Time to focus on state governors

Obo Effanga

Obo Effanga

 The story has been told of how Nigerian state governors, as a major political bloc, pressured the President Goodluck Jonathan government to spend much of the excess crude oil revenue, which stood at over $20bn at the inception of his administration but got depleted to about $2bn when he left office on May 29, 2015. Jonathan, in fact, admitted to that fact at a recent interview he grantedBloomberg TV.

 According to him, “At any time the earnings (from oil) dropped, the governors would insist that there is no place in our laws that actually says that the Federal Government should keep the reserves”, adding that “they always insisted that a part of it (excess crude revenue account) should be brought.” And I add, for sharing.

 There is no doubt that the present economic strait we find ourselves is partly linked to our failure to save money when we had “excess” revenues. But it is also true that the governors actually had the backing of the law in insisting on the sharing of everything that came in as revenue, in line with what the constitution provides. Perhaps, if we still had the excess crude revenues now, we would still be sharing everything, even under this new government. After all, some of the key members of the present Federal Government were also involved in the “share everything” era of the past. What is more, the state governors are still a powerful group.

 What many of us have canvassed over time is the amendment of the constitution to give legal teeth to the excess crude savings account. But even without such amendment, there is no reason a prudent government at any level cannot provide for savings. It appears therefore that all that the state governors wanted in the past (and still want now) was the sharing from the federation account to meet the immediate needs of their states. The Excess Crude Account therefore looked like some dope that gives the states temporary highs.

 And we must be stress the fact that our state governors are the beneficial owners of the funds accruable to the states and those accruable to the local government areas under them. That means the state governments have a lot of money under them. One implication of this is that the state governments and particularly the governors have a key role to play in the direction of the economy, nay our entire governance and development. It is time therefore to pay more attention to what this crop of politicians do. The governors surely control much more than we pay attention to.

It therefore behoves citizens to therefore take much more interest in whom they elect as state governors and how they conduct themselves in office. Pressure must be put on state governors to develop mechanisms for more prudent management of resources at that level, including provisions for savings. We also need to pay more attention to the quality, pedigree, temperament, attitude etc. of those we elect as state governors. I really think we need to provide some kind of finishing schools for governors and other political office holders to teach them even the principles of democracy and in fact basic governance. The responsibility for such training lies not only on the state but on the political parties who should invest resources in raising the skills of their members, especially those seeking and holding public offices.

At a recent national conference on combating corruption, the discussion moved to too much concentration of powers in some offices as a major cause for abuse of office and corruption. One of the discussants, a Speaker of a state House of Assembly, shared a recent experience with us. He mentioned how prior to the last general elections, when political parties were deciding who their candidates were, he and some political leaders from a certain part of the country tried to save the career of a certain federal legislator.

The federal legislator was finding it difficult to have the backing of his state governor who had vowed not to allow him get the party’s nomination to stand the election. The political leaders, knowing the powers of a state governor, decided to go and plead with him on behalf of their friend, rather than confront the governor. On the occasion, the governor said his main tiff with the legislator was that whenever the legislator arrived the state, he failed to visit him (the governor), and you can add, to pay homage. On top of it, the legislator was accused of moving about with siren, while in the state.

 The picture here is of an absolute power wielded by state governors. They are so powerful as to determine and control who represents the state in the National Assembly. This was one of the causes of serious rift in the Peoples Democratic Party in 2014 when state governors outsmarted senators and House of Representatives members seeking fresh terms or seeking to replace the governors on the expiration of their terms of office. In fact, the governors have since created an unwritten code which grants them the “right of first refusal” to become senators when they finish their terms as governors.

The powers of the state governors go beneath the state level to the third tier of government. The local government administrations are almost completely the colonies of governors as they make and unmake the rules, decide whether or not to allow them taste of the constitutional guarantee of a system of local government administration by democratic means. In most instances across the country, the local government administrations are run by personal appointees of the state governors. Even at that, the governors would not allow any administrator to run the office long enough to even allow for proper planning and execution of projects to boost development. Some governors change the local government administrations as often as every six months. This poses a serious challenge for development. It is also difficult for development agencies, civil society or citizens’ groups to effectively engage local administrations to either support them or demand the rights of citizens as the duty bearers keep changing and previous work faces the risk of abandonment.

Even where state governors allow the conduct of local government elections, the State Independent Electoral Commissions set up are often accused of partisanship and lack of independence. This explains why virtually all local government elections produce a clean sweep of victories for the political party of the state governor. Added to the above, many state governors freely terminate the tenure of elected local government officials. Thus, the local government officials practically exist or remain in office at the pleasure of the state governors.

There is however a new and frightening dimension to how governors manipulate the local government administration. Many of them have decided that the states cannot afford the funds to conduct local government elections and so they would rather appoint caretaker administrators. Now this may sound sensible in an era of recession we find ourselves in. But it is not justifiable in view of the constitutional provisions. There is no justification for a state not to budget for the conduct of local government elections when they fall due. It is scary because we may be setting the stage for a similar excuse to be given by the Federal Government in relation to the conduct of governorship elections and the state Houses of Assembly seats.

 And talking about the budget, how many states truly process and pass the budget? How many state budgets are in the public domain, even in their websites? Citizens and groups must begin to pressure their state governors to make their budgets open.

 If state governors are known to demand the complete sharing of excess revenues of the federation to the three tiers of government, by relying on the constitution, there is no reason for them to cherry pick the same constitution by failing to abide by the provision guaranteeing the system of local government administration by democratically elected local government councils.