Nigeria’s ex-Ambassador To Israel In Messy $134,000 Scandal, Accused Of Pocketing Sum Meant For domestic Servants

The allegation against the former Ambassador was contained in the 2015 Auditor General of the Federation report submitted to Senate Committee on Public Account.

But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its written response claimed that the cost of hiring of domestic servants was usually higher than what was granted to the Ambassador as allowances for domestic servant, especially as it relates to Israeli minimum wage.

The Query reads: The sum of $134,400.00 was paid directly to an Ambassador during  his tenure for domestic servants.

“The direct payment of domestic staff salary to the Ambassador is contrary to the terms of engagement as spelt out in the appointment letter which insists on domestic staff salary to be included on Mission’s payroll.

“Therefore the sum of funds has to be refunded.

“The Permanent Secretary has been requested to recover and pay back to chest, the sum $134,400.00 paid directly to the Ambassador, forwarding evidence of recovery for audit verification purposes.”

The Foreign Ministry responded in writing in a report published in The Eagle Online: “On the grounds of public policy, particularly the provisions of the condition of services of the Ambassadors/Heads of Mission, the Ambassador hired his own domestic servant and security personnel in accordance with the Israeli labour laws and as such, paid their allowances directly from his personal account.

“The cost of such hiring was usually higher than what was granted to him as allowances for domestic servant especially as relates to the Israeli minimum wages.

“He could not have operated effectively at the home front in the Residence without hiring some hands to man the vast grounds, help his wife at home front with the chores which in the case of Tel Aviv post is beehive of activities.

“If there has been an apparent lapse in the method of payment, it must have been for administrative convenience and nothing else.

“However, the observation has been duly noted and corrected.”