The state’s Attorney General (AG) disclosed this while briefing newsmen on the ministry’s success in the third quarter of the year, adding that Jigawa has withdrawn from the case between some states and the federal government at the Supreme Court.
According to the Attorney General, “The case of AG Kogi and AG of the federation SC/CV/178/2023. Let me at this juncture announce that the Jigawa state government has withdrawn from this case pending at the Supreme Court of Nigeria. A notice of withdrawal has since been signed by my humble self and sent to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court.”
The Commissioner for Justice disclosed further that presently, there is no single person in detention among the 403 persons arrested in connection with the August protest.
He emphasised that the Department of Civil Litigation successfully handled two cases of the State Independent Electoral Commission in the council elections held on the 5th of October.
Fanini stated further that the Citizens’ Rights Department of the ministry had received and handled a total of 63 complaints, mostly resolved through mediation.
Jigawa Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice Bello Abdulkadir Fanini said the State Government has backed out from a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC).
He stated this while briefing newsmen on the ministry’s success in the third quarter of 2024.
According to the Attorney General: “The case of AG Kogi and AG of the federation SC/CV/178/2023. Let me at this juncture announce that the Jigawa State Government has withdrawn from this case pending at the supreme court of Nigeria. A notice of withdrawal was since been signed by my humble self and sent to the chief registrar of the supreme court”.
The Commissioner of Justice further informed no person is in detention among the 403 persons arrested in connection with the August protest and destruction of properties in the State.
Fanini emphasised also said the department of civil litigation successfully handled two case of the State independent Electoral Commission on the just- concluded Local councils election.
Benue State Government has officially withdrawn its challenge to the legitimacy of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) at the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the state government maintained that Barr Fidelis Mnyim, Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice and Public Order, remains suspended.
A non-governmental organisation (NGO), Vanguard for Credible Representation (VCR), has criticised the Campaign for Democracy (CD) and Transparency and Accountability Network for accusing the Federal Government of interference in a suit the Kogi State government and 14 other states filed against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The Kogi State government and the other states filed the suit at the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the EFCC.
The statement, which was reportedly signed by CD’s Ifeanyi Odili and TAN’s Dapo Oluwole, alleged that the Federal Government was interfering in the hearing of the suit slated for hearing at the Supreme Court.
But in a statement in Abuja by VCR’s Head of Mission, Onche Ugbabe, the group said it was saddening that some supposed civil society organisations (CSOs) made the allegation without any proof or details.
The statement reads: “It is baffling, saddening and indeed worrisome that an organisation that was co-founded by the late patriot, Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, could join forces with those seeking to frustrate and emasculate the anti-corruption fight of the present administration.
Indeed, Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti would be turning in his grave to see what has become of the Campaign for Democracy (CD) today.
“All their sophistry did not do much in hiding the real import of their ill-thought press statement. If CD and TAN were really civil society organisations worth the appellation, how come they never spoke against the antics of the Kogi State government and its officials – both serving and past – in frustrating the anti-graft war?
“Why have they suddenly woken up from their slumber only to weigh in on the side of those seeking to literally kill the EFCC?
“The only reason they gave as the premise for the wild claim about the alleged interference and pressure was that the Federal Government filed some preliminary objections to the suit.
“How does that amount to pressure or intimidation of any sort?
“If their sponsors have a good legal team, they should reply on points of law to the preliminary objection and let the Supreme Court decide, instead of the resort to cheap blackmail of the Federal Government and the apex court. Or, how would a plaintiff think that once he makes a claim, the defendant should not respond?
“The point that has been made very eloquently by an erudite lawyer and one of the fathers of the civil society movement in Nigeria, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), is that the Supreme Court had in the past severally decided on the legality of the EFCC. If that is the case, then it is a very good strategy for the Federal Government to make past decisions of the apex court the basis of its preliminary objection.”
The group urged all well-meaning Nigerians to rally round the EFCC and support the Federal Government to rid the country of corruption and engender development.
Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) has faulted the suit filed by 19 states challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the anti-corruption agencies.
The Supreme Court reserved judgment in the suit yesterday.
In a counter-affidavit to the suit filed by the governors, the AGF argued that the National Assembly validly enacted the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).
The AGF urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit because issues raised by the plaintiffs had already been resolved by the appellate courts.
Fagbemi also argued, in a notice of preliminary objection, that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case because the plaintiffs’ grievance is what only the Federal High Court could adjudicate on.
He argued that the complaints of the plaintiffs are against the Federal Government of Nigeria and its anti-corruption agencies, but not against the Federal Republic of Nigeria to warrant the invocation of the apex court’s jurisdiction.
In the counter affidavit deposed to by an official of the Federal Ministry of Justice, the AGF, who is the sole defendant, said all the facts deposed to by the plaintiffs in the affidavit in support of the amended originating summons are false, misleading and do not reflect the correct position in relation to the subject matter of this suit.
The deponent stated: “The plaintiffs’ suit, challenges all the anti-corruption laws/statutes in Nigeria and in particular the NFIU guidelines issued on the 23rd of January, 2023 to strengthen the fight against money laundering, terrorism and related matters.
“The NIFU Guidelines was issued by the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) pursuant to its powers under Section 23(2), 3(s) & 1(d) of the NFIU Act, 2018 to combat money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing.
“The Guidelines was necessitated by the result of analysis by the unit (NFIU) on the negative impact of cash flow from public accounts on the discharge of its mandate of combating money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing.
“The National Assembly exercises its legislative powers under the Nigerian Constitution with regards to corruption and abuse of office and upon any convention or treaty.
“There is no need to seek the concurrence of sub-national whereas (in this case) the National Assembly is acting pursuant to its legislative powers under the Constitution.
“The National Assembly does not need the ratification or concurrence of the plaintiffs’ Houses of Assembly to pass the EFCC Act, ICPC Act, NFIU Act, the Proceed of Crime (Recovery and Management) or any anti-corruption Act or statute into Law.
“EFCC Act, ICPC Act, and NFIU Act are enforceable against any person in Nigeria, including the officials of the plaintiffs and those of Local Government Councils.
“The EFCC and ICPC have recovered several misappropriated funds and property of the states and have returned same to those component states.”
The AGF said he was vested with powers to prosecute any person, including the officials of the plaintiffs if an investigation reveals that the person committed an economic crime.
He added: “The investigation to expose the commission of economic crime by EFCC, ICPC and the NFIU is not an interference with the powers of the plaintiffs’ government or the state House of Assembly.
“The NFIU Act not only empowers NFIU to make Guidelines but also to strengthen existing measures of combating money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing (AML/CFT/CPF) which is the intendment of the guidelines;
“The issue surrounding the powers of the NFIU to make Guidelines affecting the States has been finally determined by the Court of Appeal in the judgment in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/822/2022 delivered on the 21st day of May 2024, in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs and other states of the Federation wherein they challenged similar Guidelines before the Federal High Court in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/563/2019 and lost.
“The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial Federal High Court against all the plaintiffs in that suit, including these present plaintiffs, who have not appealed further.
“The decision of the Court of Appeal is binding on all persons and authorities, including the instant plaintiffs.
“The NFIU Guidelines was issued to the reporting entities, that is financial institutions for compliance. Reference to the tiers of government and other public officials is merely for their attention and noting.
“The claims by the plaintiffs are not in conformity with the principles behind the guidelines initiated by the NFIU aimed at curbing corruption and the menace of Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing in Nigeria and also to bring more transparency in every sector of the Nigerian economy in line with global best practices.”
Supreme Court reserves judgment
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the suit by 19 states.
The other states joined as plaintiffs are Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Oyo, Benue, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Imo, Osun, Nasarawa, Ogun, Taraba.
The suit, numbered SC/CV/178/2023, was originally filed by the Kogi State Attorney-General.
Anambra, Adamawa and Ebonyi withdrew during yesterday’s proceedings.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, adjudicated on the case.
Kogi’s lawyer, Mohammed Abdulwahab (SAN), said the crux of the case was the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dr. Joseph Nwobike vs the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Abdulwahab argued that, by Order 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, the lawyer who appeared for Nwobike should be invited to address the court.
He added that the lawyer participated in the Bill that resulted in the establishment of the EFCC and the ICPC.
Justice Abba-Aji asked Abdulwahab the name of the lawyer.
Abdulwahab said: “Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN) told this court that it was the Convention of the UN that reduced this into law. The provision in Section 12 was never followed.
“We are challenging the foundation of those laws that created NIFU, EFCC, etc in order not to create a constitutional crisis.
“We urge you to allow our suit and award heavy cost in favour of the plaintiff on record.”
Tijani Gazali (SAN), who represented the AGF, urged the court to strike out the suit.
“We apply that the matter be struck out for want of diligent prosecution, my Lords,” he said.
The states contended that the Supreme Court, in the Nwobike case, had held that it was a United Nations Convention against corruption that was reduced into the EFCC Establishment Act and that in enacting the law in 2004, the provision of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution was not followed.
The plaintiffs argued that the requirement is that the majority of the Houses of Assembly must first agree the convention be adopted before the EFCC Act could be validly enacted.
They said that the EFCC Act could not be applied to states that never approved of it in line with the provisions of the Constitution.
The states contended that any institution formed based on the adoption of the UN Convention, without compliance with Section 12 of the Constitution, should be regarded as an illegal institution.
Two of the reliefs being sought in the suit originally filed by Kogi State are:
• A declaration that the Federal Government of Nigeria through the NFIU or any agency of the Federal Government lacks the power to issue any directive, guideline, advisory or any instrument howsoever called for the administration and management of funds belonging to Kogi State of Nigeria or any Local Government Area of Kogi State.
• A declaration that the EFCC, the NFIU or any agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria cannot investigate, requisition documents, invite and or arrest anyone with respect to offences arising from or touching on the administration and management of funds belonging to Kogi State of Nigeria or any local government area of Kogi State.
There were 16 states when the case came up on October 8.
Other states later joined as plaintiffs before Anambra, Adamawa and Ebonyi withdrew, leaving 19.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, on Tuesday warned that cybercrime poses grave dangers globally and nationally, urging collective action.
The EFCC boss made the call at the opening ceremony of the Commission’s National Cybercrime Summit at the State House Conference Centre, Abuja, emphasizing the devastating impact of cybercrime on Nigerian youth, eroding traditional values and promoting get-rich-quick mentality.
Speaking at the summit with the theme: “Alternatives to cybercrime: Optimising cyber skills for National Development”, Olukoyede noted that global cybercrime losses have been projected to reach $10.5 trillion, ranking it the world’s third-largest economy, with approximately 2,328 daily cases.
He said Nigeria has suffered significantly, losing over $500 million to cybercrime in 2022, even as the EFCC recorded 3,455 convictions in the past year, with a substantial portion attributed to cybercrime.
He also said the commission recovered significant assets for local and foreign victims.
Olukoyede addressed concerns about the EFCC’s focus on internet crimes, reaffirming cybercrime’s threat to Nigeria’s reputation, economic well-being and key assets.
The EFCC chairman stressed the importance of engaging state governors in tackling cybercrime at all levels.”This time around, we are not only interrogating the problems, we are aggregating workable solutions to it. What alternative do we have for our youth? And that’s where it has become imperative to bring the state governors so that as we are tackling it at the federal level, sub nationals will also have a role to play.
“The enormity of challenges posed to us as individuals and as a country by cyber crimes are grievous as individuals. Youth involvement in these crimes is distorting and corrupting acceptable family values. The tendency towards quick riches no longer positions our young people for enterprise, resourceful intellectual aspirations and technological innovations.
“Projections by multiple sources show that the global loss to cyber crimes may reach a staggering $10.5 trillion, as a matter of fact, the research I did earlier this year confirmed that cyber crime has become the third largest GDP in the world, with approximately 2328 cases recorded daily.
“The implication of all this is that, if left unchecked, cyber crimes portend grave dangers to the entire world.
“Bringing it to Nigeria, in 2022 alone, Nigeria lost over $500 million to cyber crimes. These are the realities stalking the Commission’s fight against these crimes. Cyber Crime accounts for a significant percentage of the 3455 convictions recorded by EFCC in my one year as the Executive Chairman of EFCC.
“A significant portfolio of choice assets have also been recovered and returned to both local and foreign victims of cyber crimes by the Commission. We are not oblivious of insinuations and misconception in some quarters that the commission is concentrating its operational works on the fight against internet crimes.
“While this narrative is not really true, the fact remains that cyber crime threatens the nation’s most significant assets, its reputation and economic well being”, he said.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday re-arraigned former Kwara State Governor Abdulfatah Ahmed and his erstwhile Finance Commissioner Demola Banu at a Kwara State High Court for allegedly diverting N3 billion meant for the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) for other purposes.
Earlier in the year, the anti-graft agency had arraigned the duo at a Federal High Court sitting in Ilorin, the state capital, over the same allegation.
A count in the charge reads: “That you, Abdulfatah Ahmed (while being the governor of Kwara State) and Ademola Banu (while being the Commissioner of Finance of Kwara State), on or about January 14, 2015 in Ilorin, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, did illegally spend N1,000,000,000.00 to pay the salaries of civil servants in Kwara State, which sum was originally domiciled in the Kwara State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) Matching Grant account and which sum formed part of the funds allocated for the execution of the projects stated in the action plan for the year 2013 and approved by the Universal Basic Education Board (UBEC) and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 22(5) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, and punishable under the same section.”
When the case was called yesterday, the duo pleaded not guilty.
In his ruling, Justice Mahmood Abdulgafar granted the accused persons N100 million bail each and fixed December 3 for the commencement of the trial.
Enugu Zonal Directorate, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC), has arraigned one Paulinus Ani before Justice Mohammed Garba Umar of the Federal High Court in Independence Layout, on a one-count charge of obtaining by false pretence N8, 130, 000.
The lone count charge reads: “That you, Paulinus Ani between October 2015 and June 2018 at Enugu, Enugu State within the jurisdiction of this court, with intent to defraud, induced one Severus Ifeanyi Odoziobodo to deliver to you N8, 130, 000 under the pretence that you would sell to him seven plots of land: three plots at Emene Industrial/Residential Layout and four at Independence Layout Phase II, Enugu, which you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1 (1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act No. 14 of the 2006 and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the same Act.”
But, the counsel to the EFCC, Nasir Umar, prayed the court for a trial date and for the defendant to be remanded at the Enugu Correctional Facility.
However, the defence counsel, O. S. Imaji, informed the court about a pending bail application before it and asked that the defendant bail on liberal terms, adding that the defendant had a reliable surety.
The Enugu Zonal Directorate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has arraigned one Paulinus Ani before Justice Mohammed Garba Umar of the Federal High Court sitting in Independence Layout, Enugu State.
Ani was arraigned on a one-count charge bordering on obtaining by false pretence to the tune of N8, 130, 000. 00 (Eight Million, One Hundred and Thirty Thousand Naira).
The lone count charge reads: “That you, Paulinus Ani sometime between October, 2015 and June, 2018 at Enugu, Enugu State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court, with intent to defraud, induced one Severus Ifeanyi Odoziobodo to deliver to you the sum of N8, 130, 000. 00 (Eight Million, One Hundred and Thirty Thousand Naira) under the pretence that you would sell to him (7) plots of land: three (3) plots at Emene Industrial/Residential Layout and four (4) plots at Independence Layout Phase II, Enugu, which pretence you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1 (1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act No. 14 of the 2006 and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the same Act”.
Ani pleaded not guilty to the charge when it was read to him.
In view of his plea, counsel to the EFCC, Nasir Umar prayed the court for a trial date and for the defendant to be remanded at the Enugu Correctional Facility.
However, the defence counsel, O. S. Imaji informed the court about a pending bail application before it and thereafter moved the said application, urging the court to grant the defendant bail on liberal terms, adding that the defendant had a reliable surety.
Responding, the prosecution vehemently opposed the said application on the ground that “land scam is becoming prevalent in Enugu”, urging the court to dismiss the said application.
After listening to both sides, the court granted the defendant bail in the sum of N10 million and two sureties in like sum who must be residents of Enugu state.
The defendant was remanded at the Enugu Correctional Facility, pending the fulfillment of the bail conditions.
The matter was thereafter adjourned to January 23, 2025, for trial.
The defendant’s issue with the court began on January 1, 2021, when the Commission received a petition from one Ifeanyi Odoziobodo alleging that in 2016, the defendant, who was an alleged staff of the Ministry of Land and Urban Development, Enugu State offered him some plots of land in Emene and Independence Layout of the State which he claimed were up for allocation to any prospective buyer.
After being presented with allocation papers to that effect, the petitioner paid N8,130,000. 00 to the defendant, not knowing that the said plots of land had already been sold to other persons who had been issued Certificates of Occupancy.
Efforts made by the defendant to recover his money proved abortive.
Every year, the Niger State Government promises smallholder farmers a lifeline: subsidised agricultural inputs and machinery worth millions of naira. Yet, despite the grand declarations and elaborate plans, these subsidies rarely reach the farmers who need them most. What happens after the ceremonial flag-offs? Do the intended beneficiaries, especially those in remote communities, actually get the crucial inputs? JUSTINA ASISHANA visited several rural communities and spoke to smallholder women farmers about their experiences with government subsidies.
We have put in place structures and machinery for distribution. We have made it a policy that only 10 bags can be sold to an individual. Bank details and BVN of individuals will be taken into consideration and we have invited the EFCC, ICPC, and also the police to make sure that this is done right. We are bringing subsidies in agriculture and it must be sustained. EFCC, ICPC and CID will oversee the sale of fertilizers to farmers.”
Those were the words of Niger State Governor, Mohammed Umaru Bago, stated at the flag-off of the 2023 wet season sales and distribution of fertilizers as well as other agricultural inputs to farmers in Minna on July 10, 2023. There, however, appears to be a gulf between promises and reality with respect to equitable distribution of fertilizer to farmers in the state.
Bilikisu Suleiman, a rice and soyabeans farmer in Wushishi Local Government Area (LGA) of Niger State has been into farming for the past eight years. She was hopeful after hearing the governor’s promises. However, her optimism was short-lived because neither she nor other women benefitted from the subsidised inputs.
“This happens every year. We will hear that the government is giving out inputs, but at the end of the day, we do not see or get it.
“But this time, we felt things would change since the governor mentioned EFCC and ICPC, but it remained the same.
“We went to the distribution centre which is the Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) office but were not given any input.
“It came as a surprise to us because they asked us to submit our names but we did not even know who to meet when the distribution began.
“So, we ended up looking at those who came to collect the subsidised produce and thinking of how our members will benefit.
In Gbako LGA, the Coordinator of the Smallholder Women Farmers Organisation of Nigeria (SWOFON), Felicia Maaji, who farms beans, groundnut, millet, rice and potatoes, said that the lack of access to subsidised inputs forces farmers to rely on outdated and inefficient methods, including using of hoes for tilling, heaping and planting and cutlass or hoes for weeding.
Due to the inability to get fertilisers, their lands, according to Maaji, have been losing fertility while several crops are being lost to insects and pests because the farmers have no pesticide to stop an infestation.
“Every year, we re-cultivate our lands which are fast losing their fertility because we do not have fertilizers.
“There is no access to government-subsidised fertilizers and no money to buy from the retailers who sell at the stores.
“Chemicals like herbicides and pesticides are too expensive for us. Even now, we are having a shortage of lands because the lands are losing their fertility. They do not produce much like before, and since there is no fertilizer to put in, the yield is low.”
Speaking about benefiting from government-subsidised inputs, the coordinator said they do not hear about it nor have they received it at any time.
“We do not even hear about it, not to talk of receiving. If they are bringing these inputs, it means they do not bring it out in the open for people to benefit. Or maybe they share it among themselves.
“But here in the Gubata community, the farmers have not benefited from any of these subsidies.”
Mary Musa, a maize, melon and sweet potatoes farmer from Gusadin Community in Gbako LGA, recalled better times when fertilizers were affordable, pointing out that since last year, due to the increase in the price, she could no longer buy fertilizer for her farm.
She said: “When fertilizer was cheap, I could buy up to five to ten bags for my farm and spray the needed quantity of herbicides and pesticides.
“Before, I bought a bag of fertilizer at the rate of between N20,000 and N22,000. But now, it costs between N35,000 and N42,000 per bag.
“Sometimes, I have to buy per measure because buying in bags is very expensive for me now.”
Majority of the smallholder women who spoke to our reporter mentioned various ways they tried to improve the yields of their farms.
Linda Kosu, a rice and millet farmer in Gusadin community in Gbako said that she and others resorted to using refuse as fertilizer on their farms in the absence of fertilizer.
“We use refuse on our farms to improve the fertility of the soil. That is what is called organic manure. That is how we manage it.
“But we do not get enough to cover the whole land where we farm because there is not much refuse and it is what everyone packs to their farms.
“So sometimes, we cultivate half of the farms or only farm in the area the manure covers.”
Fatima Mohammed, a rice farmer in Doko community, Lapai LGA said she uses rice and maize dusk and cow dung popularly called manure to fertilize her land and crops. “I would not say it is good or not, but it is better than not putting anything at all in the farm after we plant,” she said.
Political farmers hijack subsidies
Several smallholder farmers revealed a troubling trend: ‘political farmers,’ well-connected individuals who exploit the system, securing large quantities of subsidised inputs meant for genuine farmers, leaving the real farmers with nothing.
Ramatu Mohammed Kontagora, SWOFON Coordinator in Kontagora, shared her frustration especially as she was present at the flag-off ceremony held in Minna and she had to rush back to Kontagora to inform her members that they were bringing the inputs to the local government area.
“But in the end, we still did not get anything. They said they were bringing it down to Kontagora and we should go to the ADP office in Kontagora. But on getting there, we got nothing because it has already been shared among politicians. We did not get even one bag.
“The problem is that you cannot access it if you don’t have access to those people, those politicians. There is no way you can get it.
“Yes, the fertilizers and chemicals got to Kontagora but the real farmers did not get it. They will tell you that they were given allocations, and when these officials come, they give the allocation to the politicians, which they share among their own people.
“Once you are not their people, you will not get it. At the end of the whole thing, the people who get it will resell it to the real farmers, which is us.
“Although it is still less than the one sold in the market, it is higher than the subsidized price. Like if they got it for N20,000 from the politicians, they will sell it at N30,000 or N35,000 while the market price is between N40,000 to N45,000.”
Saadatu Gambo from the Nasara Women Farmers Cooperative in Wushishi echoed these sentiments. She noted that real farmers often have to purchase subsidised inputs from those who received them through connections rather than need.
“Because they have ‘long legs’ (connection), they get these inputs. We on our part use our own money to buy from the market or from those who were given subsidised inputs.
“They sell it to us because they are not real farmers and they do not need it. What they only need is the money they would gain from selling it,” Gambo said.
Despite government efforts to streamline the distribution of subsidised inputs, the system seems to be failing. Many smallholder farmers, especially women, feel sidelined and disenfranchised.
Felicia Umaru from Lavun Local Government Area expressed her exasperation that despite being told to submit names to the local government secretariat, which they had done several times, they still did not benefit when the inputs were brought in.
She said: “Those of us in Kutigi here, especially women farmers, have not benefited from the subsidized inputs.
“Yes, the government is bringing it out, and yes, they are asking us to submit names, which we do, but sometimes before it reaches the grassroots, when it enters the hands of the politicians, we hardly get it.
“Even when we submit names, we do not know when these items are distributed or even when they are brought into town.
“We usually feel that everything begins and ends in Minna. If everyone who is a farmer says they did not get it, then who did they give it to?
“Also, look at the local government secretariat close to us here. If they are sharing something like that, some of our people will be aware and inform us.
“So everybody cannot be lying that they did not get it”, she stated.
Felicia Maaji, the SWOFON Coordinator in Gbako said they often meet the traditional leaders in their various communities accusing them of hijacking the process and not letting them have access to the fertilizer, but these leaders claim they do not know when they share it.
“We do not benefit here at all. I know because I am in contact with almost all the women farmers in this local government.
“We do not even hear about it without seeing or receiving it. If they are bringing them, that means they do not bring it out to distribute to the real farmers, and if they do bring it out, that means they share it among their own people but I and other women buy our inputs with our own money.”
How dilapidated and non-functional ADP offices lead to non-accountability of fertilizers
The reporter learnt that most of the fertiizer shared at the state capital was supposed to be distributed from the ADP offices across the states where farmers could get it via information from Extension workers. However, this has failed to get to those who really need it because several of the ADP offices across the state were in state of collapse and there were not enough extension workers to give the information to the farmers in the rural areas.
Several of the farmers spoken to acknowledged that in the past there were agricultural extension officers who helped them a lot with farming techniques and adequate information. But this is no longer the case as several of them do not know who the extension workers are or how they can get to them.
SWOFON Coordinator in Lavun said that no extension officer had been in contact with her or any of her members saying that all they do is from the knowledge they gained from their relatives and from the training they got from development partners who come once in a while to the local government.
The warehouse in Wushishi has collapsed while the farmhouse which should be staff quarters for the extension officers is dilapidated.
In Zungeru, the office structure is collapsed with some skeletal building standing, and the Zonal office in Kontagora is dilapidated with several remnants of office furniture. In Rijau, there was only a pillar showcasing that an office was there.
The women asked that if the offices and warehouses are dilapidated, where would the fertilizers and other input sent in from the state capital be stored?
“That is why we told you that we do not know how to get these inputs. Even before we hear about it, it is finished. In most cases, we do not even know when it is distributed because we do not know who to meet or where to go,” said Fatima Mohammed in Lapai.
The reporter tried to locate some of the extension officers in these local government areas but she could not locate any because the women who were interviewed said they did not know any and efforts to reach out to relatives and friends to connect them to one or two met a brick wall.
The agricultural extension service is the most important public service institution with the widest range of responsibilities for agricultural and rural development.
Extension officers provide advice and information to assist farmers in making decisions and generally enable them to take action.
Although farmers already have a lot of knowledge about their environment and their farming system, extension can bring them other knowledge and information which they do not have.
The transfer of knowledge and skills to farmers and their families is an important extension activity.
The African Seed Access Index (TASAI) 2020 Report rated Nigeria as one of the African countries with the lowest ratio of agricultural extension workers to farmers in Africa. The report assumed a baseline of one extension officer to 7500 farmers.
“The lower this ratio, the better access farmers have to expert information and advice on how to access and use improved seed and other relevant agricultural technologies,” the report said.
The only good building in the ADP office in Kontagora was shut when the reporter visited, while the agric desk officer at the local government secretariat was not on seat.
However, the reporter met the cashier of the local government secretariat, Mohammed Ibrahim Bello, who said that the inputs are not given directly to the secretariat but to the ADP office.
Bello said: “In the past, that was about eight years ago, these inputs were given to the local government which handles everything and knows how to share them but now, they do not and we have heard complaints that several people do not benefit from it.
“It would be great if this is reversed back to the way it was before. They give it to the local government Chairman who shares it with the real farmers through the desk officer of agriculture.
“Now, from Minna, they take it to the ADP and from the ADP, they share it, not minding whether you are a farmer or not. They give some people preference and ask others to join the queue day after day.
“Most people do not get at all even after staying in the queue for days.”
At the community level, the community leaders also denied knowing when these inputs are shared, saying that they did not hear about when the distribution would be made.
When the reporter paid a visit to Alhaji Muhammad Kudu Ibrahim, the Ezanuwa Kutigi, a traditional ruler, he was with his council of chiefs and they all said they had not received any type of government-subsidised agricultural inputs in the domain.
One of the chiefs, Alhaji Jiya Lemu, said: “We have not been receiving it. We haven’t even seen the place they share it talk less of receiving it.
“The interventions we get mostly are from FADAMA and IFAD which we know are government based. But they have their own focus areas. But anyone from the state government directly, we haven’t seen that.”
Ezanuwa Kutigi said: “You have heard them all. If they have been given, at least, our people would inform them and they would inform me.
“Such things cannot be going on in my community and I would not know. If they say they bring it to the local government area, where do they take it? Who do they give it to? We also need to know.”
The village Head of Gubata in Gbako Local Government Area said that the common problem with farmers is access to fertilizers and other inputs and expressed sadness that they do not receive the government-subsidised inputs.
“Sometimes we do not hear about the subsidised agricultural inputs and sometimes we hear about them. But by the time we send our people to go and access it, they would have distributed it.
“We also found out that most of those who receive it resell it. We have sent people to these places several times but those they meet at the ward level will direct them to individuals who have received it but want to resell it so they buy from them.
“These agricultural inputs are usually given to people who do not need it, but because they are in politics or they have friends who are politicians, they have that opportunity. Power is in their hands.
“Last two years, I went to the Edozhigi ward when we were informed of availability, but with my status and efforts, at the end of the day, I could not get any.
“What we sometimes do is that because Bida is a bit far from here, we gather money from anyone interested in buying fertilizer and other inputs and one person would go to Bida to buy them.
“It is much less expensive to buy in Bida than the retailers in our community.”
Niger State SWOFON Coordinator, Mrs Grace Disa, says it is not all the ADP offices across the state that are functioning, adding that though there are extension officers who offer extension services, they are not able to reach the majority of the women in the rural areas.
“Most of my members have not benefitted from extension services. The majority of them do not even know any extension officer or agent and they do their farming activities the way they can.”
Grassroots solutions suggested
Many farmers and community leaders believe that empowering local leaders to distribute inputs would be more effective. The Ezanuwa Kutigi recommended that the government should give directives that the subsidized agricultural inputs be given to the community leaders who will in turn call the leaders of the farmers and give it to them for onward distribution to their members who are fellow farmers.
John Gana, the Village Head of Gusadin in Gbako Local Government Area, suggested that the government should leverage the trust and proximity of community leaders if the government really wants the real farmers to benefit from its interventions.
“We know our people and are close to them so, we know each and every one of them especially those who are farmers. If the inputs come through us, we can ensure they reach the real farmers,” he proposed.
“What they are doing currently is making it go through the hands of the politicians, which makes it hard to get to the farmers.
“We had a meeting with the District Head where we laid out our complaint.
“Even if it is to take the inputs to the Emirs who would give it to us for onward distribution to our people in the community, it will help a lot.”
Elizabeth Saba from Gbako agreed, emphasising the role of cooperatives. “Most farmers are in cooperatives. If the government worked with our leaders, we could distribute the inputs efficiently.
“If they can locate our leaders with the fertilizer, we will get it without any stress or struggle,” she said.
Felicial Umaru in Lavun also stated the same.
She said: “Take the example of SWOFON, we are in every local government area and we have members almost all women farmers are members of SWOFON.
“Once the people at the top ask us to submit names, they should deal with the coordinators directly as it is through these coordinators that these inputs will get to the farmers at the grassroots.
“But if they do not do this, it will still be zero. The farmers at the grassroots will not benefit from these government interventions.
“Whenever the government wants to help the people, they should follow the right channel, find the leaders in the communities and groups so that these interventions will get to the real farmers.”
We’re aware of political farmers, ready for them – Government
The Managing Director of the Niger State Agricultural Mechanization Development Agency (NAMDA), Muhammad Ali Baba, acknowledged that the government is conscious of the issue of ‘political farmers’ and assured that measures are being put in place to eliminate this problem and they do not scuttle the initiative put in place for the real farmers to benefit.
“Political farmers come from where the government is. But in this new dispensation, it would not be business as usual.
“The programme we have in place would require that any beneficiary submit its cluster, ward and local government area and we will ask our extension workers to verify them through the village and district heads.
‘In this new programme we intend to start, the village heads and community leaders will be part of the verification process as they will have to vouch for and verify the farmers.
“We are conscious of the challenge and every effort is being made to mitigate it.
“We will also reinvigorate our extension workers to ensure that they begin working again as they will be the ones who will identify the farmers and ensure that every farmer at the grassroots benefits from the initiatives.”
When the reporter asked about measures taken to prevent the extension workers from compromising the process, the MD said there would be checks and balances to ensure that there is no compromise by the extension workers, “any worker that plays funny with this task will be risking his or her work. It is their job and their life and I do not think they will want to risk it.
“As the extension workers would be demanding transparency and commitment from the farmers, so also would we be demanding commitment and transparency from them.”
On the ADP offices across the state, the Executive Director of Operations in NAMDA, Rilwan Jibril, said that the ADP offices had been neglected by the previous government while the Extension Officers are either aged or retired adding that the current administration is working to revive the ADP offices and employ young men and women across the local government areas as extension officers.
“We are currently recruiting youths for the Agricultural Extension Volunteer scheme where three youths per ward would fill the vacuum of ageing and retiring extension workers.
“The government has also set up a committee to go around the local government areas to assess and look at ways of resuscitating the warehouses and offices of ADP across the state
Diversion stories untrue, says Perm Sec
Despite these assurances, the Permanent Secretary of the state Ministry of Agriculture, Dr Mathew Ahmed, dismissed reports of diversion of the inputs distributed so far by Mohammed Umar Bago’s administration, citing the ministry’s implementation and monitoring committees.
“I want to assure you that there is no diversion of those inputs to the best of my knowledge, because the ministry staff, the store officer and security officers are all involved and will be there at the distribution centre.
“Each beneficiary will have to identify themselves before they are given the input and reports. The issue of diversion is just news that is flying, but you cannot really pin it and say this is true.
“As a ministry, we set up an implementation committee that monitors the input distribution and we also limit the number of bags or quantity that each farmer would access so that it can go around.
“The truth of the matter is that we cannot provide input on subsidies for all the farmers so we are looking at basically smallholder farmers benefiting, farmers that have one hectare and below so that it would be able to go round.
“People who are complaining about this may be those who have like five hectares so if you have five hectares, you are no longer a smallholder farmer.
“Those who are considered are the smallholder farmers, only those with one hectare can access the inputs so that other farmers will be able to key in and benefit from the subsidy.”
On the smallholder farmers not getting the information for the distribution of the inputs, Ahmed highlighted the state’s communication efforts to inform farmers about distribution schedules.
He said: “The news is always on air. We do jingles, we make announcements, it is on the social media and it is everywhere.
“It is not true for people to say they are not aware of when the inputs are distributed at the local level.
“The information is also on the radio and because we are conscious of the fact that some people may not be able to watch television due to non-access to electricity and are in the village but they can access radio, and social media, so we ensure that the information is there. The information is not only passed in English, we pass it in other Indigenous languages like Hausa, Nupe, and Gbagi so that people can understand that this is the ongoing activity.”
The Permanent Secretary said that farmers are discouraged from selling or diverting the inputs when they get access to it but lamented that everyone has a mind of their own, “you can only give someone advice after you leave, we cannot monitor the to their houses. But we try to monitor their various farms to ensure that it is used in their farms. Even with that, they are just samples of the farmers but we ensure that any farmer that is caught will not benefit from subsequent input distribution. These are the things we have put in place.”
He further disclosed that the sales of the inputs by the farmers is of concern to the government which is why in the new agricultural initiative of the state government, farmers who benefit from the input distribution would be paid N50,000 monthly to quell the temptation of them to sell the inputs they will be given.
“Our current Niger food arrangement with farmers which will commence soon, we are going to give the farmers minimum wage. This is because when we give a farmer fertilizer, herbicide and at the end of the day, the farmer does not have access to funds, there is this temptation to sell a bag out of the bags of fertilizer he was given or one litre of herbicides he was given so that he would have money with him. What Niger Food is trying to do is that with the input distribution to smallholder farmers, every month, they will be given N50,000 to cushion the effect of cash within the smallholder farmers.”
What next in 2024?
Despite government assurances, the stark reality for many smallholder farmers in Niger State is a continuous struggle for access to essential agricultural inputs. As the new administration promises reforms and stricter measures, it remains to be seen whether these efforts will finally address the systemic issues and ensure that the true beneficiaries receive the much-needed support.
For now, farmers like Bilikisu, Felicia and Mary continue to grapple with uncertainty, hoping for a day when the government’s promises translate into tangible support for their fields and futures.
For real progress, the government must heed the voices of the farmers and community leaders, ensuring transparency and accountability in the distribution process. Only then can the vision of sustainable agricultural support truly reach the grassroots.
This report was made possible with support from the International Budget Partnership (IBP) under the ICIR Strengthening Public Accountability for Results and Knowledge (SPARK 2) Project.
