Tag: fiscal

  • Marriage of fiscal convenience

    Marriage of fiscal convenience

    Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele has promised to marry price and financial system stability with economic growth and development. So far, key intervention projects including the N300 billion Real Sector Support Facility and the Development Finance Department (DFD) project are designed to boost the economy and the investment climate, writes COLLINS NWEZE.

    The strength of every economy is in its ability to broaden the scope of development financing to create wealth to ensure better life for the people.

    When Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele came on board on June 3, last year, he recognised the crucial role to be played by the Development Finance Department (DFD) in stimulating the growth of the real sector.

    The apex bank chief was determined to reposition the developmental financing initiatives of the apex bank so as to boost specific enterprise areas in agriculture, manufacturing, health, oil and gas.

    Emefiele also promised to establish Secured Transaction and National Collateral Registry as well as a National Credit Scoring System that will improve access to information on borrowers and assist lenders to make good credit decisions. He equally promised to build resilient financial infrastructure that serves the needs of the lower end of the market, especially those without collateral.

    However, some analysts have challenged the CBN for raising the Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) on public sector deposits from 12 per cent to 75 per cent before it was harmonised at 31 per cent for both private and public sector deposits.

    Again, when the falling Brent crude oil prices hit the Nigeria economy, analysts spoke on its implications for the economy. Manufacturers were no longer funding the importation of raw materials because of dollar scarcity and the CBN was urged to further devalue the naira instead of using so much forex in defending the local currency. Despite these resistances, the CBN has continued with policies it believed would boost economic development.

     

    Real sector facility

    Emefiele explained that the N300 billion Real Sector Support Facility (RSSF) was established as part of efforts to unlock the potential of the real sector to engender output growth, value added productivity and job creation. The facility, he said, will support large enterprises for start-ups and expansion of the financing needs of N500 million and a maximum of N10 billion.

    “The real sector activities targeted by the facility are manufacturing, agricultural value chain and selected service sub-sectors.  The facility is expected to improve access to finance by Nigerian Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to fast-track the development of the manufacturing, agricultural value chain and services sub-sectors of the Nigerian economy; increase output, generate employment, diversify the revenue base, increase foreign exchange earnings and provide inputs for the industrial sector on a sustainable basis,” he said.

    Also, N213 billion Nigerian Electricity Market Stabilisation Facility was aimed at settling certain outstanding debts in the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry (NESI). The facility covers legacy gas debts and the shortfall in revenue during the Interim Rule period (IRP). It is expected that this will guarantee the take-off of the Transitional Electricity Market (TEM). Already, over N56.68 billion disbursed to five generating companies (Gencos) and five distribution companies (Dicos). For Emefiele, the challenges in the power sector  are interconnected with the unexpectedly large revenue shortfalls in the industry, which needed to be fixed.

    Also, the CBN in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMA&RD) established the Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme (CACS) in 2009, to fast track the development of the agricultural sector, generate employment, and reduce the cost of credit for agricultural production by providing credit facilities for commercial agriculture at a single digit interest rate.

    Already, N38.65 billion has been disbursed to 113 projects while N24.91 billion representing 64.45 per cent of disbursements focused on commodities.

    Also, the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF) was established to provide credit guarantees on facilities extended to farmers by banks up to 75 per cent of the amount in default net of any security realised. In the period under review, there has been an increase of loan limits for unsecured lending from N20,000 to N50,000. There has also been an increase of loan limits for secured lending to corporate bodies under the ACGS from N10 million to N 0 million.

    Agricultural Credit Support Scheme (ACSS) is aimed at developing the agricultural sector of the economy by providing credit facilities to farmers at single digit interest rate to enable large scale farmers exploit the untapped potentials of the sector.

     

    Naira volatility

    Emefiele assumed office at a time there was visible pressure on the naira as well as decline in the country’s foreign reserves. The volatility of the naira has continued, despite several policies aimed at pursuing a gradual reduction in key interest rates, and include the unemployment rate in monetary policy decisions and maintain exchange rate stability and aggressively. The policy of the CBN was als directed at shoring up foreign exchange reserves; strengthening risk-based supervision mechanism of banks to ensure overall health and banking system stability; building sector-specific expertise in banking supervision to reflect loan concentration of the banking industry among others.

    For instance, the CBN closed the Retail Dutch Auction System (RDAS) foreign exchange window at the CBN in order to check further pressure on the country’s foreign exchange to avert the emergence of a multiple exchange rate regime and preserve the country’s foreign exchange reserves.

    Emefiele also proposed to abolish fees associated with limits on deposits and reconsider ongoing practice in which all fees associated with limits on withdrawals accrue to banks alone.

    In spite of all the challenges, chief of which has been the fall in the global price of crude oil, Emefiele and his team at the CBN, have regulated the operations of Bureaux de Change (BDCs) to check rent-seeking among operators, depletion of the nation’s foreign reserves, unauthorised financial transactions, dollarisation of the economy, prunning down the unwieldy number of the BDCs and the unenviable position of Nigeria as the largest importer of dollars in the world.

    Towards achieving the CBN’s mandate of ensuring the safety and soundness of the financial system, it conducted a Risk-Based examination of all banks with High and Above Average Composite Risk Rating in June last year and those with Moderate and Low Composite Risk Rating in September last year.

    Among other examinations, the apex bank also carried out foreign exchange examination of all banks in September last year as well as the routine examination of all discount houses and financial holding companies in October last year. In January this year, it carried out the risk asset examination of 24 banks as at December 31, last year.

    In the period under review, the bank commenced the implementation of the Basel II Accord aimed at promoting financial system stability by ensuring that banks are adequately capitalised and have enhanced risk management systems.

    The apex bank within the period facilitated the refund of over N4 billion to bank customers based on the complaints resolved and directives communicated to them following the Consumer Compliance Examinations and a spot-check conducted on the banks. It also concluded full deployment of the Consumer Complaint Management System (CCMS) with the migration of all banks to the live –platform of the system.

     

    Reforms in Primary Mortgage Banks

    The apex bank also carried out further reforms of Primary Mortgage Banks (PMBs) where 32 PMBs had fully capitalised as at June 30, last year while 10 were in the category given up to December 31, last year. Licences of 21 PMBs, which failed to recapitalise or had remained technically insolvent were revoked on November 12, last year. The CBN partnered with the Federal Government and Development Partners to midwife the Development Bank of Nigeria that is envisaged to address the paucity of low interest and long-term funding for Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in Nigeria.

    The CBN also established a governance structure for National Financial Inclusion Strategy and completed the geo-spatial mapping survey of all financial access points across the country. It has also engaged seven State Governments on the implementation of the National Financial Inclusion Strategy and ensured the gradual reduction in percentage of financially excluded adults from 46.3 per cent in 2010 to 39.5 per cent by December, last year. “Other schemes include the Power and Airline Intervention Fund (PAIF), Capacity Building programmes through the existing Entrepreneurship Development Centres (EDCs) and the CBN/NYSC Entrepreneurship Training held in four centres,” it said.

     

    Banking, payments system

    In conjunction with the office of the Accountant General of the Federation (OAGF), e-collection element of the Treasury Single Account (TSA) took off on September 15.       Real time remittance of government receipts directly into the Consolidated Revenue Fund Account (CRF) to enthrone transparency and accountability in management of government receivables began. The policy was also designed to promote effective monetary policy and reduce cost of liquidity management borne by the bank.

    The MDAs under the TSA platform has increased from 340 to 543. In continuation of the bank Verification Number (BVN) for banks customers, enrollment increased from 15,000 as at June 3, last year to over 20 million presently.

     

    Inflation refuses to abate

    Nigeria’s consumer inflation was at 9.4 per cent year-on-year in September, up 0.1 per cent from August, and staying above the central bank’s target upper limit, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) said.

    Food inflation rose marginally to 10.1 percent year-on-year in August versus 10.0 percent in July. “The marginal increase was as a result of slower increases in alcoholic beverages, tobacco and kola, health, transport and recreation and culture divisions.

    “On a month-on-month basis, the pace of increases of food prices … has slowed, contributing to the relatively slower (overall)pace of increases,” the NBS said.

    Nigeria’s inflation rate rose above the CBN’s upper limit of nine per cent in June and is at the highest level since February 2013. Nigeria has been hit hard by the slump in global crude prices, which has sent its currency, the naira, spiralling. The CBN has imposed increasingly stringent foreign exchange measures to prop up the naira but investors are losing confidence.

    National Gross Domestic Product more than halved in the second quarter year-on-year and JP Morgan dropped Nigeria from its influential emerging market bonds index due to foreign exchange controls.

    Financial analyst, Michael Okafor, said  under Emefiele’s watch, there have been improvement in corporate governance as well as risk management processes in many of the lenders. He explained that the beauty of the banking reforms, which Emefiele inherited, remains that no bank has failed, no depositor lost money with the entire process executed with minimal cost.

    • Gwadabe
    • Gwadabe

    President, Association of Bureau de Change Operators of Nigeria (ABCON), Alhaji Aminu Gwadabe, the confidence in President Muhammadu Buhari and the peaceful conduct of the general elections have helped to stimulate the economy. He explained that some of the steps taken by the CBN has led to dollar glut in the market, in spite of the tight liquidity squeeze in the money market.

     

  • ‘Executive must accord fiscal autonomy to Judiciary’

    ‘Executive must accord fiscal autonomy to Judiciary’

    The courts were shut for about three weeks – July 11-31 – because of what workers under the aegis of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) called the persistent refusal of the Executive, particularly in the states, to accord financial autonomy to the Judiciary. JUSUN President Comrade Marwan Adamu speaks with Eric Ikhilae on the strike and other issues.

    What is your take on the situation in Rivers State judiciary?

    We have been pushed to the wall. That was why we took the decision to go on strike in Rivers. We had embarked on strike in Rivers even before the nationwide strike.  And even with the suspension of the nationwide strike, we are not going to suspend the strike in Rivers until the problems created by the two elephants are resolved. The two elephants are the state (JSC) Judiciary Service Commission and the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    We at JUSUN, have no power over the appointment of Chief Judges and whoever is appointed as the Chief Judge, we will accept him,  we will work with him, we have no problem with that.

    So, why are your members on strike in the state?

    In Rivers, NJC appointed an administrative judge, they said we must work with him. We have no problem with that, we can work with him. But after the NJC’s appointment, another circular came from the state’s JSC and we, from the Chief Registrar down to the least person in the Judiciary are employed by the JSC of the state. So, if the JSC issued another circular, saying if anybody worked with this administrative judge, the person was on his or her own, and that such person would face disciplinary actions, there is a problem. Are we going to work with two masters at the same time?

    That was why we withdrew our services, coupled with the problems of security. You are a living witness to this. A particular court was bombed three times. On an occasion, the police confirmed a parcel found in the premises of the court as explosives. They did not remove it until it exploded and our members who reported it were arrested and detained for 21 days.  When NBA and JUSUN took the matter up, our detained members were taken to court and terrorism charges were instituted against them.  Up till now, the matter is still before the court.

    How do you think the logjam in Rivers’ Judiciary can be cleared?

     The way out is that both parties should do the right thing, which means they should do what the constitution says. There is no way you are going to appoint a Chief Judge in a state without the inputs of the NJC, state governor and the state House of Assembly. Let them do the right thing.

    Why did JUSUN embark on the nationwide strike?

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja delivered judgment on January 13 this year in our favour in the case in which we sought the interpretation of sections 81(3), 121 (3) and 162(9) of the 1999 Constitution.

    The court ordered that the Accountants-General of the state and federation, Auditors-General of the states and the federation, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be served with that court order for them to ensure compliance with those provisions of the constitution. We did. They were all served.

    Sometimes in February this year, the union had a NEC (National Executive Council) meeting and issued a 21-day ultimatum to embark on strike. Before the expiration of the ultimatum, we were invited to a meeting by the Minister of Labour and Productivity, who I must acknowledge and appreciate for his efforts in this matter. He has put in his  best to ensure that this matter is resolved.

    At that meeting, we were persuaded not to embark on the strike on the understanding that we should give them time to study the court order and comply with it. We agreed. Towards the end of March, we issued a fresh 21-day ultimatum. The same thing happened. We were invited to a meeting. The NJC (National Judicial Council), the FJSC (Federal Judicial Service Commission), Wages and Salaries Commission and the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, were invited.

    When we saw they were still foot-dragging on their promise to abide by the judgment, we decided to go on strike.

    Do you mean most states are yet to obey the judgment?

    All the states are in default. None of them has complied with the judgment. Why we delayed before going on strike was to show that we are mature and not that we have interest in going on strike. We were interested in the amicable resolution of the issue.

    Before the federal judicial workers joined the strike, the Minister of Labour and Productivity called a meeting. The NJC was in attendance, with some directors and the Accountants-General of the Federation and we were asked to suspend the strike. We said JUSUN would suspend the strike if we get a cogent, concrete, presentable commitment from the government

    We are not saying you should pay the money now. But let us assume that if both the representatives of the Federal and State governments say that we agree there is a court judgment, give us one week, give us two weeks, give us one month, to comply with it, that is acceptable.

    The commitment should be in written form. It can no longer be in verbal form because we have had a number of verbal assurances which have failed.

    We were even given written memorandum which failed and more importantly the Accountant-General of the Federation caused about 25 per cent of the problem. Because the Constitution, in Section 162(9) provides that he (the Accountant-General of the Federation) should deduct the funds standing to the credit of the Judiciary in the budget from the source and pay same to the NJC for onward disbursement.

    Was that what the court judgment of January 13 said?

    Yes, the judgment affirmed it. That was what we went to court to seek interpretation for and the court ruled in our favour, upholding the provisions of the constitution. Even, if the Accountant General of the Federation feels that there is a clash in Section 121 or whatever, it is not for him to say it because he is not a court. If he is contesting the judgment, the right thing for him to do is to go back to court to challenge the judgment.

    In as much as he did not challenge the judgment, he has no moral right not to comply with the court order. If he deducts the money from the state governments’ funds from the source and any governor complains, he only has to say that he is relying on the court order.  It is now for the state governors to accept it or go to court to challenge the judgment. If anybody is not happy with the judgment, the person should go to the Court of Appeal and if the court says stay action, so be it.

    Has the Attorney-General of the Federation been involved in this matter?

    He is affected directly and his representatives have been coming to all our meetings with the Minister of Labour, and the position of the Ministry of Justice is one. It is that since there is a court order, it must be complied with if there is no appeal.

    That is the position of the Ministry of Justice. Maybe what the Attorney-General of the Federation should have done is to go further to invite his colleagues in various states, the Attorneys-General of the states, with a view to resolving this problem. But right now there are some few states, two or three, who are making contacts with the union on how to resolve the problem.

    Have representatives of the states been involved in your earlier meetings to resolve the problem?

     They have not been participating. None of them has been participating. The Minister of Labour kept mounting pressure on the union to call of the strike, to show how concerned we are,we said the Commissioners of Finance have a forum, and  they have a chairman; the Accountants-General of the states have a forum and they have a chairman, invite these two chairmen, let them come to the meeting. Let us meet with them and make a commitment.

    But we learnt that the Accountant-General of the Federation, because of the pressure on him, wrote a letter to the state governors, asking them  to comply with the court order. My problem with this letter, though the content of the letter sounds good and looks beautiful, but the question remains, which, between the court order and the letter of the Accountant-General of the Federation has the greater binding effect?

    If a judge of competent jurisdiction makes an order and nobody is willing to respect it, should I as a unionist now rely on the letter of the Accountant-General of the Federation?

    What is the Accountant-General of the Federation expected to do as ordered by the court?

    What the Accountant-General of the Federation should do is to deduct funds meant for the judiciary directly from the state government’s allocation before releasing it to them. That is the position. Whether the court is correct or wrong, it is never my business, it is not the business of the Accountant-General of the Federation.  It is the business of the person whose money is deducted to go to court to challenge it. It is a simple issue.

    Were you bothered about the impact of the strike on litigants and awaiting trial inmates who are in custody and in need of court services to secure their freedom?

     We have been thinking of them and that is why for the last 10 to 15 years, whenever the situation of this nature came up, we were asked to consider them and we have been considering them. And nobody after the suspension of our strike is looking at our situation to ensure our demands are met.

    There is no way a judge can work effectively and deliver a sound judgment without a conducive environment. My problem is that people have failed to understand that it is not only the superior courts are courts. Go and see our magistrate’s courts, see our Area Courts, our Sharia Courts, or our Customary Courts, they are using rented shops and parlours.

    In what states do we have courts using rented apartments?

    That is the situation in virtually all the 36 states. I challenge anybody to contradict me; that is what is happening in virtually all the 36 states.  People do not even appreciate magistrates in the magistrate’s courts or sharia courts, and these are the people who can attend to 17 to 20 cases in a day. These are the people who take the cases of the ordinary men in the society.

    Do we then say that by this strike, the judicial workers are fighting the cause of judges and magistrates?

    We are not  fighting for anybody. We are fighting for the system. We are in this struggle because we are employed as staff of the judiciary.

     So, how are your members going to benefit from the fruit of the struggle if the Executive eventually comply with the judgment?

     Our members will benefit from the fruit of the struggle immensely. We desire a conducive environment to work where we can give the best. The service I am delivering will be improved. I will do my work with sincerity, honesty and with the best effect. Again, if we achieve the financial autonomy or financial independence in the judiciary, my welfare will improve.

    When the environment where you are working has all that qualify it to be called a good office, especially a court, you will discharge your duties effectively and with joy.

    Today, a litigant comes to court, the court is being rented in the house of the person suing him, and you are expecting him to get justice.

    We are not fighting for our pockets; we are fighting for the system, for the structure, for the judiciary to be a strong institution that it is supposed to be. The issue has always been that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man.

    How is the judgment obtained by a former NBA President, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), different from the one got by your union?

    We will come to the issues in the judgment obtained by Agbakoba anytime from October, November or December. That is when we will start seeing the effect of that judgment because that is the period budgeting processes will begin.  The judgment deals with the procedure of budgeting for the judiciary and we will see whether the Federal Government and the state governments will be adamant.

    From this year, JUSUN will never accept, we will not allow anybody to compromise the integrity and independence of the institution we are serving. Everybody is crying for democracy, and there is no way democracy will survive where impunity reigns. There is no way democracy will thrive without observing the rule of law.

    All we are saying is that our patience has been taken for granted for too long. We have been mindful of the institution we are serving that is why we don’t make comments on every issue, we don’t make pronouncement on every issue we don’t even go on strike because of all issues we have been controlling ourselves.

  • Fiscal federalism at the National Conference

    Fiscal federalism at the National Conference

    This article by me on fiscal federalism was first published in this paper in May. It was a preview of the emerging controversy at the National Conference over resource control. There is now a complete deadlock at the conference between the North and the Southsouth delegations on the issue.

    As was widely expected, and as I observed in my column in this paper a few weeks ago, the issue of fiscal federalism is proving to be a hard nut to crack at the National Conference. It is still being debated at the committee level and it was reported that the committee had agreed tentatively on the reduction of the federal share of the national revenue by some 10 per cent to be distributed among the states and local governments. But there were press reports also last week that the northern delegation had circulated a 47-page position paper at the conference rejecting all claims to oil resources by the oil producing states, particularly in the Delta region. Specifically, the position paper is demanding that all minerals, including oil, should remain under the exclusive list of the Federal Government and that the previous dichotomy on offshore and onshore revenues be restored.

    In effect, the northern delegation is giving notice in advance that it will oppose the principle of derivation as the basis for sharing the national revenue, particularly the oil revenue, which accounts for over 80 per cent of the total national revenue. The North’s position is evidently an opening gambit in what is going to be a very contentious issue at the conference. After all, the oil-bearing states already receive 13 per cent of the oil revenue in partial recognition and acceptance of derivation as a principle that cannot be totally ignored in revenue sharing.

    There has so far been no official response from the oil-bearing states to this northern position paper. But it can be assumed that the oil-bearing states, particularly in the Niger Delta, will vehemently reject the North’s  position on the issue as totally unacceptable. They can expect support from the Southeast. But the position of the Southwest on this issue is not altogether clear. For reasons of political expediency, the Southwest delegation is refraining from taking a position openly. But it should, as a matter of principle, take a position, and not wait for the North and Southsouth delegations to slug it out between themselves. After all, the outcome of the dispute will have  financial consequences for the Southwest too. At the Obasanjo Reform Conference of 2005, the Southwest delegates were willing to support an increase of additional revenue for the oil states from 13 per cent to 19 per cent, but this modest increase was rejected out of hand by the delegation from the Southeast and Southsouth, which insisted on nothing less than 25 per cent of the total oil revenue. It was on that dispute that the 2005 Conference broke down completely.

    The irony of the present dispute over revenue sharing is that until 1966 when the military seized power, revenue sharing among the three regions was based on 50 per cent derivation. This was generally acceptable to all the parties concerned and was in conformity with the principle of revenue sharing in a truly federal system. But all this was before oil revenue became so dominant in the total national revenue. Before independence in 1960, the British colonial power took a great care to ensure that all frictions on revenue sharing were resolved. Between 1946 and 1958, the four commissions set up by the departing colonial power recommended that 50 per cent of total revenue be shared on the principle of derivation, that 35 per cent be shared by the regions, and only 15 per cent to the Federal Government.  In fact, in 1964, after independence, the Binn Commission reduced the allocation of the Federal Government from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. This was the basis of revenue sharing among the federal and regions before the military seized power in 1966.

    Under the military, the share of the Federal Government in total revenue was progressively increased. Oil had become a major factor in national revenue. The process of the erosion of the principle of derivation for revenue sharing began with the military Decree 13 of 1970, which reduced by 5 per cent the revenue shared on the basis of derivation. In addition, the decree transferred all the revenue from off shore oil wells to the Federal Government. Between 1976 and 1979, the military regime reduced by a further 20 per cent, the revenue distributable on the basis of derivation. In 1981, the Shagari regime made a further reduction of 20 per cent on revenue sharing on the basis of derivation. With this, revenue distributable on the basis of derivation fell from 50 per cent at independence to only 5 per cent. When the military returned to power in 1984, revenue sharing on the basis of the principle of derivation was further reduced to 1.5 per cent. It should also be noted that virtually all the leaders of the military regimes, except the Obasanjo regime, who undermined the principle of derivation as the basis for the sharing of the national revenue, were from the North. This further complicated the problem, as most of the oil is located in the Delta region. In 1992 the Babangida military regime decided that the share of the Federal Government in national revenue would be 48.5 per cent, the states 24 per cent, the local governments 20 per cent and the balance of 7.5 per cent was to be held by the Federal Government as special fund. In effect, the total share of the Federal Government in the national revenue, over 80 per cent of which is from oil exports, was 56 per cent.

    Now, this is a massive negation of the principle of derivation and of fiscal federalism. It is totally unacceptable and the oil-bearing states are right in demanding a drastic review of the existing formula on revenue allocation as it hurts the financial viability of the states (37) and local governments (774) very badly. While the Federal Government  gets over 56 per cent of the total revenue, the states get less than 1 per cent each and the local governments even less. The issue is not even about the financial profligacy, or massive corruption of the Federal Government, or its colossal financial mismanagement. The issue is that this imbalance in revenue sharing between the states and the Federal Government has been a persistent source of friction between them, as it places the other tiers of government in the federation in an invidious situation of having to rely on the Federal Government for financial bail outs. This runs counter to the principle of fiscal federalism, which should be based on the recognition that both the Federal Government and the federating states are co-ordinates, equal in all respects to one another.

    It is in the interest of the states for the Federal Government’s share of the national revenue to be reduced so that individually all the states, including the northern states, can get more from the total national revenue. The position of the northern delegation is obviously based on political expediency, on the expectation that power will revert to the North in 2015. If the situation was reversed, and most of the oil was located in the North, there is no doubt that the northern delegation would insist on the principle of derivation as the basis for revenue sharing.

    However, there is one issue on which the littoral oil-bearing states stand on a weak wicket. It is that of their claim to offshore oil as well as onshore oil. These states cannot legitimately claim exclusive ownership of offshore oil, the proceeds of which should be shared by both the states and the Federal Government. This position was affirmed at the UN Law of the Sea Conference of 1982 in which I participated when I was Ambassador at the UN and which the northern delegation referred to in their position paper. The littoral oil-bearing states cannot claim 50 per cent of the revenue accruing from offshore oil as offshore resources belong to the entire country and should be shared equally among them. Neither can the Federal Government claim exclusive ownership of revenue from offshore oil. After all, without the states there can be no Federal Government. There is no provision in the convention agreed at the UN Law of the Sea Conference vesting total ownership of offshore oil in the Federal Government.

    It should be possible for these huge differences over revenue sharing to be resolved at the conference. What is needed all round is compromise and a spirit of give and take on all sides in the overall interest of the nation.

     

  • Fiscal anomie

    Fiscal anomie

    • The allocation of N4 billion for the president’s wife’s NGO is a new low in fiscal recklessness

    Appropriation bills in Nigeria these days seem to defy rhyme, reason or even sensitivity. And as for economic principles; perish the thought, for jungle instincts seem to hold sway. This is the overwhelming perception since early February when news broke that a handsome N4 billion is to be set aside in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) 2013 Appropriation Bill for a ‘pet’ project.

    The Senate, reviewing the FCT’s proposed budget, had frowned at a number of seeming outlandish allocations, chief among which is N4 billion for the construction of the headquarters of the African First Ladies Peace Mission (AFLPM), a project which is the pet dream of the wife of the president, Mrs. Patience Jonathan. The list of what seems like booty sharing in the FCT spending plan is long. There is N2.4 billion for securing the capital city which boasts of no police, army or security agency of its own; N5 billion for some social malaise in the city, including the rehabilitation of prostitutes and the destitute, and N150 million for the renovation of the vice-president’s guest house.

    We acknowledge that the document before the Senate is just a proposal, a plan which is subject to changes and reviews, but we cannot come to terms with N4 billion being proposed for what is at best, a non-governmental organisation owned by the wife of the president. How could this have happened; and who is responsible? The ‘Office of the First Lady’, as we have come to know it is the whimsical creation of the wives of successive presidents and governors which has no place in the law or Constitution of the Federal Republic. The Office of the First Lady is an aberration that has lingered for so long in the polity that many are beginning to forget that it is a mere charitable, if not ceremonial, set- up.

    Today, offices of first ladies are burgeoning across the country, from the local council areas through the 36 states and at the presidency level. There are massive office buildings being erected inside the precincts of government houses for her ladyships; a retinue of staff employed and deployed and recently, entire ministries and agencies are farmed out for the exclusive control of the “First Lady.” All of these, we hasten to state, are illegalities; they are unconstitutional and represent acts of impunity and abuse of office by successive governors and presidents.

    However, the current proposal in the FCT Appropriation Bill must be a new low and indeed, a new frightening dimension in the annals of first ladyship in Nigeria. It is only symptomatic of a reckless era when fiscal prudence and responsibility has been jettisoned. Budgets in Nigeria in recent times have been like garbage bins where all manner of things are dumped. There seems to be not a modicum of thinking, not to mention rigour, applied in budgeting these days. We are still nonplussed by the N14 billion proposed for the completion of a new residence for the vice-president; N6.5 billion for pushing a petroleum bill and multibillion allocations for presidential repast, among such other figures that simply jar the senses in their sheer illogicality.

    We urge the Senate to expunge from the FCT Appropriation Bill without further ado, the proposed N4 billion for the AFLPM headquarters. The Appropriation Bill is too important to the polity to be treated with levity. The National Assembly should, as a matter of urgency, restore sanity to Nigeria’s budgeting process and rescue the nation from the current fiscal anomie.

     

  • ‘2013 budget may fail fiscal consolidation tests’

    ‘2013 budget may fail fiscal consolidation tests’

    There are possibilities that the proposed 2013 budget may not achieve its fiscal consolidation and growth objectives, the managing director, Financial Directives Company Limited, Bismark Rewane has said.

    Speaking at the October Business Bi monthly Economic Report for October, he said President Goodluck Jonathan may be compelled to submit to the wishes of the legislators and increase the benchmark oil price to $80.

    By this, spending will increase and should oil price drop, savings obtained from crude oil sales would reduce and external reserves accretion. This he said, would be negatively affected, making it difficult for the government to respond adequately to an economic crisis.

    In addition, he said the proposed oil production level of 2.53 million barrel per day mpbd for 2013 is too optimistic considering the level attained so far in 2012. “Production is currently about 2.16 mbpd and it is not likely to increase if the problems of oil theft and pipeline leakages are not addressed. Besides, revenue would be adversely affected if weakness in the global economy causes disruption in output levels. In that case, the deficit gap is expected to be larger and domestic borrowing would increase,” he said.

    It said the proposed 2013 budget seems promising in its quest to promote fiscal consolidation and growth. Nevertheless, the poor performance of previous budgets makes it difficult to believe that the proposed 2013 budget would be any different.

    The budget highlights showed aggregate expenditure is estimated at N4.92 trillion, an increase of 4.7 per cent from the 2012 expenditure of N4.7 trillion, and total revenue is put at N3.89 trillion, an increase of 9.3 per cent from the 2012 revenue of N3.56 trillion. Noticeably, aggregate expenditure is greater than revenue which implies that the government intends to run a deficit budget.

    Rewane explained that the percentage of aggregate expenditure spent on capital expenditures increased from 28.53 per cent in 2012 to 31.34 per cent while that spent on recurrent expenditures decreased from 71.47 per cent in 2012 to 68.66 per cent.

    Indicators in the proposed 2013 budget that demonstrate the commitment to fiscal prudence are the reduction in fiscal deficit to 2.17 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 2.85 per cent to N1.15 trillion in 2012, which is within the threshold stipulated by the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007.

    Also, the reduction in domestic borrowing by 2.3 per cent to N727 billion, from N744 billion in 2012, is to ensure that debt stock remains at a sustainable level.

    Government said it would repay maturing debt obligations through the establishment of a sinking fund of N100 billion . It also increased the benchmark oil price to $75 for 2013 from $72 in 2012