Bail-out for states: Matters arising

Uncertainties and uncontrollable variables are usually the twin sore-thumb that sticks out to frustrate efforts at effective planning and decision-making. Interestingly, apart from such situations as weather elements, most other uncertainties and uncontrollable variables are man-made. They come in different forms and sources, and include, but not limited to, wars, strikes and civil commotion, political decisions and policies, and they have the capacity to thwart otherwise good plans, be they social, business or political.
Imagine a situation where a businessman has collected a loan from a bank and established a manufacturing concern. A few days to the commissioning of the project and commencement of operation, the federal government bans the importation of the primary raw materials needed by the company. This decision is beyond the control of the businessman. He is bound to suffer psychological and financial depression, and possibly death. The bank, knowing the source of the problem, will not relent in their effort to collect whatever is left of the business to recoup its loan outlay.
How many people have been left frustrated after investing heavily on social events only to be denied joy by torrential rainfall on the d-day, worse still if fund-raising had been planned as part of the total package? Have we forgotten how a former President nearly sent Cletus Ibeto to an early grave by closing his cement importation business and creating a monopoly in favour of Aliko Dangote?
The federal government, in recent times, has taken the issue of bail-out for states to its ridiculous apogee. Beyond meeting the convoluted, but tempting, conditions for such bail-out, what measures are put in place to exert compliance with the objectives of such politically-fine-tuned largesse? We have witnessed protests across the states where governors have been accused of spending the bail-out funds without let or hindrance on profane, activities. With the vexatious immunity clause still operative, what happens if a governor does not deploy the funds appropriately?
The civil servants whose salaries are the main planks on which the bail-out funds are premised are still owed several months in arrears in the states whose governors have accessed the bail-out funds. If the states with new governors are complaining of inheriting empty treasuries, what of the states where there have been no changes? Before the 2015 election, governors who were vying for second term did not owe salaries, except in Osun State and a very few other notorious states. The normal trend is that second-term governors do just a little, and steal whatever is available to prepare for life out of executive office, leaving any in-coming person in the wilderness, financially. An example is Abia State, where the former governor, Theodore Orji, came, saw and conquered.
The truth is that most of the states in dire need of a bail- out have been raped by their governors. It is surprising that nobody is giving a thought to this ugly trend. To me, the bail-out idea is more of a popularity-seeking gimmick than a well thought-through, enduring, financial calibration. So, the greed of a governor presents an uncertainty for his successor. The poor financial position in the states necessitating a bail-out is caused more by indolent governors than by the dwindling revenue in the monthly allocation from Abuja.
It is heart-warming that a few states have declared boldly that they are not interested in any bail-out. To these states – Lagos, Kebbi and, I think, Akwa Ibom – I doff my hat. For the others, shame. The dwindling oil revenue is cited always as the reason the federal and state governments are finding it difficult to achieve set targets. This is an uncontrollable variable. What is the way out? We must cut our expenditure profile in non-wealth-creating areas. How many governors have cut their security votes in line with the economic reality of today? Some of them still fly in chartered airplanes, even on short distances within the country. Do you blame them? Those before them who taught them how to steal are still walking around freely.
Governor Adams Oshiomhole of Edo State is creating an uncertain situation for the next governor of the state. With arrears of pension and other entitlements to grapple with, he recently endorsed a new N25,000 minimum wage regime. He has barely over two months before the next gubernatorial election is held. Who is he buying this trouble for? In Imo State, Governor Rochas Okorocha has lamented a situation where close to the entire revenue of the state is spent on civil servants’ salaries. To him, civil servants are not economically productive. He would rather such money was committed to building factories and developing infrastructure. When did he realise this? Just in an interview last month. His argument sounds plausible, but can best be taken with a pinch of salt. During his electioneering either in 2011 or in 2015, did he tell this to the large population of civil servants in Imo? The Owelle does not lack ideas, neither does he lack the skill of presenting them. But truth be told, he is not a prodigy of altruism.
A cursory look at the states where bail-out is middle name will reveal that they are states where local government election has not taken place since 1999. The governors appoint jesters on three-monthly basis as interim local government chairmen. When the monthly allocation for the local government comes from Abuja, say N100 million for ABC local government, the governor calls the jester who is given about N5 million to go and pay his workers, but signs a document to the effect that he has collected N100 million. Concerned Nigerians have continuously been asking why the states must maintain joint accounts with the local governments, even when the local government is legally recognised as a third-tier of government.
For the APC federal government, it is no-brainer choosing the bail-out option above a more robust and enduring approach of discussing a restructuring of the country, preferably into regions, to reduce the number of these rampaging army of men of dishonour and chicanery recognised by our constitution as governors. Very soon, when the governors can no longer bear the pain of at-source deductions of their monthly allocation in payment of their bail-out loans, they will form an association of governors-in-need-of-bail-out, and begin to agitate for a restructuring of the repayment plan. And the circus show continues.