- Federal Government stopping funding to bodies that can pay their way is smart policy, but…
That the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN) — Nigeria’s premier body of certified accountants — moved fast to dissociate itself from alleged funding, from the Federal Government’s yearly budget, just showed the ludicrousness of it all.
Why, indeed, should the Federal Government continue to fund professional bodies, which members are high net-worth industry players, whose dues and donations could conveniently fund the bodies’ activities?
Yet, the matter is not quite cut-and-dried, as the sensational ICAN example suggests.
For one, ICAN is commercially viable: Nigeria’s first accounting body that got its charter in 1965 — 58 years ago. It would appear more commercially viable than the rival Association of Nigerian Accountants (ANAN) — chartered 1993 — with perhaps far less members. Yet, ANAN runs an accounting college, the Nigerian College of Accountancy, in Jos, Plateau State (started 2006), as part of its certifying processes, and part of its market entry strategy.
For another, the notice to stop this subvention does not affect professional bodies alone. Also affected are sundry professional boards which, as regulatory bodies, perform a quasi-government role of setting industry standards.
“I wish to inform you that the Presidential Committee on Salaries (PCS) at its 13th meeting approved the discontinuation of budgetary allocation to professional bodies/councils effective 1st January 2024,” went the memo from Ben Akabueze, director-general, Budget Office of the Federation. ”For the avoidance of doubt, you will be required, effective 1st January 2024, to be responsible for your personnel, overhead and capital expenditures.”
Two among the bodies the memo was fired to were the Optometrist and Dispensing Optics Board (ODOB) and the National Council of Food Science and Technology (NiCFoST).
NiCFoST and ODOB hardly belong to the same commercial pedestal as ICAN, which further reinforces the ludicrousness of ICAN being listed among the bodies affected, by a classical piece of mis-reportage. But neither are other crucial regulatory bodies like the Medical and Dental Council, the Pharmaceutical Council of Nigeria and the nurses council — all vital bodies in the health sector, regulating standards; and with which public health could float or sink.
Inasmuch as that memo was reportedly inspired by the Oronsaye report to cut public sector costs, more clarity is needed, if the “no subvention” policy must be implemented without hiccups, far costlier than the coins it would save.
For starters, the affected bodies must be rigorously categorised in commercially viable and non-viable blocs. Then, boards that do government regulations, thus set standards, should continue to enjoy government funding. It’s the right thing to do — and the reason is manifest common sense.
That means pressing needs for vanishing resources should not amount to blanket blackmail of “subsidy”, in this era when public support for such appears thinning out. But that itself does not equate piling scarce resources on areas where they are least needed, at the expense of crucial ones.
But again, what is needed is pin-point, rigorous analysis to justify needs or otherwise. ICAN itself enjoyed take-off government grants — it got weaned of such since 1990 — by its perceived strategic role in Nigeria’s manpower development mix. Such needs are never frozen in history or in a time warp.
ICAN could be out of that loop now but other bodies could just fit in just nicely, in a country’s long and dynamic continuum. For instance, realising the strategic role of renewed rail in a re-charged economy, it would be no policy crime to emplace a government-funded board devoted to constant rail research, development, upgrade and manpower training, so much so that the end results justify that funding.
So, iron-clad funding or not is not the issue. The main criterion should be to cut out the wasting of public funds on bodies that can do without them. With such rigour, old bodies would drop off, as new ones enter the scheme, dictated by extant economic policies. Such a dynamic approach far outweighs a blanket and rigid ban.