Nigeria@52: No funds for infrastructure, but politicians’ pockets deepen

A lot has changed in Nigeria in the past 52 years, one of which is the cost of governance, which has skyrocketed.

LEKE BAIYEWU writes that suggestions for a return to the slim structure of the First Republic have not gone down well with some operators of the system

 Nigeria is a country with a population of about 167 million, according to the National Population Council. The significance of this is that it has many mouths to feed as well as huge infrastructure to provide: schools, vast network of roads, hospitals, pipe-borne water, funding of education among others.

Unfortunately, the country has huge infrastructural deficit, which has negatively impacted on its economic and social development. Keen observers of the country’s affairs have attributed this sorry state of affairs to corruption and the large size of government.

For instance, the Federal Government has a 42-member cabinet, with each of the 36 states of the federation producing at least a minister in accordance with the 1999 Constitution.

Besides, it has a bicameral legislature, with the Senate having 109 members, and 360 lawmakers in the House of Representatives. Each lawmaker is entitled to have at least five legislative aides – all paid by the state.

The upshot is that the country spends about 78 per cent of its annual budget on recurrent expenditure, thereby leaving a little above 20 per cent for capital expenditure or development.

Given the economic challenges facing the country and the need to reorder priorities some have canvassed the reduction of the size of government. Such cost saving measures, critics say should include restructuring of the bloated civil service and tinkering with the presidential system because of its expensive nature.

About three weeks ago, Senegalese parliament approved the scrapping of the country’s Senate in response to its economic challenges.

Apparently, Senegal is to save about 8 billion CFA francs ($15 million) for the country to manage the impact of deadly floods.

In a joint session with the lower House, two-third of the lawmakers approved the suppression of the Senate “with immediate effect.”

Earlier in the year, Nigerian lawmakers had reportedly jacked up their quarterly allowances from N15m to N27m; and from N42m to N45m for each member of the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively.

In summary, the 360 representatives will spend N38bn, while the 109 senators will spend N19.62bn annually.

Regrettably, these hefty sums were far above the remunerations prescribed by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, the only body empowered by the constitution to fix the salaries and allowances of public officials.

Conversely, while the lower House in Senegal was trimming its expenditure, members of the House of Representatives in Nigeria reportedly launched fresh moves to increase their quarterly allowance by N7m. This means that the N27m they earn quarterly as allowances would be jerked up to N34m. This is aside the N5m medical expenses and insurance budget for each of them.

While President Goodluck Jonathan in January announced reduction of government expenditure by cutting the salaries of executive officials by 25 per cent, salaries and allowances of legislative officials were exempted. Added to governance high cost are frequent foreign trips by public office holders. The President promised reduction of this to the barest minimum is yet to be seen.

Apparently, impressed by the Senegal’s prescription, a former governor of Lagos State, Bola Tinubu, had at a forum on September 18 called for the scrapping of the Senate.

He said Nigerians should take a step towards reducing the cost of governance rather than complain about it. He argued that the House of Representatives was preferable to represent the people, since its members are closer to the grassroots.

He said, “We have kept complaining about the cost of governance and the recurrent expenditure. But we have never examined the structural problem of even the constitution that we are operating.

“Why do we need two Houses of the National Assembly?  The House of Representatives, representing the smaller constituencies, is enough in the same number of population. Why not get rid of the Senate for a slim and better legislative activity? Let us start examining that.”

Expectedly, senators spurned the idea, stating that Tinubu was not realistic. Last week, Senator Thompson Sekibo, laughed derisively at the suggestion and said, “Scrap the senate? Except of course he is calling for the scrapping of the legislature as a whole, in which case, he will be talking of another form of government, not democracy.”

Similarly, the Senate leader, Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba, said, “The Senate is a representation based on equality. If you scrap the senate, then you have denied the minorities’ proper representation.

Further, in the bureaucracy, interest groups are spiritedly working to kill the Steven Oronsanye’s report, which recommended the scrapping and merger of some government agencies and department.

It would be recalled that the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Sanusi Lamido, had in 2010 expressed worry about the burden national legislative arm placed on Nigeria’s economy. He has expressed his fears that the country might not realise its Vision 20:2020, due to its high recurrent expenditure.

He also said, “If you look at the budget, the bulk of government spending is recurrent. That is a big problem. Twenty five per cent of overhead of the Federal Government goes to the National Assembly. We need power; we need infrastructure; so, we need to start looking at the structure of expenditure and make it more consistent with the development initiatives of the country.”

Critics of the Assembly’s expenditure have queried if the performance of the government is worth the huge amount spent in running it.

It would be recalled that the 6th Senate passed a mere 91 out of the 514 bills introduced in four years. Of the number, only 130 bills passed the second reading; 458 got the first reading, while four bills were negative.

Comparing the current federal executive council and the legislature with what the First Republic had, a former governor of the old Anambra State, Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife, described the current system as too expensive.

“For the cabinet, there was a recommendation in the 1994/95 conference for having three ministers from each of the geopolitical zones; that made up 18. Today, we have over 40 members of the cabinet.

“In the First Republic, our legislators were on part-time and not full time, and they did not make rules for their allowances. Today, we have heard a lot of legal and illegal allowances, which have made the legislature expensive.”

Ezeife, who was an adviser on political matters to former President Olusegun Obasanjo, called for the conversion of the geopolitical zones into federating units to reduce cost of governance. He, however, added that where a unicameral legislature is to be adopted, the lower chamber should be scrapped.

Ezeife said, “We are spending extensively too much on recurrent, leaving behind little for capital. I learnt that our recurrent expenditure is now about 80 per cent. The situation of the country is like a farmer sleeping during the planting season. Ours is expensive legislature and we must do something about it.

“Let us convert the geopolitical zones into federating units and have a legislature that has equal number of representatives from the regions. We should do away with the House of Representatives and maintain the Senate.”

In his submission, Prof. Pat Utomi, attributed the excessive cost of governance in the country to the selfish interest of politicians, to whom the government had become a source of livelihood.

He said, “The current cost of governance is the highest I have ever known of in the nation’s history. Those in power find it convenient to enlarge the government to create more jobs for the boys. I do not think we should have ministers from every state but so many people hang on the government to get something.

“The cost is double; the money going out as recurrent expenditure and the adverse effect on the execution of capital projects. You cannot but say politics is everything today. So, many people are dependent on the government and politicians. Our country is full of people who look for something to take from being in government.”

Utomi added that the information usually released by the government on its expenditure did not reflect the true nature of its finances, while disclosing that there was a time the recurrent expenditure was about 96 per cent under a former president, even when the monies were borrowed.

“It all started in 1999, since then I have always advocated a unicameral and part-time legislature. This, I have tagged: ‘Citizen Legislature.’ The full-time we have now is not representing the people; the representatives are disconnected from the people.”

According to Utomi, a professor of political economy at Pan African University, Lagos, an average man on the street, who knows how the masses feel, will make better laws than the elite, who live in Abuja and do not know the feelings of the masses.