There is absolutely no doubt that active participation of Sokoto State citizens in the formulation of budget estimates is crucial, if the Sokoto State Government hopes to achieve its key economic objectives of building roads,schools and healthcare facilities etc. But the failure to “consult” or the “refusal” to accept inputs from critical stakeholders due to dwindling resources available to government,the micro economic policies of the state government,nor the “failure” to upload its budget on its website should never be a death sentence.
It is therefore regrettable that BudgIT Foundation would insult the Sokoto state government in its 2024 States Fiscal Transparency League (SFTL) ranking, due to unproven allegation that it didn’t upload its budget online, and that it lacked a functional e- procurement platform. This assessment is grossly unfair to Governor Ahmad Aliyu Sokoto, whose fiscal discipline,accountability and transparency is unequalled and project delivery unprecedented.
In fact several economists have concluded that budgets by most governments have wholly failed to achieve their fundamental objectives due to poor planning, haphazard implementation, and non release of funds for capital projects which would drive economic development. So year in, year out the laudable objectives of the budgets continue to fail because of poor implementation and not because the budget was not “uploaded” on a website.
It’s a fallacy that the publication of budgets online would make budgets “open” and ensure that the state government’s planning and spending would align with the wishes of the people. Like the Americans would say,believe this,you would believe anything!
Indeed, Governor Ahmad Aliyu Sokoto deserves huge commendation for rightly focusing his attention on the delivery of impactful projects to the good people of Sokoto State which at the last count, stood at over 180 completed projects. Moving forward what needs to be strengthened is the capacity of government to vigorously implement its budgets because of the adverse effects of failure.
Thankfully the Sokoto State Government doesn’t seem to need a condescending BudgIT to teach it transparency, accountability and good governance or the fact that strengthening the relationship between the government and its citizens is necessary for project formulation, project implementation, monitoring and evaluation or the fact that in practical terms the people of Sokoto State through their representatives in the House of Assembly are playing a more inclusive and dynamic role in advancing good governance,which everyone craves and advocates for in the various sub-national governments.
BudgIT ought to know that the radio in Sokoto State is more an effective means of communication for the people of Sokoto State in engaging with their government than a website. In future when BudgIT designs its templates it needs to take these realities into consideration.
There is absolutely no doubt that BudgIT and other similar organizations dedicated to budget matters have attached an unnecessary and exaggerated importance to the World Bank States Fiscal Transparency,Accountability and Sustainability Programme (SFTAS) like several other programmes,which is why they have tended to focus on the optics rather than its substance.
It’s the big lie that BudgIT and other similar bodies have been sold by their western sponsors. Following the big lie BudgIT wasted no time to accuse,summarily convict and sentence the Sokoto State Government without robustly engaging the Sokoto State Government on its observations. The fact of the matter is that BudgIT does not care a hoot about judicious use of public funds by the federal and state governments for the benefit of their citizens.
For instance Ebonyi State which in the “imperial assessment” of BudgIT performed fantastically well simply because it uploaded its budget on its website. Ironically, the BudgIT operatives didn’t see anything wrong with Ebonyi State spending N13billion to rehabilitate an airport that has never received any commercial flight. Which is the greatest crime,uploading your budget that contains scandalous budget lines and not uploading your budget but being fiscally responsible?
Clearly Governor Ahmad Aliyu Sokoto has shown a strong commitment to transparency and accountability which explains why he inaugurated a state and three(3) senatorial zones projects and contracts monitoring committees, to monitor the implementation of projects across the three senatorial zones of the state because he wants value for money as opposed to BudgIT fixation with on colourful charts. The Sokoto State Government which has in words and actions demonstrated that the judicial use of the resources accruing to the state is more important to them deserves commendation. This is not to say that uploading the budget online doesn’t matter to them, after all the government willingly subscribed to SFTAS.
Hear Governor Sokoto:”What necessitated the setting up of these committees is our desire to verify that projects are being executed in line with the contractual agreements, to ensure that there is no compromise in the quality of the projects, and to also ensure value for money“. What further evidence does BudgIT need that Governor Ahmad Aliyu Sokoto is a man whose watchword is accountability and transparency? Thankfully BudgIT didn’t accuse him of being a spendthrift.
Where it the people of Sokoto State, the ultimate key stakeholders who freely donated their power to Governor Ahmad Aliyu Sokoto to manage the state resources, the Sokoto State House of Assembly, and its Public Accounts Committee; the constitutionally empowered bodies charged with the power to appropriate and to raise audit queries from the implementation of the budget that accused the Governor Ahmad Aliyu Sokoto’s administration of spending funds that were not appropriated or that contracts were awarded at ridiculous rates that would have been worrying.
Agreed, the Sokoto State Government is not yet where it wants to be but its sincere commitment to deepen mainstream transparency mechanism,increase access to information, enhance citizen engagement and empowerment is not in doubt and it’s this continuing commitment towards “open,accountable and responsive government that is answerable to the people that made it a signatory to SFTAS.
But who is BudgIT an organization that is unknown to the people of Sokoto State that is crying wolf? BudgIT, describes itself as “a Nigerian civic organisation that applies technology for citizen engagement with institutional improvement to facilitate societal change. The company, which launched operations in Lagos, Nigeria, was founded by Oluseun Onigbinde and Joseph Agunbiade in 2011 to provide social advocacy using technology”.
In a sense BudgIT can be referred to as a second generation non governmental organization after those of the early 1900’s that were preoccupied with waging war against the military dictatorship of then President Ibrahim Babangida and General Sani Abacha for the entrenchment of civilian rule. No doubt the determined plot by both Babangida and Abacha to perpetuate themselves in office with their never ending transition programmes that helped in popularizing the various NGO’s.
Unfortunately not many of the NGo’s were actually interested in the war for altruistic purposes,rather for some of them it was a God sent opportunity to “survive” on funding from several western countries that suddenly embraced democracy as the way for African Countries to go after decades of sponsoring military coups. And due the free flow of dollars many of these organizations displayed the same sit tight inclination of the military government they claimed to be fighting.
The one and only irreparable Gani Fawehimi was forced to describe many activists as “funds men”.
With the exit of the military and the entrenchment of democracy the “business module” of many NGO’s including later day ones like BudgIT naturally changed based on the interests of the funding countries and foundations. The new areas of focus though pretty wide; include education,good governance, healthcare, environmental protection, poverty alleviation, promotion of human rights and gender equality and budget reforms etc.
Some NGO’s have been known to use their platforms as weapons of blackmail to advance their businesses.
What we are beginning to see are organizations like BudgIT behaving like headmasters over sub-nationals and in several cases attempt to take over the functions of constitutionally recognized bodies like the State Houses of Assembly or the Auditor General.
In Nigeria we have mastered the art of chasing shadows. If BudgIT is serious about budgets working for the people it should divert its efforts from “uploading” of budgets towards ensuring that the Federal Executive Council approved International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) are used by the federal and state governments in the preparation of their budgets. This is the fundamental issue. And not BudgIT crucifying a man that hasn’t borrowed a kobo to execute any project and who has prudently managed the resources of Sokoto State.
The beauty of IPSAS includes improving accountability and transparency,greater disclosures,that would provide information for better decision, value for money, especially in areas of capital expenditure-loans,asset purchase, nationalization, and non-exchange transactions. Rather than the fallacy that publication of budgets online (making budget open) would help ensure that government planning and spending align with the wishes of the people.
The Sokoto State Government was right in ignoring BudgIT the same way Kwara State Government ignored the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP). The organization had filed a lawsuit asking the Federal High Court, Abuja to “direct and compel 36 state governors to use public funds budgeted for security votes, and life pensions for former governors to fund healthcare facilities and to address the impact of COVID-19 on millions of Nigerians, as well as publish details of spending on COVID-19 in their respective states.”The ECOWAS Court of Justice held that the case did not meet public interest requirements for litigation and rightly threw it out.
