Burden of bloated bureaucracy and high cost of governance

The persistent failure of government at all levels to heed admonition from well-meaning Nigerians on the need for prudence in the public sector is disappointing. This is particularly so against yearnings for development in the face of diminishing purchasing power of both governments and individuals.

The Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) Chairman, Dr. Muhammad Shehu Bello, recently attributed Nigeria’s increasing cost of governance to the prevalence of large bureaucracy as manifested by duplication of ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs).

Although the RMAFC Chairman applauded the recent directive by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu regarding the reduction in the number of cars attached to ministers and other top officials of government as a way to minimise the costs of governance, it should, however, be emphasised that the compelling challenge of high costs of governance, which, more than hitherto, makes Orosanye Report imperative as regards call for drastic and ramified streamlining of the size of government beyond periodic tokenism which presidential directives inexorably boil down to when political exigencies come to play.

In the face of economic dire straits confronting the country, it should be perturbing that there seems to be no foreseeable respite from the burden of bloated bureaucracy and increasing costs of servicing political appointees as evidenced by the establishment of more agencies and departments under the present administration.

Following months of apprehension and speculations, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu reshuffled his 45-member cabinet on October 23, 2024. The much anticipated rejig of the executive arm of government featured the sack of five ministers and the appointment of seven new cabinet members.

However, the high point of the cabinet reshuffle featured the scraping of the Ministry of Sports Development, the merging of the Federal Ministry of Tourism with the Federal Ministry of Arts and Culture to become a new entity known as the Federal Ministry of Art, Culture, Tourism and Creative Economy, as well as the establishment of the Ministry of Livestock Development.

While opinions continue to differ concerning the approach of President Tinubu to political appointments; particularly as it relates to the principle of federal character or geopolitical balancing, as the case may be, many Nigerians remain unconvinced that the changes reflected in the cabinet were informed by the outcome of a holistic evaluation of the performance of ministers, which the administration, at inception, had touted as a guiding principle. The retention of some of the ministers appears not to give credence to the claim by the presidency that the changes were not predicated mainly on political consideration.

Considering the expectations elicited by the mantra of Renewed Hope Agenda and the pervasive level of despondency attributable to crushing economic hardship, it is incumbent on the present administration to cease exacerbating the burden of bloating bureaucracy and increasing cost of servicing perks of office which posit impediments to efficient governance.

Although the government tried to justify it on the need to imbue efficiency in government machinery, referencing the country’s huge population, the 45-member cabinet at inception was too large given the prevailing fiscal challenges which call for downsizing.

It would now appear however that the President has remained unpersuaded by the need to reduce the size of his government notwithstanding that several directives from the presidency tended to give positive light.

The establishment of regional development commissions as well as the creation of the Federal Ministry of Livestock Development will no doubt imply the size of bureaucracy and cost of governance at a time when the country faces daunting fiscal challenges.

Without prejudice to the good intention of this administration, the new livestock policy could still have been effectively driven under the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security with a department or agency saddled with the responsibility.

In the same vein, it is worrisome that the proliferation of regional development agencies across the geopolitical zones is largely driven by politics of entitlement which was the core rationale behind the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and later the North East Development Commission (NEDC).

It would now appear that the challenge of over-bloating bureaucracy and the attended high cost of governance is regrettably evolving into an albatross that may be too difficult to tame.

The trend of political appointments in recent times tends to suggest that the several pledges on reducing the cost of governance were mere rhetoric as establishments of ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) in recent times as well as political appointments continue to contradict the commitment to reducing governance costs.

According to the RMAFC chairperson, the burden of high governance costs in Nigeria is among the highest in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is indeed high time political leadership took the costs of servicing their appointees into proper consideration to avoid a fiscal crisis.

Efficient allocation of resources should be the priority now, more so; that the country faces a crisis of borrowing to finance the budget which regrettably comes with the huge cost of servicing increasing debts. It is therefore pertinent to decide on political appointments based on exigent needs anchored on competence and track record of performance.

The concern now should be focused on restoring the country to the path of socio-economic prosperity and sustainable developmental growth.

It is lamentable that most of the recent appointments clearly demonstrate duplications of portfolios suggesting utter indifference to the quest for a leaner and more efficient government.
The fact that the trend is already being replicated across the 36 states points to the bigger picture of the challenge at hand.