By Hassan A. Saliu
Continued from yesterday
The mantra of continuity is good but it needs to be more entrenched. The position of the government that the initial N17 billion had been paid back is good but more efforts should have been spared on what the previous loan had been spent on and explanations offered on the projects not later covered by the 2009 bond. By so doing, people would have been able to follow more systematically the arguments of the State government.
Surprisingly, the opposition too has failed in not raising specific issues on the projects executed with the 2009 borrowed funds and those not later covered by the bond. In other words, the opposition needs to be more organized to put the State government in the mould of preparing well for the public. Perhaps, some may be wondering why there is controversy on the issue of bond for the State. Politics generally, in its base conception, is divisive and tendering towards partisanship. Different political parties have different approaches to issues of public interest. So, it should be expected that they will necessarily differ in their handling of public issues.
The government needs not to see the opposing views as distasteful. People are only venting their opinions on the bond. Nothing should be done to personalize the issue. Politics and the way it has been played in Nigeria have created a pool of Doubting Thomases or cynical audience who views everything government does with suspicions.
The message to the government from all this is that it should get more prepared and notes the rising tendency of speaking out against the government. There should be nothing to it than the exercise of people’s political rights as guaranteed by the constitution.
The saying that the “minority will have its say and the majority will have its way” should always be borne in mind by both the ruling party and the opposition. Democracy is not really a war.
In future financial transactions, the government must show more concern and respect to the people by not lumping all the projects together. Rather, a carefully selected list of projects should be prepared with their assigned costs for people to meaningfully relate with the government on the issue.
Instead of the opposition to hammer on this major oversight, it has gone overboard in throwing mud in all directions, including personalities that are no longer on the stage at the State level to make its points. Obviously, the amount being sought cannot finance the long list of projects that has been given. The opposition also forgets that it is its responsibility to effectively monitor the execution of the projects. It can still do that now that the loan has been approved. If it does, the government should not feel unease as it is the norm under the democratic practice.
I want to personally encourage the government to take note of the observations on cost and execution schedules in its next public appearance on the issue of bond.
It is worth noting that some other gaps in government’s presentations created the heightened concern over the bond issue in the State. In this year’s appropriation bill laid before the House of Assembly by the Governor, the sum of N56 billion has been set aside for capital projects.
The balance of N36 billion that will be left after the bond is fuelling the suspicion in some circles that more borrowing will take place before the end of the budget year. Although the government has placed a lot of hope on internally generated revenue, there are still concerns on its ability to raise the required taxes based on socio-economic conditions prevailing in the State and the targets of the envisaged taxes. It is not an idle talk therefore, to expect that more money may have to be borrowed that will further swell up the debt profile of the State.
With the character of the opposition in the State and the usual reluctance of the executive arm to be over sighted, one feels compelled to call on the State House of Assembly to carry its business of approving the loan transaction to its logical conclusions. After two rejections before the final approval, it should show more interest in the loan administration as the representatives of the people. Its mediating role is capable of dousing the tension that is building up on the loan issue.
Two important lessons of the loan debate should be borne in mind.
The indigenes of the State are getting more inquisitive about what is happening around them. Also, the failure of the state government to meet its financial commitments to its workers caused by some internal and external factors have literally sensitized the people in making them to show more than a casual interest in the state administration especially the financial transactions. All these, among others, should compel the fine-tuning of the governance environment to meet the expectations of the people in terms of being placed at their service and welfare. More is still desired in the state to make it a model in aggressive pursuit of development.
The piece at this point will make some suggestions on the revenue drive of the state government. The background to the sorry financial state of Kwara is the continuous fall of the revenue which all meaning Kwarans should assist the state government in overcoming. There are abundant sources of revenue that the state is keeping its eyes off. Water supply is a legitimate and less controversial source of income. I argue that if the entire bond size is being borrowed to fix the water problem in a determined and sustainable manner, there would have been no much controversy on it.
Water is essential yet it has remained a milk cow in the state with every government borrowing to tackle it without success. Provision of adequate water can bring about affordable levy which most citizens will be eager and ready to pay. A monthly levy of 1000 naira per household can generate a lot of income for the state with lesser social cost than the direction the government is currently looking at. What stops the state government from partnering with Unilorin to build a Kwara hall for student accommodation? One may want to ask: If other groups are doing so, why not the state government? A parcel of land can be obtained on campus with the understanding of the management to develop hostels for 4000 students at a favourable commercial rate.
At a rate of between 30,000 and 40,000 naira per bed space (normally a room should have four bed spaces), such an investment can bring in good money to the government and spare it the path of overburden the already distressed populace.
Also, with the high jump in the staff population of the University, there should be a good return to the state in the form of taxes that the staff pay. Whatever is obstructing remittances on the part of the University and other federal establishments located in the state should be removed to improve on the economic climate of the state.
These highlighted sources and others if explored can reduce the propensity to approach the banks and the capital market for capital to finance less generative projects that have become a kind of stigma and irritation to some critical minds. It is necessary to argue that in future, borrowing should be informed by projects that can generate enough income with which to liquidate the contracted loans. One observes in this regard that borrowing from the capital market to sink boreholes under normal circumstances cannot pass the rigour of vetting by our financial experts.
On a final note, the point should be stressed that the integrity of the state government is at stake.
The Governor has put his honour on the line by promising to deliver all the projects that come under the new bond regime. He should walk the talk by ensuring that no diversion of funds takes place under his watch to improve on the overall accountability. Also, he should ensure that the citizens are regularly briefed on the progress made in executing the identified projects. It is only by so doing that he can allay the fears of people on possible diversion of the borrowed funds and restore confidence in his government.
Conclusion
The paper has examined the issue of bond being sought by the Kwara State government. After giving adequate coverage to both the perspective of the State government and the position of the opposition, it attempted to reconcile the two opposing sides.
The strong point of the paper is on the wider issues raised after presenting the two perspectives.
The three vital points made are: there is need to allow for flourishing of the democratic tradition in future engagement of the State government with the people; there should be full disclosures on financial transactions that require people’s participation; and lastly, the opposition should shun sensationalism in holding the government to account by doing more research to put it on its toes. No one attaches much value to the opposition when it is even less prepared than the ruling party in its engagement of the public space.
I note the interest that the issue of bond has generated and argued that it is all in the interest of the State. There is no winner or loser in the debate. Rather, all Kwarans have a reasonability to make the State a model in aggressive pursuit of development.
Professor Saliu is a lecturer in the Department of Political Science, University of Ilorin, Ilorin
