Clark’s timely admonition, advice to 36 governors
The pointed charges against the 36 governors under the aegis of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF) should serve as a strong notice of the failings of the country’s democracy. The governors must identify and correct these lapses to enable Nigeria to reach her potential for development more rapidly than the current one-step-forward and two-step-backwards motion.
Very importantly, governors should recognise that their input to the country’s political and economic well-being is invaluable; its proper application can make a huge difference in the prosperity or failure of Nigeria. The popular verdict of Nigerians, so far, is that the governors have failed largely in their governance duty.
Chief Edwin Clark, well known for, on the one hand, his sustained interest in national affairs and good governance, and on the other hand, his style of speaking truth to power, has come down hard on the Nigerian Governors’ Forum constituted of governors of the 36 states of the Nigerian federation. He accused them of generally undermining democracy and constitutional governance.
He also charged them with failing in their gubernatorial duty to deliver good governance as envisaged in this constitutional democracy. In an eight-point list of dereliction, Clark cited, among others, the use of the NGF as a ‘notorious cabal’ that serves as a ‘platform for power without accountability, influence without responsibility’, of ‘manipulation of [state] legislative processes’, and of ‘challenging constitutional order and stifling local government autonomy’.
Many citizens who have closely witnessed how the state chief executives have gone about their constitutionally well-defined duty will agree with Chief Clark’s scathing observations. A pertinent question is: what are the roles and duties of state governors? Section 176 (2) of the 1999 Constitution states that ‘the governor of a state shall be the Chief Executive of that state’. In the ordinary meaning of the term, a chief executive is fully responsible for the overall management for good results, of the organisation he heads. As the ‘active decision maker’ on policy and strategy, as the ‘leader’ he or she is ‘ultimately accountable for the success or failure of the organisation. A governor, as head of the second tier of government in this federation, is duty-bound to unreservedly implement the provision of section 14 (2) (b) of the extant constitution to wit: ‘the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.’
In line with the clear duty assigned to government at each level by section 14 (2)(b), if the states are not secure, if the people sink into multi-dimensional poverty, if the state is neither growing nor developing as it reasonably should, the successive governors must be called to account. But the governor ‘on top’ must be held responsible because, as chief executive, the buck stops at his desk. Whatever is wrong with the NGF is directly the effect of all that is wrong with the governors who constitute it.
That, as Chief Clark alleges, the NGF has not kept faith with its self-defined vision and mission is glaring enough. This body claims a vision to be a strong, non-partisan institution which actively and effectively promotes inclusiveness, democratic values, good governance, and sustainable development. It commits itself to the mission ‘to provide a platform for collaboration among Executive Governors (a designation alien to the Constitution) on matters of public policy, …promote good governance, sharing of good practices, and …enhance cooperation at the state level and with other arms of government and society’. This is typical of Nigerian institutions that are long in avowal but miserably short in living the principles.
Despite that, the NGF is modelled ostensibly after the American National Governors’ Association (NGA) founded in 1908 to seek ‘bipartisan policy solutions,’ the Nigerian version falls far short of imitating the former. For example, the NGA actively partners with the private sector to solve their states’ challenges. The association says it aims for ‘policy, not politics’, for ‘ideas, not ideology’, for ‘substance not spin’, ‘collaboration, not rhetoric’, ‘inclusive not exclusive’, and ‘leaders, not followers’. We challenge the NGF to benchmark and publish its activities against these catchphrases since its inception in 1999.
The state governors since 1999, have, generally, shown a lack of, first, ingenious thinking to marshal and expand their states’ resources for transformative development, and second of self-control in deploying available resources to serve the public, instead of personal interest. A combination of power and money in their hands has tended to bring out the worst of otherwise normal, well-educated men and women. Thoughtfulness appears distant from persons in charge of affairs in this polity.
In a manner that reflects a somewhat monarchical mindset, popularly elected state governors have chosen to run state affairs as if they are kings over subjects, as if public resources are private to the lord of the manor. The depressing consequence of these gross betrayals of public trust – for the governorship position is a sacred trust – is the decline in all aspects of public service and public life in the states. Hardly has any state merely met the development goals set periodically by the United Nations, despite the huge amount of money available locally and from foreign loans and grants. Much of the funds available for state development is stolen outright or wasted, irresponsibly, on self-aggrandizing spending and white elephant projects named after themselves, expensive vehicles, and bigger government houses.
To be continued tomorrow.
Related
Latest
Get the latest news delivered straight to your inbox every day of the week. Stay informed with the Guardian’s leading coverage of Nigerian and world news, business, technology and sports.
0 Comments
We will review and take appropriate action.