Nigerians were recently greeted with the news that President Muhammadu Buhari had declined assent to the Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2018. This is the fourth time the President has declined to give assent to the bill. The President’s decision will have far-reaching consequences for the credibility of the 2019 polls and whether the polls will in all sincerity, be declared to be free, fair and credible. Free, fair and credible polls are premised on the understanding that the announced results reflect the will of the electorate; elections are transparent when each step is open to scrutiny, and stakeholders can independently verify whether the process is conducted honestly and accurately.

One of the key reforms found in the bill is its insistence on the use and mainstreaming of the Smart Card Reader in the electoral process. The bill provides that the Presiding Officer shall use a SCR or any other technological device that may be prescribed by the Independent National Electoral Commission for the accreditation of voters, to verify, confirm or authenticate the particulars of the voter in a manner prescribed by the commission. Where a SCR deployed for accreditation of voters fails in any polling unit and a fresh SCR is not deployed, the election in the unit shall be cancelled and another election shall be scheduled within 24 hours. The bill also states that where during the collation of results, there is a dispute regarding a collated result or the result of an election from any polling unit, the Collation Officer or Returning Officer shall use inter alia, the SCR or any other technological device used for accreditation of voters in each polling unit where the election is disputed for the purpose of obtaining accreditation data direct form the SCR or technology device.

The foregoing provisions seek to respond to the mischief in the existing law, which crystallised in election petition decisions arising from the 2015 general elections. In 2015, the use of the SCR was provided in INEC’s Directives, Guidelines and Manuals and there was nothing in the Electoral Act on the SCR. Many petitioners had alleged substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act because the SCR was not used in the accreditation process. The petitioners averred that election results should be set aside on the basis of the failure to use the SCR. This was the case in Edward Nkwegu Okereke v Nweze David Umahi (SC. 1004/2015); Udom Gabriel Emmanuel v Umana Okon Umana (SC.1/2016); Okezie Victor Ikpeazu v Alex Otti & 3 Ors (2016, 8 NWLR, Part 1513) and Wike Ezenwo Nyesom v Dakuku Adol Peterside & Ors, etc.

The Supreme Court reasoned as follows in Wike Ezenwo Nyesom v Dakuku Adol Peterside & Others.: “The introduction of the card reader is certainly a welcome development in the electoral process. Although it is meant to improve on the credibility of those accredited to vote so as to check the incidence of rigging, it is yet to be made part of the Electoral Act. Section 138 (2) of the Electoral Act envisages a situation where the Electoral Commission issues instructions or guidelines which are not carried out. The failure of the card reader machine or failure to use it for the accreditation of voters cannot invalidate the election. The section stipulates as follows- An act or omission which may be contrary to the instruction or directive of the Commission or an officer appointed for the purpose of an election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election”.Thus, the Supreme Court held that INEC’s directives on the use of the SCR has not invalidated the use of the manual accreditation process which is fraught with fraud.

Following these decisions, some learned commentators criticised the Supreme Court as aiding and abetting rigging through its interpretation of the status of the SCR. Professor Itse Sagay in, “Farewell to Election Petitions”, stated that the thrust of the decisions constitutes a devastating blow on democracy. The National Assembly in its wisdom now seeks to correct this mischief so that elections will truly reflect the will of the electorate. Starting from the first quarter in the year, when the bill was submitted to President, he found a number of excuses including the issue of the sequence of the elections, especially as to whether the legislature had the power to determine the sequence of elections. He refused assent and returned the bill to the legislature, who in good faith amended the sections that the President complained about. When it was submitted a second time, the President also found a battery of excuses to decline assent. Again, the National Assembly in good faith, believing they were dealing with genuine reasons advanced by the President went back to work to reflect his position. The National Assembly submitted the bill a third time and the President found another set of excuses. The lawmakers obliged him with another round of amendment and tinkering and finally returned the bill to him last month. For the fourth and final time, the President found yet another set of excuses to decline assent.

From a dispassionate analysis, what has come out of these four submissions by the National Assembly and the four times’ refusal to grant assent is that the President does not intend to see the Electoral Act 2010 further amended. He was simply looking for excuses to further that agenda. While the National Assembly was operating in good faith in furtherance of its power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the country, there was a debilitating fixation by the President to stand on the old ground. In retrospect, none of the grounds that the President had relied on to refuse assent had anything to do with democratic consolidation but the furtherance of a personal agenda to win the 2019 presidential election at all cost.

According to data released by an online newspaper and verified from the report available on INEC’s website titled, “Smart Card Reader Accreditation: Backend Transmission System – 2015 Presidential & National Assembly Elections”, at page 16: “Of the 31,746,490 accredited voters in the election, 13,536,311, representing 42.6 per cent of voters, voted without biometric accreditation.Out of this number, 10,184,720 votes are from states won by Buhari and 3,351,591 votes came from states won by Jonathan, the Peoples Democratic Party candidate, representing 75 per cent and 25 per cent of accredited voters respectively”. This revelation raises the fear in many Nigerians about the intention of the President and the ruling party against the background of the fact that the APC now supports the President’s refusal to give assent to the bill. Is there an intention to repeat the 2015 experience so that the courts will not rely on the SCR since the authority for its use will still be founded on INEC’s directives and manuals and not the Electoral Act?

In conclusion, Nigeria must make progress, whatever disagreements between the executive and the legislature and the political parties should not lead Nigeria to stagnation or retrogression in our democracy. Even if the President disagrees with every other thing, he should liaise with the legislature to enthrone free, fair and credible elections through the smart card reader. We have no option than to make progress.

A proper understanding of the context of resources within a nation space, its mobilisation and use for the common good is imperative. This is so, especially at this time when political parties and candidates are moving around pleading to be given the opportunity to govern at the federal and state levels. Understanding optimum resource use and mobilisation will play a central role in our pursuit of good governance, economic growth and development. Thus, it is expected that every presidential candidate should, beyond borrowing and the dwindling oil money, address how they will mobilise Nigerians to fund their economic growth and development.

Our governments have always stated that we lack resources to undertake public projects. Budgets are very poorly funded across the tiers of government and the usual excuse is the paucity of resources. Our infrastructure deficit is premised on the absence of resources. Pray, what is the definition of national, state or local government level resources within the context of a country like Nigeria? Do we take national resources to be the same as resources belonging to governments and the public space or an inventory of our natural resources like minerals?

It is the position of this discourse that we may not be poor in terms of resource generation and endowment, as our governments consistently state and many Nigerians have been convinced to believe. It is the duty of government to mobilise both public and private resources for the purpose of development. Suffice to say that, development is a people’s work in action as no nation or people can develop another. It is Nigerians who have to use their resources to develop Nigeria under the guidance of intelligent leadership. And the consistent failure to lead or provide leadership is responsible for our resource complaints. Therefore, the central resource challenge appears to be one of harnessing, mobilisation, management and ensuring value for money from available resources. The management challenge crystallises in the examples given in these real life pictures detailed hereunder.

The authorities of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja allocated undeveloped land to purported developers, virtually free of charge but with very little processing fees that may not be more than N20m. The purpose of the allocation is for the developer to develop estates to be made available to Nigerians at affordable rates using mortgage. This land in the first place was acquired from the natives under the Land Use Act, virtually without paying any tangible compensation, compared to the value of the land due to the idea that government is simply paying for unexhausted improvement.

The developer adds little or no value beyond clearing the bush, and turns around to divide the large portions of land into plots that can accommodate 100 four-bedroom duplexes. The developer fixes the price of each plot at between N10m and N15m per plot. All they end up investing, may be not more that N50m and they thereafter make a kill and get between N1bn and N1.5bn as unearned profits. The original owners of the land get nothing out of this money and government that compulsorily acquired it in the first place gets nothing and a millionaire is created.

Within the estates, since the developer developed nothing and no one is holding them to account, the buyers of the plots build and each will sink a borehole and within the estate, you could possibly get 70 to 80 boreholes sunk at the cost of about N500,000 each. When the seismic challenges related to reckless perforation of the earth’s bowels begin to unravel, more resources will be needed to cover the first wrong investments. But this is an estate that could have been served by one industrial borehole and back-up in the event the first one fails. Just like the average Nigerian, every owner invests in noisy polluting electricity generator that gulps thousands of litres of petrol and diesel every day.

Again, this is an estate that could get electricity from a central clean source that will cost less than 50% of the price of the generators and the fuel. In some parts of Abuja, residents not only construct estate roads, they also mobilise and contribute money to build public access roads. They do this when they compare the costs of perpetual bad roads and the investment they would make in the roads. After the foregoing, the persons who went through all this torture are expected to pay tax to government. Pray, for what purpose?

In the above instance, if government had kept its part of the social contract by providing potable public water, even if at a fee or ensured that developers kept their part of the bargain by providing water, the economy as whole will have saved the difference between 80 different boreholes and one or two functional boreholes serving the community. The financial resource, even if privately-owned would have been available for investment in other very important spheres of private but national life.

Instead of building local schools and maintaining standards through equipping the schools, employing quality teaching personnel who are well paid, our elite proceed to pay children’s school fees in institutions outside Nigeria. First, these institutions cost much more than if the education had been acquired in Nigeria. The flight tickets and challenge of getting foreign currency to pay these fees and the cost of a child living in a foreign land are all outrageous.

Again, we refuse to build good hospitals and or equip the available ones; we pay our doctors and other medical personnel peanuts, treat them with disdain and contempt to the extent that they vote to leave our shores. Our elite proceed at the slightest headache to visit hospitals abroad at a greater expense (sometimes, double the local cost) than if the facilities are available locally.

In the health and education scenario, we are not only mismanaging our financial resources, because it costs Nigerians (who can afford it) more; it deprives the majority of the population of the accruable benefits. Again, beyond financial resources, we train doctors and drive them away to other countries thereby frittering away our human resources. We oil the economy of the host countries and put perpetual pressure on the value of the Naira, our local currency. And politicians walk around bemoaning job losses and poor economic growth. How do you expect to create jobs when the existing jobs are shipped abroad? How do you grow your economy when every value added has to be done aboard?

It is the duty of government to strategise on how to use public resources in a way and manner that benefits the public instead of privatising public resources for the benefit of a few. Also, taxing Nigerians and spending the tax proceeds judiciously, in value for money approach, for projects and programmes that have been popularly selected, will make more sense for the development of infrastructure instead of letting every person to do it for themselves. Of course, everyone knows that there are limits to this self-help approach. Self-help may not pay for super highways and speed trains that cut across so many local governments and states. Also, perpetual borrowing is not the answer.

Let those who want to lead show that they understand the ideas around mobilisation and use of public and private resources for development.

Recent successful attacks by Boko Haram terrorists on military formations and civilian communities bring to the fore the need to re-evaluate and re-examine the strategies for the engagement of the terrorists. The latest attack on the 157 Task Force Battalion at Melete, Borno State where the casualty figures have not been officially confirmed but different media organisations are quoting different figures throws up so many posers. But let us start by acknowledging the supreme sacrifice of our gallant soldiers who have given their all. They died in defence of our lives. May God grant them eternal rest and their families, the fortitude to continue life without their loved ones.

This discourse intends to raise so many posers and issues which the military and intelligence high commands need to answer or seek answers to, in a bid to rejig their operations and adequately protect Nigerians, as well as save the lives of men and officers on the frontlines. This is not about blaming anyone but points in the direction of the need for persons in authority to put on their thinking caps.

The first issue that comes up for analysis is the state of equipment and hardware available to our soldiers. At least, since the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, the defence sector has been well-funded through appropriation and at least, we are made to believe that there is no one diversion of and disbursement of defence money for other purposes. We are also made to believe that soldiers are paid on time and their motivation is very high. Again, the administration states that Boko Haram has been technically defeated and what they attack now are soft targets, which is evidence of a “dying insurgency”, in its last days and without the ability to take on hard core fights. But of late, the insurgents have been taking on and routing military formations which contradicts the postulation of a technical defeat. How is it possible that the insurgents who are not in a position to buy arms and ammunition legally, but only procure them through the black and illegal market can get equipment to match and outgun Nigerian troops whose source of procurement is official and the Nigerian state has more resources available to it? Who is supplying them the equipment and hardware to take on the Nigerian defence forces?

The second issue is this; is it possible that a large contingent of insurgents will move over so many kilometres without anyone sighting them or the intelligence activated to warn soldiers to lay ambush for them? Does it mean we do not have military equipment that can sight humans and objects from afar and warn about irregular movements? If we do not have such equipment, how much will it cost to acquire them? What about the communities and civilians? Would it be too much for the civil communities to give information of irregular movement of persons to military authorities? And this can be done through the telephone. What exactly is happening?

The third issue is that in these attacks, especially on military formations which last for a fairly long time, is it possible that no one used the military signals or even mobile telecommunications to contact the defence headquarters or the nearest level of command for reinforcement? If the infantry is facing challenges and the air force is available with fighters and other aircraft, it is expected that they would come to the rescue of the infantry and overwhelm the insurgents. But the news coming out of the attacks suggests that a command under attack is left to shoulder the entire burden. They will overcome or go down on the basis of their own strength and ability. Flights between Lagos and Abuja or Port Harcourt or Abuja to major destinations are usually of 45 minutes duration. It is safely assumed that fight jets and military aircraft should be faster than civilian transport aircraft and from any point in Nigeria, should reach the desired destination under 30 minutes. Even if the combat is such that aircraft cannot use bombs, the aircraft could still track the insurgents to their base and pound them with the relevant mortars and bombs.

The foregoing is appealing to common sense, reasoning, tactical command and coordination. In the earlier attack on a civilian community, the insurgents were reported to have set houses on fire, used guns and knives to kill people and then loaded about 200 cattle and sheep into trucks and carted them away. The picture of the foregoing is that they took their time attacking the community and stealing their properties and this could have gone on for hours. Moving 200 cattle and sheep will not be possible with sleek salon cars. Rather, they would be done with trucks which hardly speed up to 100 kilometres per hour. And they would therefore be moved slowly and off-loading at the point of destination will also be another time-consuming effort. So, no one could mobilise and follow up on these bandits at a time they were bound by circumstances to move rather slowly?

The fourth issue is that every time a military or civilian target is successfully attacked by insurgents, they thereafter literally vanish into thin air, with no trace. They simply disappear only to reappear at their due time for the next attack? How is this possible? We are dealing with large areas of land with little or no vegetation and forest cover; barely shrub covers. It would be easy, whether in follow-up infantry and or air force engagement to track and target the terrorists and take them out. Considering that the military engagement includes a multi-national task force, even if the insurgents cross national boundaries, proper coordination means that there would still be defence forces waiting to engage them across the border.

The fifth is that while international organisations including the United Nations organs and agencies have stated that Nigeria has been paying ransom to secure the release of persons held by insurgents, the government has been living in denial. The more resources available to the insurgents, the more vicious they will be and it appears that the Nigerian state is somehow funding and supporting them when they receive this back-door money. A re-examination of the need to pay ransom has to evolve.

Finally, the military high command should be forthcoming in providing information when incidents such as the Melete attack occur. It is not enough to condemn social and print media reports and tag them as fake news, disinformation and even threaten to prosecute persons who spread them. The press release from the military authorities on the Melete event merely warned about contravening the extant law without providing the official account of what happened. Nature abhors a vacuum. To the extent that official information is not forthcoming on a timely basis, something else will take its place because Nigerians are hungry for news about the performance of our beloved armed forces. Again, if official information deviates from what eyewitnesses told journalists, different accounts of such an incident will continue to be in the media.

A new strategy is needed. The ball is in the court of Mr. President and the Commander-in-Chief.

Political parties constitute the engine of democracy as they are the only entities permitted by law to present candidates for elections in Nigeria. In other democracies, the law permits independent candidature which currently is unknown to our laws. The selection of candidates to represent political parties for different elective offices in the 2019 elections has come and gone. In some political parties, the tension and acrimony generated by the selection or election process have yet to abate and a number of pre-election litigation has arisen. This crisis is not new to Nigeria’s political landscape as it seems the political parties have not learnt anything from previous nomination processes.

The 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) anticipated democratic norms as guiding principles in the process leading to political parties presenting their candidates. The law expects that there will be many persons aspiring to represent the political party and at the end of the day, through a democratic process, the number will be pruned to just one person who transforms from an aspirant to a candidate. Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) states as follows on the nomination of candidates by political parties: Political parties seeking to present candidates are mandated to hold primaries which could be direct or indirect. This discourse will partly use the presidential nomination process of the ruling All Progressives Congress and the major opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party, as a case study.

But before the primaries, there is a serious challenge to the electoral process. This is the challenge of high cost of expression of interest and nomination forms. The emerging pattern is that the more promising a party considers itself, the more fees it charges from aspirants. At the presidential level, the ruling APC and the PDP present an interesting scenario. While the APC charged a total of N45m, the PDP charged the sum of N12m. For a political party which prides itself as progressive, with a President who claims to have no large amounts of money of his own, to charge such high fees is nothing but a scandal. The fees for expression of interest and nomination forms are extra-constitutional demands made by the party which stricto sensu may be unconstitutional, particularly considering the fact that they are very high. It is the policy of the law that no one adds or subtracts from the clear provisions of the Constitution, especially where such additions and subtractions place undue hurdles to the enjoyment of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

In a direct primary, all members of the political party whose name appear on its roll of members are entitled through direct suffrage to vote for the aspirant of their choice who will fly the flag of the party. This comes with the assumption that the political party has a credible list of members which can be used for the purpose of the primary. Of course, this roll of members provides the opportunity for the political party to collect appropriate levies and dues from members to support its activities. However, the nomination process of virtually all the political parties did not throw up evidence that they had credible membership registers. Rather, some of the parties, especially the ruling APC threw up incredible figures as persons who voted in direct primaries in their presidential nomination. Again, a direct primary should be seen as a competitive process rather than a coronation or affirmation of only one aspirant. This was not the case with the APC.

In an indirect primary, Section 87 of the Electoral Act requires political parties to hold special conventions in each of the 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory where delegates shall vote for each of the aspirants at the designated centres in each state capital on specified dates. Thereafter, a National Convention shall be held for the ratification of the aspirant with the highest number of votes. The aspirant with the highest number of votes at the end of voting in the 36 States of the Federation and Federal Capital Territory shall be declared the winner of the presidential primary of the political party and the candidate’s name shall be forwarded to the Independent National Electoral Commission as the candidate of the party after ratification by the national convention. For the PDP, that held an indirect primary, it slightly deviated from the form. While the PDP Guidelines require a Special National Convention to elect the candidate, the Electoral Act demands that voting for the aspirants be done at the special conventions in each of the 36 states and the FCT while the Special National Convention is for the purpose of ratification of the candidate by the party. However, this is more of a procedural difference considering that the substance, which is about allowing all delegates to vote, has been respected. The disturbing aspect of the indirect – delegates primary of the PDP is the media reports of inducement of delegates. This should not be the case; this points in the direction that extra-legal factors may have played a role in the emergence of the candidate.

At some state level governorship primaries, the party leaders simply refused to hold either a direct or indirect primary. This is the case of APGA in Imo State. The party leaders collected the expression of interest and nomination fees of the aspirants, allowed them to do the heavy lifting of going round the state -in all local governments, canvassing support from their members, spending their money, etc. But at the end of the day, in a very crude and heartless manner, devoid of all pretences of a democratic contest, the party leaders announced a candidate without any contest. There are allegations that the leaders of party were financially induced by the aspirant who was eventually declared winner.

In some other states, the political parties were divided down the line and parallel primaries were held by different factions of the party and it was up to the national leadership of the party to select the factional result which it deemed credible. In the Lagos chapter of the APC, the leader of party simply declared that the incumbent governor could not go for a second term because he was not “a good party man” – whatever that means. His word became law and we all clapped for such a wonderful process of democratic consolidation.

In conclusion, the primaries show the need for all political parties to maintain a credible membership register which can be validated by independent assessors. The Electoral Act should regulate fees chargeable for expression of interest and nomination forms. Also, direct primary should be the norm so as to allow all party members the opportunity to elect their candidates. This will also reduce the influence of money considering that whoever wants to buy millions of voters will have an uphill task. Clear cases of scandal as happened in the APGA Imo State governorship selection process should be expressly outlawed. In the final analysis, the idea of a democracy without democrats questions the essence of democracy and whether Nigerians are ready for a democracy which leads to development.

Political parties constitute the engine of democracy as they are the only entities permitted by law to present candidates for elections in Nigeria. In other democracies, the law permits independent candidature which currently is unknown to our laws. The selection of candidates to represent political parties for different elective offices in the 2019 elections has come and gone. In some political parties, the tension and acrimony generated by the selection or election process have yet to abate and a number of pre-election litigation has arisen. This crisis is not new to Nigeria’s political landscape as it seems the political parties have not learnt anything from previous nomination processes.

The 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) anticipated democratic norms as guiding principles in the process leading to political parties presenting their candidates. The law expects that there will be many persons aspiring to represent the political party and at the end of the day, through a democratic process, the number will be pruned to just one person who transforms from an aspirant to a candidate. Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) states as follows on the nomination of candidates by political parties: Political parties seeking to present candidates are mandated to hold primaries which could be direct or indirect. This discourse will partly use the presidential nomination process of the ruling All Progressives Congress and the major opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party, as a case study.

But before the primaries, there is a serious challenge to the electoral process. This is the challenge of high cost of expression of interest and nomination forms. The emerging pattern is that the more promising a party considers itself, the more fees it charges from aspirants. At the presidential level, the ruling APC and the PDP present an interesting scenario. While the APC charged a total of N45m, the PDP charged the sum of N12m. For a political party which prides itself as progressive, with a President who claims to have no large amounts of money of his own, to charge such high fees is nothing but a scandal. The fees for expression of interest and nomination forms are extra-constitutional demands made by the party which stricto sensu may be unconstitutional, particularly considering the fact that they are very high. It is the policy of the law that no one adds or subtracts from the clear provisions of the Constitution, especially where such additions and subtractions place undue hurdles to the enjoyment of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

In a direct primary, all members of the political party whose name appear on its roll of members are entitled through direct suffrage to vote for the aspirant of their choice who will fly the flag of the party. This comes with the assumption that the political party has a credible list of members which can be used for the purpose of the primary. Of course, this roll of members provides the opportunity for the political party to collect appropriate levies and dues from members to support its activities. However, the nomination process of virtually all the political parties did not throw up evidence that they had credible membership registers. Rather, some of the parties, especially the ruling APC threw up incredible figures as persons who voted in direct primaries in their presidential nomination. Again, a direct primary should be seen as a competitive process rather than a coronation or affirmation of only one aspirant. This was not the case with the APC.

In an indirect primary, Section 87 of the Electoral Act requires political parties to hold special conventions in each of the 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory where delegates shall vote for each of the aspirants at the designated centres in each state capital on specified dates. Thereafter, a National Convention shall be held for the ratification of the aspirant with the highest number of votes. The aspirant with the highest number of votes at the end of voting in the 36 States of the Federation and Federal Capital Territory shall be declared the winner of the presidential primary of the political party and the candidate’s name shall be forwarded to the Independent National Electoral Commission as the candidate of the party after ratification by the national convention. For the PDP, that held an indirect primary, it slightly deviated from the form. While the PDP Guidelines require a Special National Convention to elect the candidate, the Electoral Act demands that voting for the aspirants be done at the special conventions in each of the 36 states and the FCT while the Special National Convention is for the purpose of ratification of the candidate by the party. However, this is more of a procedural difference considering that the substance, which is about allowing all delegates to vote, has been respected. The disturbing aspect of the indirect – delegates primary of the PDP is the media reports of inducement of delegates. This should not be the case; this points in the direction that extra-legal factors may have played a role in the emergence of the candidate.

At some state level governorship primaries, the party leaders simply refused to hold either a direct or indirect primary. This is the case of APGA in Imo State. The party leaders collected the expression of interest and nomination fees of the aspirants, allowed them to do the heavy lifting of going round the state –in all local governments, canvassing support from their members, spending their money, etc. But at the end of the day, in a very crude and heartless manner, devoid of all pretences of a democratic contest, the party leaders announced a candidate without any contest. There are allegations that the leaders of party were financially induced by the aspirant who was eventually declared winner.

In some other states, the political parties were divided down the line and parallel primaries were held by different factions of the party and it was up to the national leadership of the party to select the factional result which it deemed credible. In the Lagos chapter of the APC, the leader of party simply declared that the incumbent governor could not go for a second term because he was not “a good party man” – whatever that means. His word became law and we all clapped for such a wonderful process of democratic consolidation.

In conclusion, the primaries show the need for all political parties to maintain a credible membership register which can be validated by independent assessors. The Electoral Act should regulate fees chargeable for expression of interest and nomination forms. Also, direct primary should be the norm so as to allow all party members the opportunity to elect their candidates. This will also reduce the influence of money considering that whoever wants to buy millions of voters will have an uphill task. Clear cases of scandal as happened in the APGA Imo State governorship selection process should be expressly outlawed. In the final analysis, the idea of a democracy without democrats questions the essence of democracy and whether Nigerians are ready for a democracy which leads to development.

As we move towards the 2019 presidential election, there is trouble with our national finances, being the source of revenue to fund the federal and state budgets. This trouble has reached a critical stage that a national alarm should go off, to start an unprecedented debate so that everyone from all sectors of the economy will join in proffering solutions. It is obvious that even the persons who either want to continue in power or those who want to take over from them are not conscious of the parlous state of our finances. They are thinking of money flowing form the proverbial and imaginary sweet crude which will oil the machinery of government.

A chief contributor to this bliss of ignorance is the failure and refusal of the Budget Office of the Federation and either the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Budget and National Planning to do their assigned jobs under the Fiscal Responsibility Act on time. By law, the quarterly Budget Implementation Reports are to be published one month after the end of the quarter while the yearly BIR is to be published not later than six months after the end of the financial year. But the authorities do not take this responsibility seriously. They publish these reports as they desire.

It is pertinent to state that revenue projections undergird a budget and the variance between projected revenue and the actual realised should not be very wide. Not more than a five per cent variance may be tolerated as a good and fit practice considering that we are running a human system which may never attain perfection given that perfection only belongs to God. Now, what are the statistics from the fourth quarter BIR of 2017 which showed the full year projection of 2017 and what was eventually realized? From projected Federal Government retained revenue of N5,084.40bn, only N2,377.01bn was realised being 46.75 per cent of the projected revenue and a variance of 53 per cent. When other non-budgeted revenue heads such as refund from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, exchange rate differential, etc. are added to the realised revenue, it comes up N2,657.67bn, being a paltry 52.27 per cent of the budgeted revenue and a variance of about 48 per cent.

Let us consider the components of this revenue big picture. The first is the Federal Government share of oil revenue projected at N2,122.18bn while only N1,125.05bn was realised, being a performance of 53.01 per cent, leaving a variance of 47 per cent. Non-oil revenue had a projection of N1,410.51bn while the sum of N956.67bn was realised, being a 67.82 per cent performance leaving a gap of 32 per cent. A further breakdown of non-oil revenue shows that the key subheads of Value Added Tax, Company Income Tax, Customs and Excise, and independent revenue all underperformed. The expectation from VAT was N241.92bn while the sum of N130.05bn was realised, being a 53.75 per cent performance; for CIT, the expectation was N807.82bn while the actual realised came up to N543.34bn, being 67.26 per cent performance. Customs and Excise had a projection of N277.56bn while the actual was N261.41bn which is a 95.26 per cent performance, being the best performance in the group. The perennial underperformer, independent revenue, had a projection of N807.57bn while the actual was N295.29bn, being a performance of 36.5 per cent.

This performance leaves more questions than answers. Why did oil revenue underperform at a time of high oil prices, without reported cases of militancy leading to disruptions in oil production? The composite BIR for the year states that “the average price of crude oil in the international market also represents an increase of US$9.77 per barrel (or 21.96 percent) above the US$44.5 per barrel oil price benchmark for the 2017 Budget”. The implication was that oil sold above the benchmark price in the international market. So, what is going on in the oil sector that we have not been told? Is it subsidy without appropriation, which is illegal and an assault on the constitution, mismanagement, fraud? Nigerians need to know. We are also daily told of the high performance of the Customs but they still missed their target. The impression always created is that the Customs have been exceeding their target. Why is the FGN always projecting a big figure for independent revenue year after year when it is evident that not much will come from the source? Alternatively, a lot is expected to have come from this source, especially in operating surplus from scheduled corporations; so, what is the FGN doing to support the collection of operating surplus in an evidence-led manner as provided in the Fiscal Responsibility Act? Where is the Fiscal Responsibility Commission in the scheme related to the collection of operating surplus? Again, oil revenue still comes top despite all the mantra of diversification of the economy.

Turning to the expenditure side, personnel had a projection of N1,884.07bn while the actual is N1,865.62bn being 99 per cent performance while debt projection was N1,663.89bn and actual at N1.634.93bn being a 98 per cent performance. This excludes other peripheral debt items which ballooned the figure further. In essence, the combination of personnel expenditure and debt repayment amounted to N3,502.55bn which exceeded the realised overall revenue by N844.88bn. The implication is that we borrowed to the tune of N844.88bn to pay salaries and debts. Also, whatever was spent on capital expenditure was borrowed. And the deficit ballooned from the projected N2,356bn to N3.805bn. Which means, 68.62 per cent of all our revenue are used to pay debts while the N2,765.53bn, which is the overall recurrent expenditure, is higher than all accrued FGN revenue of N2,657.67bn.

These figures should raise an alarm. They are not sustainable either in the short, medium or long term and they are totally unacceptable for a country of the size, with available resources and aspirations of Nigeria. The figures show that our budget is a huge joke; projections are never near the actuals and the budget is reduced to a mere exercise in projecting for what is not realisable. We are borrowing to pay salaries and repay previous debts and all pretences to executing capital projects is deceitful if it is based on borrowing. The debt is growing at an unprecedented scale and in geometrical proportions and no one seems to care. The unexecuted 2018 federal budget is going to be heavily reliant on borrowing while 2019 will follow the same trajectory. If we are not raising enough money to repay toady’s debts, how shall we pay back bigger debts tomorrow with an economy that is losing steam and where citizens and investors’ confidence is at an all-time low. The way we are going, the roof of this economy will collapse on all of us and the blame game of who caused the collapse will not save anyone.

We need to go back to the drawing board. The current Federal Government needs to open up to explain what it intends to do with this fiscal crisis. It is no longer enough to continue to pretend that all is well. If we do not open the space for interrogation and new ideas, when total bankruptcy sets in, we should all be ready to suffer the excruciating pains. We need creative thinking with the key operators getting out of the box so as to raise their antenna to new thought pathways. The time to act is now.

The use of money in elections is not new in Nigeria or in any part of the world. Money and other resources are needed for political parties to run their administration and for aspirants to run primaries, and then, the candidates who emerge from the primaries to execute the main elections. Essentially, politics involves the use and disbursement of resources. However, the use of money should simply enable aspirants to get across to the members of the party or delegates during primary elections and to sell their ideas or reasons for seeking office. Again, during the main elections, money and other resources enable the candidates to sell their ideas to the electorate.

The use of money has never been allowed for vote-buying or peddling undue influence on the electorate. Vote-buying, inducement, bribery, etc. have always been criminal offences under the various Electoral Act and Criminal Codes. Various punishments including prison sentences and fines have been imposed on such criminal conduct in the law books. The extant Electoral Act provides limitations of N1bn, N200m, N40m, N20m, N10m and N1m for candidates contesting president, governor, membership of the Senate, House of Representatives, state House of Assembly and councillor respectively. This is the ceiling the candidate can spend on their election but not the ceiling the political party can spend on the same election. The political party’s expenditure on a candidate in an election is not limited by law despite the fact that the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) gives the Independent National Electoral Commission, in consultation with political parties, the power to determine the maximum amount to be spent by a political party on candidates. Again, the maximum amount an individual can give to a political party is not limited by law.

All the foregoing gaps in the law can be filled by INEC through the use of its regulatory powers under Section 153 of the Electoral Act. Section 153 states that, “The Commission may, subject to the provisions of this Act, issue regulations, guidelines, or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act and for its administration thereof.”

Aside from the foregoing, the monitoring of expenses of candidates for an election is a very tedious and difficult assignment. INEC as presently resourced and staffed cannot effectively monitor expenditures of candidates from the 91 political parties across the federation. Also, despite the attempts by the financial regulatory agencies and various laws against money laundering, Nigeria to a great extent still runs a cash-based economy. This is more the case in politics as politicians spend huge amounts of money which cannot be justifiable in normal ethical and legal jurisdictions. It is a notorious fact that delegates electing candidates demand and receive money and generally vote for the highest bidder. These monies are disbursed sometimes in foreign currencies such as the United States dollar. It is another notorious fact that many candidates, especially those with deep pockets or incumbents who control public allocations spend above the ceilings provided for candidates in the Electoral Act. Monies do not change hands officially, but behind closed doors and sometimes in the dead of the night where no one, including INEC officials or the security agencies is watching.

The above creates the need for a stakeholder group such as the Political Finance Monitoring Group that brings various competencies to the table, to be involved in campaign finance monitoring under the leadership of INEC. The key stakeholder-groups include INEC, political parties, the police, other security agencies including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Independent Corrupt Practices Commission, the media, academia, National Broadcasting Commission, Nigeria Communications Commission, Code of Conduct Bureau, Central Bank of Nigeria, Financial Intelligence Unit, Federal Inland Revenue Service and civil society organisations.

Such a group should meet regularly and the stakeholders will provide an array of information to it which can be used for follow-up on remedial and enforcement action. Happily, INEC has by regulation demanded that all candidates should report on their campaign expenditure. It could also ask the candidates and political parties to open dedicated campaign finance bank accounts which will receive all income and through which all expenditure will be made.

All inflows and outflows from such dedicated accounts can be monitored by the CBN, the Financial Intelligence Unit and the relevant security agencies. The Federal Inland Revenue Service should be interested in the tax status of persons who make huge donations to campaigns and political parties; the Broadcasting Commission should be able to give an account of campaign money spent in the electronic media; the Communications Commission will bring information on expenditure that runs through the mobile networks. The political parties will be watching each other and make information available on expenditures that run afoul of the rules; civil society and media as watchdogs and pillars of integrity will provide further information to the group while security agencies will investigate reported breaches. Political parties having broad membership and entrenched in communities will be best suited to provide information and evidence from the grassroots on the extant campaign finance practices of their members and other political party members. The group provides the opportunity to review developments, actions and inactions of various groups, candidates and political parties during the campaigns and election and call for preventive, remedial or proactive action to curtail the breaches.

A Political Finance Monitoring Group that engages its stakeholders will lead to alliance building, knowledge and information exchange, effective monitoring of campaign finance and evaluation of different available options of monitoring and enforcement, strengthen accountability and lead to innovations. The PFMG will seek to revive the full implementation of all campaign finance guidelines and regulations issued by INEC, extant standards and Code of Ethics for Political Parties and seek voluntary compliance by political parties and candidates. It will engage the public, increase demand for accountability and generate evidence for the review of campaign finance laws and policies after the elections.

Evidence available from recent and previous elections indicates the increasing use of money to influence voters arising from an impoverished electorate who are in dire straits. No one can do the monitoring and enforcement of campaign finance laws alone – INEC or any single agency or stakeholder group. Candidates and parties can be stopped from inducing the electorate, violators of the law need to need to be prosecuted and punished and in the long run, the laws will be reviewed to become more fit and proper for the Nigerian society.

Nigeria ready for democracy or, put in another way, are Nigerians ready for democratic consolidation? These questions are germane and imperative considering where we are at the moment. The question, are we ready for democracy, makes sense because what we have had since 1999 is not democracy but autocratic civil rule. It has been nothing other than the rule by godfathers, mobsters and former unrepentant dictators who seem bent on controlling Nigeria from the frontlines and puppet strings after their years in power. The term, democratic consolidation, is relevant to those who think we are in a democracy, and as such, we need to move to the next level of the democratic agenda.

But we are not in a democracy because democracy is about human rights and development. For human rights, we have witnessed a little improvement compared to the days of the military dictatorship, but we are not there yet as we have moved forward and then backward in a one step forward, and another step backward movement. It has just been about the movement in a barber’s chair that leads to nowhere but movement on the same spot. And this is not where we are supposed to be.

The Peoples Democratic Party had its chances for 16 years to set Nigerian firmly on the path of progress and development. However, it chose to bungle the opportunity when it elected President Olusegun Obasanjo and other succeeding presidents from the party. Members of the party did not understand democracy but were focused on personal aggrandisement and driving the arrogance of power to new heights while deriving the perks of office to the maximum available. It is admitted that Obasanjo engineered some reforms, but his score was poor overall. He delivered so little with so many opportunities to excel and change the Nigerian landscape.

Obasanjo was a man who had the opportunity the first time between 1976 and 1979 and secondly for eight years between 1999 and 2007 to change the history of Nigeria. But he chose to blow the opportunity on the arrogance of a megalomaniac. And the greatest disservice he did to Nigeria was not to allow genuine primaries at the presidential and other levels within the party, coupled with his desire to subjugate the legislature. Thus, Obasanjo set the stage for the denigration of internal democracy in our political parties.

Enter, the late President Umaru Yar’Adua who did not rule long for us to have enough time to properly assess his style of governance. His key highlights were his 7-Point Agenda and his profession to the rule of law. But there was evidence that he did not understand governance at the highest level, being someone who never desired or aspired to rule or lead Nigeria, but was only invited by Obasanjo to assume power. He was a reluctant and unprepared President who was struggling with his ill-health, at the same time, trying to understand federal governance challenges as well as setting his agenda of governance. Unfortunately, God called him back and not much changed. The confounding part of his regime was the fact that he sought to revise a number of President Obasanjo’s agenda even though they came from the same party and he was handpicked by the same Obasanjo. And the issues he revised and failed to agree with Obasanjo and delayed policy implementation were the few good points of the Obasanjo regime.

President Goodluck Jonathan came as a self-professed breath of fresh air, with so much euphoria about his education, being the first person with a doctorate to rule Nigeria. His amiable personality and the fact that he comes from a minority group all made him a hot cake. There was a wildfire of goodwill and expectations from Jonathan. Unfortunately, the lethargic comportment of the PDP also enveloped him as he could not control the corruption, excesses and the mischief from his party and they ended up crashing the goodwill of the party on the altar of the All Progressives Congress. But the ascendancy of Jonathan was against the zoning formula of the PDP, which had agreed to the rotation of power between Northern and Southern Nigeria and among the six geopolitical zones. Since Yar’Adua did not complete his tenure which was interpreted as the turn of the North, the expectation was that another Northerner should have succeeded him. Thus, the groundswell of opposition to President Jonathan was beyond his sins in power but fuelled by a desire for return to the original power sharing formula.

The APC benefitted from the prevalent mood in the country and promised to be different. Specifically, President Muhammadu Buhari benefitted from this mood and got elected into power. Incidentally, we have been on the APC change agenda for over three years but the more things change, the more they remain the same. Indeed, in many sectors, there has been retrogression. Nigerians wanted change, yes, we got change, but not in the direction we desired. We are simply at the point of total stagnation, with the leadership not coming forward with any new ideas of governance. They are simply using the old ideas of the PDP with little or no polish but implementing them in the most crude and barbaric of ways.

Nigeria now witnesses its President and Attorney-General of the Federation justifying disobedience to court orders which was rare in the PDP days or at best, in the memory days of Prof Yadudu as Gen Sani Abacha’s Attorney-General. We now witness killings by herdsmen with impunity while the President asks us to pray and refuses to do anything about protecting the right to life. We now have a presidential spokesman who is impunity personified with the effrontery of asking land owners to forfeit their lands or be killed by herdsmen who evidently are above the law. We have a President who hails General Yakubu Gowon for introducing the National Youths Service Corps while keeping mum on his Minister of Finance who allegedly lied on oath and falsified exemption document to show that she did the youth service when in actual fact, she did not serve. Just like in the Obasanjo regime, the anti-corruption agencies have been turned into vendata machines to chase the President’s political opponents out of town under the guise of a war on corruption.

There has been no progress, at least the kind of progress comparable to the quantum of resources and opportunities available to the country. According to a report by the Brookings Institution, data from the World Poverty Clock show that Nigeria is now the poverty capital of the world, now with a collapsed economy which grows slower than its population. Make no mistakes about it; we need a change of leadership. But it is up to Nigerians to decide where the pendulum will swing and that decision needs not be restricted to the two dominant political parties. Nigerians should shine their eyes, as they say.

The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) has been granted the United Nation’s special consultation status through its arm-Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).ECOSOC had adopted the recommendations of its committee on Non-Governmental Organisations, which rated CSJ as worthy of being actually engaged with the council and its subsidiaries as well as the UN’s secretariat, programmes funds and agencies in various ways.

Consultative relationship with NGOs also enables the council or one of its bodies to seek expert information or advice from organisations with special competence in a subject matter.

CSJ may now request the Secretary-General, through the committee on Non-Governmental Organisations, to place items of special interest in the provisional agenda of the council.

It is also entitled to designate official representatives to the United Nations headquarters in New York and the United Nations offices in Geneva and Vienna.The Lead director of CSJ, Eze Onyekpere, said the recognition is a further call to duty, assuming that he and his team will not relent, but continues to pursue the course of humanity.

Nigeria is under siege by the current crop of leaders who are supposed to protect democratic norms, instead, they are engaged in acts which are diametrically opposed to the continuation of democracy. In no other institution is this challenge of the clash of powers more manifest than in the legislature. The struggle for the control of the National Assembly has exposed the weak links in our democratic chain.

During the ill-fated military dictatorship, the executive combined legislative powers in the Armed Forces Ruling Council at the federal level and the military administrators at the state level. By the grace of the military usurpers, the judiciary was allowed to exist, even though they were only permitted to blow muted trumpets through the Federal Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers) Decree. The legislature, as an arm of government, was not allowed to exist. The legislature is the assembly of the elected representatives of the Nigerian people; it is the hallmark of a democracy, as distinct from a president and a vice president who are the only elected members of the executive arm. Other members of the executive are appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President. The judiciary on the other hand is a non-elected branch of government.

In recognition of the essence of the legislature, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 provides for the legislature in Section 4 as the first arm of government, the provision for the executive is in Section 5 whilst the judiciary is provided for in Section 6 respectively. The constitutional sequence of the arms of government is not a mistake or merely perfunctory considering that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through the constitution derives all its powers and authority. As such, the independence and virility of the elected representatives of the sovereign are key determinants of a democracy.

From 1999, Nigerians made the mistake of electing a former military dictator to lead the executive arm of government and he continued with the mindset of ruling from his previous experience as a maximum ruler. President Olusegun Obasanjo did not hide his disdain for the legislature as he sought to control the institution, expose it to public ridicule and contempt and interfered on many occasions in the running of the National Assembly through constantly sponsoring the removal of the leadership. At the time President Obasanjo was announcing to Nigerians that the legislature was collecting fat furniture allowances, he failed to tell the people that those were allowances approved by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission for very senior cadres of public office holders. Thus, from the permanent secretaries, ministers, judicial officers and even the President himself had collected their own furniture allowances. But the focus was on the National Assembly. He created a siege mentality which portrayed the lawmakers in a very bad light so that from the very first day, the members had an image problem with Nigerians. Yes, the members of National Assembly also contributed through their action and inaction to their poor image. However, they may not have committed more infractions over and above those of the elected and unelected members of the executive.

Fast forward to 2015 and another former military dictator in the saddle, this time with the ruling All Progressives Congress, could not get its acts together as to who leads the National Assembly. Since the emergence of Bukola Saraki and Yakubu Dogara as Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives respectively, the National Assembly has not known peace. The ruling party kicked since Saraki was not their choice but he was the choice of the majority of the senators as demanded by the constitution. Saraki was dragged before the Code of Conduct Tribunal and the case continued until the Supreme Court resolved it in his favour.

The acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, appointed by the President, who statutorily requires the clearance of the Senate, but failed the test twice, was asked to continue occupying the office by the President. The Inspector-General of Police, taking a cue, has on several occasions, refused to appear before the Senate even when it was clear that he had failed in the performance of his duties and owed the representatives of the Nigerian people an explanation. Surprisingly, otherwise eminent jurists began to equivocate when they started supporting positions which encouraged the denigration of the legislature as if the National Assembly is the equivalent of its leadership. Evidently, when an otherwise knowledge man or woman says an official can continue in an acting capacity for years, such a person questions the rationale of the law demanding screening and clearance. However, this questioning should be done through a bill to reform the law and not to treat extant laws with disdain.

We witnessed a situation where on the orders of the Inspector General of Police, the homes of the Senate President and the deputy were barricaded, so as not to allow them to exit their residence. Nigerians watched this on television only for the police spokesman to attempt a denial. Before then, thugs were let into the Senate chambers and the mace, the symbol of authority, was stolen and the police and other security agencies looked on helplessly. Up till date, no concrete action has been taken against the perpetrators. The same police boss disobeyed the orders of the President to relocate to Benue State during the crisis that took so many lives. It has become an open season for everyone in the executive, especially the security agencies to threaten the legislature culminating in the Director-General of the Department of State Services, Lawal Daura, deployed masked operatives to invade the premises of the National Assembly last week. Instead of the Commander in Chief apologising to Nigerians for such a treasonable act of a man who reports to him, even after sacking him, the ruling party is spinning to heap the blame on the leadership of the Senate.

Not yet done, the chairman of the ruling party, Adams Oshiomhole, who is not a senator, is threatening the leadership of the Senate with impeachment in circumstances clearly suggesting that he seeks to procure the impeachment through unconstitutional and illegal means. Yet, his party cannot muster the numbers for the impeachment.

It is time to call out the executive and the hierarchy of the ruling party to leave the legislature alone. The members are mature enough to select and remove their leaders if there is the need. It has to be done on the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives and according to the rules set in the constitution and the rules of the respective houses.

Evidently, the National Assembly faces more crises every time a former military dictator is elected President. The President does not need to come personally to interfere in legislative proceedings. As the Commander in Chief, the President is responsible for every infringement committed by those who should report to him. We need to see sanctions, for illegal actions of the security agencies. The sanctions go beyond relieving an officer of his responsibilities. Prosecutions should follow obvious illegalities.

The very basis of the authority of government is the will of the people which is given through periodic elections. Governance as such is delegated power, given by the citizens to a group of persons to hold in trust for them. Part of the architecture for the exercise of the delegated power is a reporting system whereby those entrusted with power for the common will report to their masters, being the citizens who are the ultimate sovereigns, on a regular and periodic basis. Also, those who exercise power on behalf of the people are expected to do so transparently so that every citizen can follow the process of governance.

In no area of governance is this demand for transparency and accountability more expected than in fiscal and economic governance. This is the area of governance that manages the public wealth and resources and disburses them for the benefit of the populace according to an agreed formula. And the budget represents allocation of resources and their disbursement for the benefit of all. Enter the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007 which seeks to define the exercise and parameters of this reporting obligation. It was enacted as an Act to provide for prudent management of the nation’s resources, ensure long-term macro-economic stability of the national economy, secure greater accountability and transparency in fiscal operations within the medium term fiscal policy framework, and the establishment of the Fiscal Responsibility Commission to ensure the promotion and enforcement of the nation’s economic objectives; and for related matters.

The FRA provides for evidence-led budgeting system with checks and balances and clear lines and times of reporting by the authorities on the budgeting process. In Section 48 (1), it provides that “the Federal Government shall ensure that its fiscal and financial affairs are conducted in a transparent manner and accordingly ensure full and timely disclosure and wide publication of all transactions and decisions involving public revenues and expenditures and their implications for its finances”. The key words governing this transparency and accountability obligation of the government to the people are “full and timely disclosure”, “wide publication of all transactions and decisions”. Again in Section 30, it states as follows: “1) The Minister of Finance, through the Budget Office of the Federation, shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the annual budget, assess the attainment of fiscal targets and report thereon on a quarterly basis to the Fiscal Responsibility Commission and the Joint Finance Committee of the National Assembly.2) The Minister of Finance shall cause the report prepared pursuant to subsection (1) of this section to be published in the mass and electronic and on the Ministry of Finance website, not later than 30 days after the end of each quarter”.

Current events in the budget reporting process indicate an abdication and abandonment of this statutory mandate by the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Budget and National Planning Commission and the Budget Office of the Federation. The law places the obligation on the Ministry of Finance through the Budget Office of the Federation to ensure reporting. However, the website of the Budget Office of the Federation indicates that as at the time of writing this discourse, the last budget implementation report (BIR) published is that of the third quarter of 2017. None for the fourth quarter of 2017 and no consolidated 2017 BIR have been published. Also, there is no BIR for the first and second quarters of 2018. This is a retrogressive movement compared to the situation in the years preceding 2015, before the change of administration. Although, the reports in that era also came late but they were published much earlier than what we are witnessing presently.

The FRA’s position on the timing of the publication of the BIR is to provide information that can be used to fine-tune budget implementation and learn from mistakes or failures, so as not to repeat them. The extant scenario seems oblivious of this arrangement. For instance, the 2017 BIRs were supposed to inform the 2018 budgeting process, from preparation to implementation. Already, the implementation of the 2018 budget has started without the requisite 2017 BIRs. Again, the 2019 budget Call Circular is out and federal ministries, departments and agencies are already preparing their 2019-2021 medium term sector strategies without the benefit of the full year BIR for 2017!

Further, because of the distortion in the timing of the preparation, approval and assent to the federal budget, the budget reporting process has become an exercise in futility, a lie and a wasted effort that goes to no issue. Take for instance the year 2017, the first and second quarter budget implementation reports were produced at a time and for a period, the 2017 federal budget was not in existence because the 2017 federal budget did not receive presidential assent to become law until mid-June 2017. Even the third quarter BIR which is the last BIR published on the Budget Office’s website could not in fact and in law be referring to the third quarter of the legal and factual 2017 federal budget. Laws take effect from the date they were enacted and the 2017 federal budget started from mid-June and was scheduled to run for 12 consecutive months from the date of presidential assent. Thus, the legal and factual period of the first quarter of the 2017 federal budget was from June 12 to September 12. Thus, the purported third quarter BIR was indeed the actual first quarter BIR of the 2017 federal budget. The reasons for the refusal, neglect and failure to publish further BIRs after the actual first quarter of 2017 and purported third quarter 2017 BIR are not in the public domain. If there are any reasons at all for this failure, they are not reasons cognizable under extant fiscal jurisprudence

Thus, the disclosures by President Muhammadu Buhari and the Finance Minister, Kemi Adeosun, on the extent of implementation of the capital votes of 2017 are not founded on any empirical basis. Where is the report that details budget implementation for the whole year? The figures which have been presented are at best, back of the envelope unconfirmed figures that have not been subjected to the rigours of empirical analysis. The figures seem more like public relations stunts not founded on the law.

However, some of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Finance under the FRA in relation to the budgeting process have been illegally transferred to the Ministry of Budget and National Planning in a way and manner that suggests a disdain for the law. For a government to restructure the responsibilities of a ministry and still refuse to amend the law that stipulates these responsibilities is a violation of the rule of law. Indeed, the amendment of the law should have been the first act once the federal government takes the decisions to restructure the mandate of ministries.

Evidently, the Federal Government is not living up to its obligations under sections 30 and 48 of the FRA. Nigerians are left in the dark about how their budgetary resources are managed. Nigeria’s federal fiscal governance cannot continue in this opaque dance in a regime that claims to be dedicated to fighting corruption. The Ministry of Budget and National Planning and the Budget Office of the Federation must live up to their statutory duties.

There are certain recurrent features in countries that have evolved and grown from a poor and backward status to a developed, prosperous and continually evolving one. They have been blessed with good and purposeful leadership. But it is not just about blessing, which creates the impression of some benevolent spirits gifting them with good leadership. They have worked and made sacrifices for the emergence of good leadership at all tiers of governance. In the alternative, a ruling class that is committed, patriotic and knowledgeable have emerged and taken concrete and targeted steps that moved the whole society into modernity and development.

Various challenges have been confronting Nigeria as a nation since independence and these challenges have refused to go away. These challenges cannot be wished away; they must be resolved by human beings, since in the first place, they were products of human interaction. It is the position of this discourse that the most fundamental of our challenges is the failure of leadership, illustrated in the picture of a mediator or umpire becoming a combatant or a party to the crisis while still insisting on his mediating role. The leader is the social engineer who uses the instrument of law and policy formulation, implementation and review to solve societal challenges and leads the nation to its manifest destiny. In this context, law is formulated in a process that targets solutions to critical challenges; it is not ad-hominem or made to hold down the progress of any section of the country.

The energies and resources of every country is limited and is best utilised in a scale of preference to get the best out of the opportunity of their deployment. It is the task of leadership to drive the energies of the people in a most productive way through a visioning process that understands that the challenges and forbearances of today drive the achievements of tomorrow. Therefore, leaders invest in a visioning process which brings about a certain level of unanimity of purpose; being an amalgam of many sub-visions which crystallises into the big national picture. A national agenda emerges, where every group and sub-group finds a space for the realisation of its sub-vision or agenda. But the caveat is that none of the sub-visions should be so contradictory of each other as to lead to its non-realisation or the destruction of the livelihoods of other groups. There is also the element of complementarity where each group within a nation finds that its prosperity and progress will be enhanced by the progress of other sub-groups. For instance, more purchasing power from consumers of commodity A will lead to increased income for the producers of the commodity which will then lead to a mutual interest between producer and consumer groups. Great visions are then converted into laws and policies through a process of collaboration between the executive, legislature and the people – from civil society, the private sector, academia, etc. Once the legislature enacts the laws, the executive runs with them to transform the society to new heights. This will include new laws and policies in agriculture, education, health, housing, industries, etc. which would emerge from a broad consensus of the people.

Good leadership builds national cohesion and claims the benefits of progress in any sub-group for the whole nation, rather than seeing innovation and development as benefitting or to be attributed to a part of whole. The most beautiful example is when Nigeria plays a football match and a goal is scored, it is usually the flag of Nigeria that is raised. Many Nigerians do not sing the national anthem but for football matches. However, a scientific invention in one part of Nigeria never attracts this kind of national support to take it to the next level. Industries, businesses and ideas that create employment and add value across the whole federation have been sabotaged because of their location. Again, the fact that a section of the country is more educationally advanced than another section, cannot found a policy that seeks to hold back the group from advancing further; rather, it should be a background for increasing the opportunities available to the group that is backward through a competitive race to the top. It should not and cannot be a race to the bottom as is presently the case.

Proper management of religious diversity should not have created the kind of challenges that we witness today. It should have been managed as the blessing of the rainbow and we would be available to take the benefit of every available name through which blessings could be granted to humanity.

Also, leadership taps and converts challenges, weaknesses and threats to opportunities through a process of re-engineering and re-definition of issues. It is about optimism, creativity and getting the best out of any situation, no matter how bad it seems. For instance, the herdsmen challenge of today is a robust opportunity waiting to be converted into the prosperity of a booming industry that involves meat, dairy, leather and whole value chain of animal feed, meat products, transportation, etc. It is also an opportunity to create jobs for conflict managers and transformers and get a new thought process in the populace that properly directs anger, grievances and feelings of hurt into historical moments of transformation to a higher level of development. The offer by the Kano State Government for free land that can support hundreds of thousands of cattle has been spurned by the government at the centre as it seems unwilling to take it up. The large land mass of Niger State (more than double the entire South East of Nigeria) which is blessed with water and arable land can also support big cattle ranches. These are opportunities waiting to be harnessed.

Good leadership builds confidence in the people through the instrument of the rule of law, access to justice, equality before the law and equal protection of the law. When people break the law especially, when there are grave violations of human rights, the leadership conducts a through unbiased and impartial investigation, brings perpetrators to justice through the courts employing due process, mete punishment to offenders, give guarantees of non-repetition and compensation to victims of violations. Leadership is not about appearing helpless and watching tens of people slaughtered on a daily basis while requesting that we pray to God. It is also not about sticking to failed service chiefs who watch and fail to prevent the spilling of innocent blood.

Nigeria needs a new brand of leadership, a charismatic, cosmopolitan and knowledgeable leadership that drives reforms, utilizes the energy of the people in a positive way; takes no side in conflicts but mediates as an impartial umpire. An ethnic champion, religious fundamentalist masquerading under any guise, a divisive personality or an insensitive fellow can only take Nigeria backwards. The leadership should build societal confidence through adherence to the rule of law. It should be a leadership that can inspire the young generation with its qualities, positive quotable quotes. Nigeria is in dire need of a true leader who truly belongs to all Nigerians and cannot be appropriated by any sub-division of the country.

The controversy arising from the passage of the 2018 federal budget on the respective roles of the executive and legislative arms of government in the budgeting process presents an opportunity for learning and progress. It is not a scenario of saints and sinners or where one of the parties can assume a moral high ground, as there is none to assume. But if we choose to waste the learning experience, then we are bound to continue the yearly ritual of controversy that leads to nowhere.

It is pertinent to recall that this controversy is not new. It has been with us since the tenure of former President Olusegun Obasanjo. Thus, it is as old as the current democratic dispensation. However, we have kept on repeating the mistakes inherent in the challenge without taking away the positives that would lead to the reform of the budgeting process. The 1999 Constitution provides for separation of powers, as well as checks and balances.

Budget making is one area where we cannot practice a theory of water-tight separation of powers because the President is given the power to present estimates, while the National Assembly is given the power to approve, to appropriate (which is just about the powers of NASS), to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation. Thus, the two arms have legitimate claims about their participation in budget making. But the exact contours of where the respective duty of the executive and legislature ends is not spelt out in the constitution.

The first point of departure is that the making of a budget is like the making of a baby. It takes a male and female to produce a baby and this does not preclude the artificial insemination process. Thus, the executive and legislature need to cooperate, collaborate and work on the same page, if we are to get a development oriented budget either at the federal or state level. The federal budget neither belongs to the executive nor the legislature; it is the budget of the people of Nigeria. So, the idea that the executive owns the budget simply because they produce policy, prepare the financial estimates or implement the budget misses the point. On the other hand, any claim of absolute powers of the legislature in the budget making process stands logic on its head.

In reforming the budget process, we have to start from ensuring that the financial year runs in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Year Act which defines the Nigerian financial year as the period, January 1 to December 31 of every year. To achieve this, we need the collaboration of the executive and legislature. Available information indicates that the legislature has taken a step to achieve this by amending section 81 of the Constitution to ensure that the President presents the federal estimates not later than 90 days to the end of the financial year. The implication is that the estimates will be laid before the legislature three months to the end of the year, which is a reasonable time for NASS to conclude the approval process.

Why President Muhammadu Buhari has refused to sign this bill, which also got the approval of not less than 24 State Houses of Assembly, is baffling, especially since he stated his desire to return Nigeria to the appropriate financial year calendar.

The second point is about consultation, good faith; the two arms working in confidence as partners and understanding that one arm cannot go it alone. This will involve having agreements at the preparation stage about the parametres of the budget, anchored on the Medium Term Expenditure Framework and the Medium Term Sector Strategies. Such consultation will involve opening up the preparation process early enough so that legislators make their inputs to Ministries, Departments and Agencies housing their proposed constituency projects. This will provide the opportunity for priorities to be agreed upon so that nominated projects will be made to fit into the system with requisite technical studies, environmental impact assessments, etc. In as much as legislators will nominate constituency projects, an agreement must be reached so that such projects must be on issues where the NASS has legislative competence under the constitutional schedules. It may not be the best option for the federal government to be funding projects which under the division of roles between the federal, state and local governments, belong to states and local governments.

The third issue is that the budgeting system will be reformed for capital project continuity and spending within available resources to avoid spreading national resources too thin on so many projects which cannot be completed in the short and medium terms. The Project Implementation and Continuity Bill proposed by Vision: 20:2020 had sought to guarantee that existing projects are not abandoned but completed first before provisions are made for new ones. It provides a framework for prioritisation so that resources are not wasted during the long period of gestation between award of contracts and project completion.

The fourth is that the President must understand leadership and carry other arms of government along in the delicate task of balancing conflicting interests. Always trying to blame another arm of government or coming to the public to portray the other arm in bad light will backfire because at the end of the day, the President will still go back to the NASS for whatever amendments that will be proposed. Of course, the NASS has responded to the President’s allegations. When there is much misgiving between institutions that should collaborate for our development, progress will stagnate and bickering will take the place of good governance.

What stopped the President from drawing the attention of the leadership of the NASS to his reservations with the approved 2018 budget rather than coming to read a public speech which heavily criticized the legislature? Assuming the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives were available in Nigeria and had attended the budget signing ceremony, would the President had expected them to sit there and listen to his scolding? Definitely, the President will still send a formal communication to the NASS and he expects them to happily approve his requests.

Nigerian Presidents since Olusegun Obasanjo have been enjoying this public spat with the NASS, but this has not changed anything. Rather, the contenders are digging deeper into a hole. If the approach of the executive had been working all these years, these challenges would have stopped. However, it is not working and will not work. Therefore new strategies and new thinking is needed. Collaboration is the way, coupled with a good dose of patriotism and knowledge.

Reforming the economy came with a Federal Government promise of increased local content in government commerce. The Executive Order on Support for Local Content in Public Procurement by the Federal Government of May 18, 2017 was a welcome development.

ccording to the order: “All Ministries, Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria shall grant preference to local manufacturers of goods and service providers in their procurement of goods and services….Made-in-Nigeria products shall be given preference in the procurement of the following items and at least 40 per cent of the procurement expenditure on these items in all the MDAs of the Federal Government shall be locally manufactured goods or local service providers; uniforms and footwear; food and beverages; furniture andfittings; stationery; motor vehicles; pharmaceuticals; construction materials; and information and communication technology”.

However, provisions for vehicles in the budgets are still suffused with requests of foreign brands which have locally made or assembled equivalents while information technology procurements are still top heavy with foreign brands and services which also have local equivalents. This is also tied to such policies as the National Automotive Policy which, of late, seems to have been consigned to history. Nigeria needs to activate and implement with great passion and rigour, any policy that will strengthen its capacity to produce what it needs.

The Petroleum Industry Bills (governance, fiscals, host community, etc.) were expected to have strengthened the oil and gas sector, increase transparency, value for money and earn more income for the economy. The expectation was that collaboration between the executive and the legislature would have prioritised the bills and they would have been out of the legislative mill within six months or the first anniversary of the administration. They were supposed to be executive bills. However, it seems the government was not interested in pursuing such an agenda. As I write, only one out of the four bills has scaled through the legislature and awaits presidential assent.

The administration met the value of the naira at less than N200=1USD. But today, the naira has been so devalued that at some point it was almost N500=N1USD. But it has recovered to about N365=1USD. At some point in time, the Central Bank of Nigeria stated that it has more than enough foreign exchange to meet the local demand for foreign exchange and asked banks not to collect foreign currencies into domiciliary accounts.

Thereafter, it somersaulted and it was clear that the CBN was grandstanding and political considerations had taken over pure technical monetary policy issues. This sent very worrying signals to investors and persons who had foreign currency. Yes, the low price of oil in the international market and the declining foreign reserves were factors in plunging of the value of the naira, but the policy somersault and lack of coherence in the management of monetary policy contributed to the free fall of the naira. The worrisome aspect of Nigeria’s economic management is that things that go up hardly come down. With improved price of crude oil and greater accretions to the foreign reserves, the value of the naira has not improved. It has simply settled at around N365 to 1USD.

The soaring lending rate of over 20 per cent per annum is not the way to stimulate economic recovery and growth. This places economic agents in Nigeria at a disadvantage in terms of cost of production and service delivery thereby making them uncompetitive.

To the extent that we need to reduce inflation and rein in other macroeconomic fundamentals to stabilise our economy, a middle approach should be found to ensure access to credit at single digit rates. The argument that double digit inflation rate cannot support single digit interest rates falls in the face of single digit deposit rates paid by banks to depositors. If that argument held water, then the CBN should regulate the spread between deposit and lending rates. A situation where depositors are paid interests less than the inflation rate whilst those seeking loans are compelled to pay over 20 per cent per annum is a recipe for the type of economic disaster we presently witness. The middle of the road approach is to tie lending and deposit rates to a corridor that enables depositors get good returns on their deposits whilst banks make reasonable returns from their intermediation.

Otherwise, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to save money in a bank except for safekeeping since the money you depots will be less that the value you collect at the end of the year. Considering that Nigeria has one of lowest savings and capital accumulation rates in the world, the banking system should not be seen to penalise Nigerians who save money in the banks.

Further, in a period of grave financial crisis, the dilemma on how to raise funds to rejuvenate the economy comes to the fore. Do we take more loans or do we energise the process of enhanced domestic resource mobilisation? Taking more loans builds up sovereign debts which must be repaid either in the long, medium or short term. However, mobilising domestic resources such as the National Housing Fund for the housing sector; compulsory and universal health insurance for the health sector; a Road Fund for the road sector, etc. are proven strategies for funding public investments. The expectation had been that laws for health insurance and road funds would have been enacted early in the life of the administration. The existing Housing Fund should have been reorganised with competent professionals to drive greater resource mobilisation for housing loans and mortgages which will be matched with public funds.

Greater investments in housing will have facilitated economic revival through greater number of Nigerians employed as artisans in bricklaying, carpentry and wood work, electrical works, plumbing, etc. whilst the companies producing cement and allied products would have increased their capacity utilisation and productivity as well as income liable to companies income tax. Compulsory and universal health insurance law complemented with innovative sources of funding would reduce the demand for public funding of health care while ensuring reduced out of pocket expenditure in health.

The administration was elected on a promise of increased transparency and accountability. However, the details of all statutory transfers are still secret three years into the life of the administration. The only one that has just been opened is the vote of the National Assembly and the opening was a product of increased civil society agitation for the legislature to be more transparent. Nothing has been done by the administration to open up the votes of Independent National Electoral Commission, Public Complaints Commission, National Human Rights Commission, National Judicial Council and Niger Delta Development Commission. The administration is called upon to note that the secretive nature of these votes is not only illegal but also unconstitutional.

In conclusion, the Buhari administration can still make an impact in the last stretch of its tenure if it can introduce and implement more well-nuanced policies and understand that the Nigeria’s economic situation is in dire straits and it needs to act urgently.

It is already three years into the tenure of four years for the President Muhammadu Buhari administration. This column, today, reviews the economic performance of the administration and raises the central poser: Are Nigerians better off today than they were at the beginning of the administration in May 2015? If the answer is in the positive, what are the indicators of the improved standard of living? If the answer is negative, what are the key challenges and measures that can be taken to ameliorate the situation?

The GDP Reports of the National Bureau of Statistics show that the economy grew by 2.84 per cent and 2.11 per cent in the third and fourth quarters of 2015. In the first, second, third and fourth quarters of 2016, the economy declined by -0.67 per cent, -1.49 per cent,-2.34 per cent and -1.73 per cent respectively. It further declined by -0.91 per cent in the first quarter of 2017 and thereafter began to grow by 0.72 per cent, 2.17 per cent and 2.11 per cent in the second, third and fourth quarters of 2017.

The growth decelerated to 1.95 per cent in the first quarter of 2018. Incidentally, throughout this period, the population of the country grew by an average of three per cent per annum which meant that even in the quarters when the GDP expanded, the expansion was less than the growth of the population.

Essentially, there has been negative movement and in the few quarters of positive movement, the economy merely stagnated and had gone nowhere near the preceding 10 years of growth at not less than 6.5 per cent per annum. Although we have exited recession, there are still genuine concerns about the health of the economy considering that economic growth projections from local and international experts for 2018 and 2019 are still less than three per cent growth. This is not good enough.

For employment and underemployment, the statistics are grim. The administration met unemployment at 8.2 per cent in the second quarter of 2015 but it moved up to 9.9 per cent, 10.4 per cent, 12.1 per cent and 13.3 per cent in the third and fourth quarters of 2015 and the first and second quarters of 2016 respectively. By the third quarter of 2016, unemployment had reached13.9 per cent whilst it became 14.2 per cent by the fourth quarter of 2016. The rate escalated to 14.2 per cent, 16.2 per cent and 18.2 per cent by the first, second and third quarter of 2017 respectively. Thus, unemployment had more than doubled and it is reported that no fewer than 10 million Nigerians lost their jobs during the period under review. Underemployment moved from 17.9 per cent to 21.2 per cent during the period under review. These statistics come on the back of the redefinition of the criteria for determining unemployment by the NBS which has liberalised the criteria for stating that an individual is employed. Otherwise, the figures of unemployment would have been very frightening.

Inflation as reflected in the Consumer Price Index was 9.30 per cent in the third quarter of 2015 and ended the year at 9.43 per cent. For 2016, it rose to 11.27 per cent, 15.27 per cent, 17.53 per cent and 18.45 per cent for the first, second, third and fourth quarters respectively. It started a downward journey in 2017 as it declined to 17.92 per cent, 16.53 per cent, 16.01 per cent and 15.73 per cent respectively. In quarter one of 2018, it settled at 14.33 per cent. This shows that the price of goods and services has been on the upward spiral since the administration came into power. Although it has slightly moderated, it is yet to return to the single digit rate it was at inception of the administration.

According to the Debt Management Office, the Buhari administration met Nigeria’s debts at N12.118tn at the end of June 2015, but today, the debt has risen to N21.725tn at the end of 2017, an addition of close to N10tn in three years! The challenge is that this huge borrowing is coming at a time when debt repayment figures have grown to about 40 per cent of actual retained revenue. The statistics of debt to GDP may not be relevant here considering that debt repayment is not done with the size of the GDP but with actual available revenue. Moreover, the debts have been incurred at a time the GDP is shrinking.

It is acknowledged that the price of crude oil which is Nigeria’s chief export plummeted and reached as low as $25 per barrel from an all-time high that averaged between $70 and $100 per barrel. This could have been partially responsible for the poor economic performance but the response of the administration to the crisis seemed to have worsened the situation.  Non-oil export value was N308,696m in the third quarter of 2015 declining to N134,984m in the fourth quarter. In 2016, it plummeted to N77,071m, N62,681m, N75,065m and N129,551m in the first, second, third and fourth quarters respectively. For 2017, the figures are N171,248m, N165,528m, N121,755m and N171,349m respectively for the first, second, third and fourth quarter.  This showed that non-oil exports have declined from the high-end value of N308,696 to about 55 per cent of the starting value.

Notably, the Federal Government’s budgets of 2016 and 2017 were presented very late in the year; the first on December 22, 2015 whilst the second came on December 15, 2016. The 2016 budget did not get presidential assent until early May 2016 whilst the 2017 budget got assent on June 12, 2017. The 2018 federal appropriation bill was presented on November 7, 2017 to the National Assembly and as of today still awaits presidential assent in the first week of June 2018. The foregoing is contrary to the full gamut of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Budgets are not enacted for the mere fun of it, but to provide clear directions and guides for the government, the private sector and civil society on the way to move the economic performance to the highest level needed for economic growth and development. The administration has introduced uncertainty into the financial year to the extent that the financial year differs from year to year, considering the provisions of the Appropriation Acts which insist that the budget will run for 12 consecutive months from the date of its assent by the President.

Contrary to the clear provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which require that Budget Implementation Reports be produced, published and disseminated within one month from the end of each quarter, the Buhari administration publishes these reports very late when they cannot be used to make inputs into the next budget cycle. For instance, despite the fact that 2017 has ended six months ago, only a draft third quarter budget implementation report for 2017 is available. This situation calls for improved fiscal transparency.

On the positive side, the administration met the foreign exchange reserves under $30bn but has since moved it up to $47bn. This is a positive development that should be sustained to grow the reserves which will help to stabilise the economy and the currency in the event of a shock. But with the increased price of crude oil, it is pertinent to rebuild the stabilisation fund in the Excess Crude Account.

To be continued.