By Muyiwa Ademola Adegbenro
un Obasanjo administration was very lucky to have enjoyed enormous goodwill from the United States and European countries in terms of cooperation to return looted funds hidden in their banks. In addition, such goodwill had also helped the former Obasanjo administration to obtain an 18 billion dollar debt relief in 2003. Nigeria’s foreign reserve also increased tremendously under Obasanjo.
Therefore, in every respect, Obasanjo was a lucky man.
Eighteen billion dollars was big enough to fix some of our decaying national infrastructure: hospitals, schools and roads. Apart from the 18 billion dollar debt relief, the Obasanjo administration also received almost three billion dollars in terms of repatriated looted funds, mainly from the Abachas.
In making a case for debt relief, the former Obasanjo administration argued that Nigeria was committing almost 50 percent of its annual national budget to debt servicing. It argued that no country could deliver on the provisions of even basic social services when almost 50 percent of national budget was going to debt serving. In fairness to the Obasanjo administration, it had a strong case for debt relief.
As a result, the London and Paris clubs of creditor nations finally granted Nigeria an 18 billion dollar debt relief in 2003. But the question is: did Nigerian government then justify the debt relief it received? Did the so-called social services improve significantly as a result of the debt relief granted Nigeria in 2003? What are the projects where the debt relief was committed for the welfare ofNigerians?
Addressing a joint session of Nigeria’s National Assembly during his official visit in 2000, former U.S. President, Mr. Bill Clinton, said his country “would welcome debt relief for Nigeria, provided the benefits would go to the ordinary Nigerians.” Such earthshaking observation by a Western politician jolted Clinton’s audience.
It was obvious from Clinton’s statement that Western leaders don’t trust our leaders to manage resources for the benefits of the citizens. Who can say exactly how the debt relief funds had benefitted majority of Nigerians.
Until he left office, ordinary Nigerians had no idea how the debt relief was applied to the welfare of the ordinary Nigerians.
In fact, it is debatable if the so-called debt relief had benefitted the vast majority of the ordinary Nigerians. Were former President Clinton’s fears not justified in the final analysis? Who can say with concrete and verifiable evidence that, indeed, the debt relief had dramatically improved the quality of social services in Nigeria?
The management and expenditure of the debt relief funds is not only the area of concern to most Nigerians. We should not forget that apart from the 18 billion dollar debt relief, the Obasanjo administration also received almost three billion dollars as recovered loot, mainly from the Abachas.
By any standard, three billion dollars can significantly improve the quality of social services. Nigerians should go beyond what was recovered from the Abachas, and should focus serious attention on how these repatriated funds were spent to improve their welfare.
We are in a democracy, a system of government that takes transparency and accountability seriously. Don’t we have the right to know how the Abacha loot was managed and spent? Should the excitement of loot recovery make us abandon the duty of holding our leaders accountable to the management of the recovered loot?
How many Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) projects were executed with funds from the debt relief and the Abacha loot? Until he left office, after serving eight years in office, the former Obasanjo administration didn’t brief Nigerians about the management and expenditure of the 18 billion dollar debt relief and the repatriated Abacha funds.
The questions are getting longer, but the answers are not forthcoming. Don’t we have the right to know the name of projects where the debt relief or Abacha funds were used for the welfare of Nigerians? Nigerians should ask questions about the expenditure of these huge funds, regardless of the passage of time. In fact, the passage of time is no excuse to play down accountability.
For eight years, the Obasanjo administration didn’t significantly improve power generation beyond 3,500 megawatts, despite promising to increase power to 10,000 megawatts by the end of 2007. Until he left office, he didn’t deliver on this promise, despite the 18 billion dollar debt relief, the recovered Abacha loot and rising foreign reserve levels that reached 62 billion dollars.
Even the perceived success of Obasanjo’s privatization programme was debatable. Didn’t he shortchange Nigeria as a result of privatization by selling public assets at derisory prices, including the Kaduna and Port Harcourt refineries, which was reversed by the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua? General Abacha didn’t receive debt relief, or get a foreign reserve level of 62 billion dollars.
But Abacha made more impact with less resources, by resuscitating our refineries, and tremendously improving the quality of social services through the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF). President Muhammadu Buhari should revisit the issue of the 18 billion dollar debt relief and the repatriated Abacha funds, with a view to establishing how these huge public funds were used for the benefits of Nigerians.
Alhaji Adegbenro, a financial and budget analyst, wrote from No. 69, Koforidua Street Wuse Zone II, Abuja. Email: [email protected]
