In a rare display of fiscal probity that has captivated public attention, a commissioner in Jigawa state recently returned a substantial sum of unspent funds to the government treasury. This action, while seemingly straightforward, has ignited a complex debate about governance, accountability, and the practical realities facing Nigeria’s impoverished regions.
The state government had allocated funds to the Ministry of Special Duties to implement the state’s Ramadan Feeding Initiative, intended to provide nutritional support to thousands of residents during the holy month. What followed was unexpected in Nigeria’s political landscape: Commissioner Auwalu Danladi Sankara, upon completing the programme, returned a surplus of N301 million to the state coffers.
“We used the funds prudently for the Ramadan feeding. After fulfilling our mandate, we had a balance of over N301 million. It rightly belongs to the people, so returning it to the treasury is the ethical course of action,” Sankara explained, framing his decision as a matter of moral obligation rather than exceptional conduct.
The commissioner’s action has polarised public opinion, with reactions ranging from effusive praise to skeptical questioning. Supporters view this as a refreshing departure from Nigeria’s entrenched culture of financial misappropriation, where public funds frequently disappear without accountability. They argue that Sankara’s gesture represents a beacon of hope in a governance system frequently characterised by opacity and self-enrichment.
However, critics have raised pertinent questions that deserve thoughtful consideration. In a state where poverty and hunger are pervasive challenges, the return of such a substantial sum has prompted many to question whether the feeding programme was adequately conceived and implemented in the first place. If the initiative was genuinely designed to address widespread nutritional and food needs during Ramadan, how could such a significant portion remain unspent?
This contradiction leads to several critical inquiries: What was the original budget allocation for the feeding programme? How many citizens were targeted, and how many were actually reached? What criteria determined eligibility for food support? What quality and quantity of food was distributed to beneficiaries? Were there logistical constraints that prevented wider distribution? Without transparent answers to these questions, it becomes difficult to assess whether the returned funds represent efficient management or insufficient programme implementation.
The skepticism surrounding this gesture stems from Nigeria’s socioeconomic reality, where hunger is not a seasonal challenge but a persistent crisis. In such contexts, the notion of “surplus” funds for welfare programmes seems paradoxical. Some observers have suggested that instead of returning the money to government coffers, alternative approaches could have been considered – perhaps expanding the feeding programme beyond its original scope, extending its duration, or redirecting the funds to other urgent welfare needs within legal parameters.
Nevertheless, in a country where mismanagement of public resources has been normalised, Commissioner Sankara’s action represents a significant departure from established norms. His decision to return unspent funds challenges the prevailing culture of treating public allocations as personal entitlements. This sets a precedent that other public officials across the country would do well to emulate.
Governor Umar Namadi deserves recognition for creating an administrative environment where such accountability is possible. His leadership style appears to encourage transparency among his appointees, which is crucial for rebuilding public trust in governance institutions. The Jigawa example demonstrates that with proper leadership and personal integrity, the systemic challenges facing Nigeria’s public finance management are not insurmountable.
Civil society organisations should indeed spotlight this case as a model of good governance. Media outlets have a responsibility to amplify such positive examples, providing counternarratives to the persistent stories of corruption that dominate public discourse. By celebrating Commissioner Sankara’s actions, stakeholders can help normalise accountability and integrity in public service.
However, celebration should not preclude critical analysis. Transparency demands that citizens receive complete information about public programmes, including allocation, implementation, and outcomes. The Jigawa government can strengthen this positive narrative by publishing comprehensive details about the Ramadan feeding programme – its original budget, beneficiary selection process, implementation challenges, and the factors that led to the surplus.
The Jigawa case offers valuable lessons on good governance. It demonstrates that accountability involves not just honesty in handling funds but also effectiveness in programme design and implementation. True public service requires balancing procedural integrity with outcome-oriented approaches that maximise impact for citizens.
As Nigeria continues to grapple with governance challenges, the Jigawa example provides a nuanced template for reform – one that values both financial probity, programmatic approach and efficiency. Commissioner Sankara’s actions, while commendable, should inspire broader conversations about how the government can simultaneously manage resources honestly and deploy them comprehensively to address citizens’ needs.