BY CHARLES ASOLUKA
The
last few days have witnessed unprecedented media coverage, both locally and
nationally, of allegations by the Independent Corrupt Practices and other
related offences Commission, (ICPC) that some states, including Imo, which
received bail-out funds failed to apply it appropriately for the payment of
workers’ salaries.
Recall
that the continuous decline in revenue from crude oil sales and the high level
of corruption in the oil and gas sector of the economy has resulted to a
situation where many states in the country find it extremely difficult to
fulfil their obligations to civil servants as a result of extreme reduction in
federal monthly allocations. This is particularly the case with Imo state which
happens to have a bloated workforce and the highest number of pensioners;
hence, the situation of extreme paucity of funds to discharge salary
obligations has become a major challenge to the government.
In
addition, the states’ monthly wage bill has continued to outgrow its monthly
allocation from the Federal Government. The state Governor,
OwelleRochasOkorocha had hinted that the monthly wage bill of the state is
4.2billion naira, and this is far higher than what accrues to the state from
federal allocations and internally generated revenue. The implication is that
the government has been operating on a deficit. For instance, in the month of
December last year, the state received a meagre 1.9b naira from the Federal
Government as its share of allocation. The situation in 2016 does not seem to
be different either. Again, the states’ allocation for the month of February
this year was 2.29b naira (www.nairaland.com/.../see-what-each).
In March, the Federation Account Allocation Committee shared the sum of
#731.13b to the three tiers of government which it said is less than what was
shared in February by #1.49b (www.tvcnews.tv/?q...fg).
Of this amount, Imo state received a paltry 1.5b naira, after deductions of the
bail-out repayment. The over-all effect is thatImo state, like many others is
currently under extreme financial difficulty, more especially as the economic
fortunes of the country continue to dwindle. Unfortunately however, this has
been the trend since last year.
It
was therefore against the above lingering background that state governors,
under the aegis of Nigerian Governors Forum, approached the Federal Government
soon after the emergence of President MuhammaduBuhari in 2015, for
intervention. The president had initially resisted the demand, but later had a
change of heart due to the high level of concern he has for workers’ welfare and
the need to forestall civil unrest and mass action as a result of mass
disenchantment and a sense of helplessness among the work force in the affected states.
Consequently, in collaboration with the National Economic Council (NEC) and
working through the Central Bank and the Federal Ministry of Finance, a relief
package or what has come to be known as bail-out fund was fashioned out by the
Federal Government.
According
to government sources, the package is a loan with 9% interest rate and
repayable within a period of 20years. The funds are a combination of funds
withdrawn from the excess crude account, proceeds of $2.1billion from the
Liquefied Natural Gas operations, a Central Bank special intervention fund, and
a debt relief package put together by the Debt Management Office (DMO) intended
to assist states restructure their commercial loans, elongate the repayment
period and lessen the burden on them. Hence, without any doubt, the Federal
Government’s intervention was altruistic and intended to create financial
stability in the affected states.
However,
as is usually the case with most things in Nigeria, especially in a system
where accountability is a very serious issue, the concern of many patriotic and
well-meaning Nigerians at the time was the ability of the Federal Government to
properly monitor the use of the bail-out funds so that recipient states would
use the money judiciously for the purpose it was meant. As a result, calls were
made for agencies of the government such as the ICPC and EFCC to put measures
in place and ensure that bail-out funds were properly applied by states.
But
like in the same manner in which the anti-graft agency has mishandled most
corruption cases that were brought before it through sensationalising them
without properly conducting investigations, the recent allegations of
misapplication of the bail-out funds by 23 states, including Imo, by the agency
have attracted widespread condemnation and criticisms from the states which
were wrongly accused. It is no longer a secret that the ICPC has been rated as
one of those agencies that have fared so badly since inception in 2000. Accused
frequently of being weak, slow and tardy in the discharge of its duties,
especially in the conduct of investigations, the agency can only boast of
dismal performance since inception.
For
instance, the anti-graft agency has made what many consider as highly bogus,
untenable, unverifiable and wildcat allegations against Imo state government.
Firstly, it alleged that the 26.8b naira the state received as bail-out fund
was paid into two commercial banks while part of it was transferred ‘into uses
not related to workers’ salaries’. It also alleged that it discovered that N2b
naira was lodged into a Government House Account, an additional N2b was paid
into Imo state project account while yet another N2b naira was lodged in a
Micro-Finance Bank and a ‘management fee’ of N21m naira paid into an
unspecified account. It also alleged that of the 26.8b naira given to the
state, only about 6b naira has been disbursed.
An
in-depth and dispassionate appraisal of the statement that emanated from the ICPC
reveals that it is not only hollow but wishy-washy and banal, much as it lacks
investigative empiricism. It is rather disappointing and indeed embarrassing
that the anti-graft agency charged with such an onerous responsibility could issue
an empty and blanket statement. In a swift reaction, the state government
lampooned the agency, accusing it of being economical with the truth. In a
statement it issued on the matter, the government queried how the agency
arrived at such nebulous conclusions of inappropriate disbursement of the funds
since it dwelt only on the movement of funds to accounts, and not what the funds
in those accounts were used for. It further argued that the Federal Government
did not specify to the states that received bail-out funds that such funds must
be domiciled in particular or named accounts as a pre-condition for approval.
The
release also clarified that the amounts being bandiedabout by the ICPC which it
said were moved to the mentioned
accounts were used to pay salaries and emoluments of some of the state
government agencies, a point that was silent in the ICPC release. For instance,
the government said that Imo Security Network, Imo Community Watch, ‘Youth Must
Work’ teachers, Community Government Councils, Imo College of Nursing and Health
Sciences staff were all paid their salaries in December last year from two of
the accounts mentioned by the ICPC.
In
the case of Imo state project account which the agency also made mention of,
the government said it drew funds from this account to augment other sources
for the payment of workers’ salaries prior to the approval and release of the bail-out
fund. Hence, as soon as the funds were received, the government had to
replenish the account from where the funds were borrowed to pay salaries before
the release of the bail-out money. The government also said that it is only in arrears
of March, 2016, as February salary payment has already commenced.
However,
it is pertinent to state categorically that the position of government on this
issue does not in any way suggest that it is averse to proper accountability in
the manner the bail-out fund was used. What
it is against is the fact that ICPC’s allegations against the state lacked
proof of conviction as it appears they were made in bad fate
It
has also recently been revealed that the repayment of the bail-out loan by
states is having a toll on their finances. The fact is that the bail-out was
only a stop gap measure, meant to clear outstanding salary arrears, which Imo state
government did last year as soon as the funds were released to it. The
government had fervently hoped that the price of crude would improve and by
implication the revenue to the Federal Government. However, with the continued
decline in revenue of the Federal Government, and consequently, monthly
allocations to states, it has become a tall order for the state to meet up with
its financial obligations.
The
above grim economic situation informed the advice of the National Economic
Council (NEC) that states should seek ways to reduce the cost of governance in
terms of cutting cost through the elimination of ghost workers, reappraisal of
overhead cost as well as plugging wastages. The recent re-organization and
restructuring of some Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA’s) by the state
government which brought it on collision course with labour was therefore in
response to the above. It was also in recognition of the hardship being
experienced by states that took bail-out money that the Federal Government
recently decided to stop deductions from the loan for this month in order to
give them a breathing space.
Hence,
the present administration in the state under the able leadership of Owelle Rochas
Okorocha has demonstrated in no uncertain terms that it is totally committed to
the welfare of workers. Throughout his first term in office, the Governor did
his utmost to ensure that salaries and wages were paid timely. However, the
present economic hardship has redefined governance as most states, including
the Federal government, are walking a tight rope. The state government has also
demonstrated utmost good faith in its commitment to creating an excellent
working relationship with labour. The statement from ICPC therefore is clearly
intended to jeopardise the existing industrial harmony in the state and set the
citizens against the government.
No comments:
Write comments