (PCC)
– Secretary to the Government of the Federation etc.
If these staff have confidence in any of these Institutions, why have they reproduced the content of the same petition and forwarded to all these places? This is unnecessary distraction and it violates extant PSR 090208 (a) which states that
“A petition will not be entertained if it:
(i) Does not comply with Rule 090201;
(ii) Is worded in abusive, improper, or foul language; or
(iii) Merely repeats the substance of a previous petition without introducing new relevant matter.” (See annexture N).
(d) Judging from the fact that the petitionwas not signed by all the
Complainants and the fact that some of the complainants had
written to renounce the petition showed that the document was put together by dishonest and redundant officers inserting the names of others just to validate the petition. (Please see annextures N1 and N2).

(e) The cancellation of the 2014 promotion exercise conducted on 27th, 28thand 29th July, 2015 as being pleaded by the complainants is uncalled for and could not withstand the test of justice and fairness as their failures do not reduce the integrity of the exercise.

(f) The Council has not contravened the principle of Federal Character as being alleged by the Petitioners.

(g) The petitioners did not explore the internal machinery of the Council but chose to externalise the issues.

21. The petition also:

(a) Contravenes PSR Chapter 9 Rule 090201 (ii) which states that ‘Without prejudice to their constitutional rights, officers should as much as possible exhaust all avenues provided in the Public Service Rules and Circulars for redress……’
(b) Contravenes PSR 090203 which states that ‘An officer must not attempt to bring political or other outside influence to support his individual claims…’

(c) Did not comply with PSR 090206 which states that ‘A petition must bear the full name, staff number, signature and address of the petitioner.’

(d) The petition is malicious, vindictive, ethnic and religious-oriented, destructive and capable of rubbishing the ‘Change’ mantra of this present administration.

(e) The petitioners had involved themselves in serious acts of misconduct which are alien to PSR 030402 (b), (c), (f), (r), and
(w) – ‘Acts unbecoming of a Public Officer’ in accordance with PSR 030402.

22. In view of the contents of the petition and the observations above and in line with Chapter 9 of the PSR No 090204, I humbly request the Hon. Minister, to grant the following prayers/recommendations:
(a) To discard the petition since the petitioners did not route it through the proper channel as observed in 20 (b) above. Consequently, the possibility of using internal resolution mechanism, as provided in PSR 090203 was not given a chance.

(b) Not to entertain the petition since most of the complaints were time-barred and has no relationship with the subject matter.

(c) To condemn the petition in its entirety as it is based on deliberate falsehood and fabrications.

(d) To commence disciplinary actions against the Petitioners for orchestrating misleading information

23. I must also point out here, Honourable Minister that indeed most these baseless accusations occurred before I was appointed as the ED/CEO and after their failure at the promotion examinations. The question is why were all these allegations not brought up before now? But I have chosen to answer because I believe that leadership is continuous and accountable. I however, agree to the demand for a total and genuine reform of the entire Organisation which is the process I have set out to achieve. There is also a need for complete staff audit and to look into the method of recruitment as


weendeavour to fully function as a veritable tool for the Government’s diversification agenda.

24. Please accept, Hon. Minister, the assurances of my highest regards and consideration.
Executive Director/CEO




About Author



Related Articles


No Comments Yet!

There are no comments at the moment, do you want to add one?

Write a comment

Write a Comment