Management of NDDC attempts new policy initiatives at achieving the original mandate of the agency, Assistant Editor (South South), JOE EZUMA, reports.
Last month, the Bayelsa State Government set up a committee to review projects executed by the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) in the state. The move drew questions and raised apprehension from the commission and beneficiaries of its largesse.
Observers however laud Governor Seriake Dickson for setting up the committee, describing it as timely in advancing the cause of accountability and guarding the commission against derailing from the path of its vision and mission of addressing the development question of the Niger Delta.
The move is also seen to be in line with the touted anti-corruption posture of the Muhammadu Buhari administration.
Nevertheless, Bayelsa Government had explained that the idea was to ensure that the people of the state got their fair share of the NDDC interventionist projects.
According to Dickson, “the rationale behind setting up a committee to review projects being executed by the Niger Delta Development Commission in the state was not to witch-hunt anybody, but to ascertain if the state is getting its fair share of the intervention fund.”
Speaking shortly after receiving an interim report from the committee in Yenagoa, the governor expressed delight that its findings would assist the administration to determine the extent to which the commission had contributed to the development of the state.
While appreciating the federal government for establishing the NDDC, Dickson noted that the activities of the commission would go a long way in complementing the development efforts of the affected states, if well-coordinated.
The committee, which was headed by Lionel Jonathan-Omo, identified about 553 projects at various stages of execution, even as it said it had some challenges accessing some vital information from the commission such as the identification of the names of some contractors.
Jonathan-Omo had, while submitting the committee’s report to the governor, expressed displeasure over what he described as “uncooperative attitude of the NDDC leadership in providing vital information the committee duly applied for”, and accordingly advised the state government to take legal steps to ensure that the commission cooperates with the committee.
Dickson said: “We are interested in seeing to it that those who are selected by the NDDC as contractors to execute intervention jobs in Bayelsa actually do so. I agree with the committee that this state has the right to access that critical piece of information, so that we can find out exactly who was supposed to have done what and did not do and who has done well.”
Although it is generally agreed by observers of the Niger Delta development process that the NDDC had performed better than previous interventionist agencies in the region such as the Niger Delta commission, the river basin development authorities in the area and the Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (OMPADEC), it is equally believed by many that the commission is beset by sleaze.
Critics also believe that, given the huge financial outlay to the commission that enjoys federal protection and financial security, it ought to do better. They point to many factors as inhibiting the work of the commission. These include political manipulation, shady contract system, insincerity and unfaithfulness of the staff to the agenda of the interventionist agency, among many other distractions.
TheNiche also noted that many in the region, especially the unemployed youths and community people, have come to see the commission as cash cow. This explains while the premises of the commission has been a regular host of both protesting and solidarity groups.
On Thursday, May 1, 2014, the new board of the NDDC, which came on stream in December 2013, hosted over 98 ex-militant leaders of the region out of over 30,000 that are under the Presidential Amnesty Programme, in what the management called an interactive session that lasted till the early hours of Friday, May 2. The reality of the commission’s existence was brought before the stakeholders, as participants at the occasion told themselves the home truth. The proceeding also showed a well thought-out programme by the host to sustain relevance.
Certain issues, however, stood clear from the speeches and responses at trouble-shooting engagement with the ex-militants. It was identified, for instance, that majority of the Niger Delta peoples have become increasingly disappointed with the commission as a platform for economic liberation and social transformation.
The former warlords tasked the NDDC on development, demanding that contract jobs given to them should not be limited to N100 million per kilometre of road, claiming that the offer amounted to an insult on them. They also demanded zero-corruption in the commission, charging the board to be accountable while every kobo it spends on the Niger Delta should count. They further advised the NDDC board to avoid the bickering that characterised activities of the previous boards. Their shopping list for the commission also included the development of agriculture in the region and the improvement of the farm inputs deliverable to farmers in the region for increased food production.
NDDC Managing Director, Bassey Dan-Abia, at the occasion, advised those seeking solution to be addressed on the need to follow due process and orderliness, saying: “You must understand that NDDC has its own rules and regulations which it has to abide by.”
Lamenting the ambitious projects at the commission, Dan-Abia said: “This commission has been exposed to many projects and so many commitments all over the region. We all are the living witnesses of uncompleted projects. We must therefore try to say the home truth that we cannot continue like this. We have to sit down, review our situation and collectively resolve on how to move the region forward.”
NDDC, since its formation and the era of its pioneer chairman, Onyema Ugochukwu, has been advertising itself as an agency that has come to make the difference. Many impediments have stood against this policy statement. The question becomes whether it is making the difference. This appears a far cry due to certain human factors, analysts insist.
Two phenomena appear to chiefly characterise the appointment of members of new board members of the NDDC. The two incidentally tend to negate the moral requirement of the vision of the development agency as they sign-post corruption. One of these is that each time a new board is to be constituted, it is characterised by both subtle and vocal group and ethnic campaigns for favoured choices, horse-trading, smear campaigns, back-stabbing, underhand movements among other machinations. The other issue is that any appointment of a new chairman, managing director or other key officers of the commission elicits rapturous celebrations and deluge of congratulatory messages to the new helmsmen from their people and friends who believe that a fortune lane has been opened for them.
These apart, NDDC has, since inception in 2000, been politicised, rather than acting as a socio-economic development template primed to resolve the development question of the Niger Delta’s oil-rich but impoverished communities.
Concerned at what appears to be widespread condemnation of failing in its vision and mission, the commission has embarked on series of consultative stakeholders’ meetings. These included the broad-based meetings with stakeholders which kicked off in Bayelsa between May 17 and 18, 2014, through to Port Harcourt on May 19.
At the event, Dan-Abia said it was necessary to engage and consult with stakeholders to communicate to them, the resolve of the commission to evolve new robust and innovative strategies for delivering its mandate as encapsulated in the act establishing the interventionist agency and captured in the Niger Delta Regional Development Master Plan.
