Okereke-Onyiuke’s removal: We acted within our powers – SEC

By Yemi Kolapo

Tuesday, 23 Nov 2010

The Securities and Exchange Commission said on Monday that it complied strictly with the provisions of the Investments and Securities Act in removing the former Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerian Stock Exchange, Prof. Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke.

The commission also said that it had not received any directive from the House of Representatives to reinstate the former NSE boss, noting that it acted within its powers.

”We acted in strict compliance with the provisions of the Investments and Securities Act, by virtue of the powers conferred on SEC,” the Head, Media, SEC, Mr. Lanre Oloyi, told our correspondent.

The House of Representatives Committee on Capital Market had recommended the reversal of the removal of the former NSE CEO, advising SEC to adopt an earlier letter of voluntary retirement Okereke-Onyiuke wrote on June 16 and allow her to start her terminal leave.

The lawmakers had, last week, raised concerns over what they suspected to be ”bias” in the report of the forensic audit of the operations of the NSE.

The committee, headed by Mr. Umar Jubril, faulted the report on the ground that the SEC did not give the affected NSE officials the benefit of fair hearing. It said that “the forensic report was ready by September 30, but the accused were invited to appear and defend themselves on October 4.”

It added, “It is tantamount to using a legal means to effect an illegal action. The condition precedent as stipulated under sections 13, 35, 47, 48, 49 and 308 of the Investments and Securities Act, 2007 and Section 62 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act have not been met.”

On the legislators‘ clamour for a reversal of its action, SEC said, “The commission has not received such directive. Our action in that regard, was based on the provisions of the Investments and Securities Act, which we have the mandate to implement.”

SEC removed Okereke-Onyiuke in August 2010, saying it weighed”the consequences on the market of a direct intervention set against the broader goal of safeguarding the interest of the public and protecting the investor.”

 

Source: Punch

Comments are closed.