Tag: fund

The politics of Boko Haram insurgency was again brought to the fore by the $1 billion approved by governors from the Excess Crude Account to fight the seemingly degraded war. At the centre of the altercation have been the PDP and APC with the former accusing the government of secret plans to deploy the funds to unwholesome means.

It alleged the funds are for the funding of the 2019 elections since President Buhari claimed his government had technically defeated Boko Haram. Some other groups have also criticized the approval on the grounds of the purpose for which the funds are to be deployed.  There are also issues with whether the governors have the powers to give the approval without recourse to their state houses of assembly.

Regime apologists have entered defence. They accuse the PDP of bad faith. Bolaji Abdullahi, APC’s publicity scribe captured the central thrust of the government’s position. For him, the PDP is scared because it diverted funds meant for weapons’ purchase for the war on insurgency ahead of the 2015 general election. Given that experience and revelations on how humongous sums of money were allegedly diverted, Abdullahi is not surprised PDP would be quick to smell a rat in the instant case.

But he cited the integrity of the president and his aversion to corruption as a safeguard against the manner of malfeasance that allegedly took place when the PDP held sway. He would want us to believe that any money meant for the fight against insurgency would be dutifully deployed to the objective for which it was appropriated. It is left for us to believe this rationalization.

Even if we accept Buhari is unlikely to divert the funds to some other purposes, the same cannot be said of his key functionaries. The diversion of funds meant for internally displaced peoples IDPs to frivolous and questionable contracts as was evident in the sacking of the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Babachir Lawal puts a lie to such optimism. Neither do recurring cases of diversion of relief materials for the displaced in the north-east give cause for optimism.

For Abdullahi, it was wrong for the PDP to base its criticism on the claim that Boko Haram had been technically defeated because winning the peace is more vital than winning the war. By this, he contends, winning the war does not preclude the government from voting substantial funds for the security of that region. Borno State governor, Kashim Shettima argued along similar lines when he drew analogy with countries that have low security threats but vote handsomely for national defence.

By interpolation, Shettima contends that voting huge amounts of money to fight insurgency does not in any way, vitiate the claim that the war has been won. But there is difference here. The difference is between national defence budgets and intervention funds. The 2018 appropriation bill made generous provisions for defence just as the examples Shettima cited.

We are not concerned with national defence budgets here. The money in question we were told, is to fight Boko Haram, except now Vice President Yemi Osinbajo has added a new dimension to the matter. We shall return to this shortly. And if technically, we defeated the scourge two years back, setting aside such huge amount for the same purpose without due process is bound to raise suspicion.

Those who query the approval on this ground are on strong rational foundation. Even then, the fact of our past experience where such funds were allegedly diverted to ends other than that for which they were meant, as the APC pointed out, is serious justification for suspicion. So it is not enough to malign those who raise doubts on the propriety of the fund especially given the information we had been fed with regarding the state of the war. If blames must be apportioned for this controversy, it should be placed at the doorsteps of those who claimed the war had since been won.

It is not enough to bandy the credibility of the president as sufficient guarantee that whatever funds appropriated would be dutifully deployed. If anything, the case of Lawal and similar instances of corruption allegation even with the touted war against corruption, do not imbue confidence that we have parted ways with our decadent past.

During the regime of Jonathan, he sought and obtained Senate approval to borrow $1 billion to prosecute the same war. The facility was for the supply of military hardware to be paid across seven years. It has also been said $2 billion were also approved for that regime from the same account to prosecute the same war without much ado.

When the loan was being debated, at least, two APC senators- George Akume and Olubunmi Adetumbi questioned the procedure on the ground that it had consequences for extant Appropriation Act but were overruled with the Senate approving the loan. Also, the $2 billion approval given to Jonathan from the Excess Crude Account was heavily criticized by the opposition.

The issues canvassed are not entirely new given that we had gone through this path before. If the approvals attracted stringent criticisms and opposition during the last regime, there are serious grounds to raise dust for the appropriation of funds to fight a war that had been declared won. So reservations on the governors’ action are not out of place.

Some of the governors who were said to have consented to the approval on behalf of their states have raised issues. While Ayo Fayose of Ekiti queried the approval, Nyesom Wike of Rivers asked for similar funds for the Niger Delta to tackle its numerous challenges including insecurity and environmental degradation. Curiously, local government chairmen in Ekiti State have gone steps further to institute legal action to restrain the federal government from tampering with the said amount. As it stands, the government cannot tamper with the money until the case has run full cycle. Ironically, whatever security challenges in the north-east that warranted the approval may have to wait until all the issues to it are thrashed out.

Osinbajo added a new dimension to the controversy when he said the money is not meant to fight insurgency alone but for security challenges being experienced in all states of the federation including community policing. The claim though belated, runs contrary to the brief Edo State governor, Godwin Obaseki gave reporters on the issue. He did not leave any one in doubt that the fund was to fight insurgency. He said the amount will include but not limited to the “purchase of equipment, procuring intelligence and logistics to ensure we finally put an end to the scourge of insurgency”.

Those who argued on behalf of the government defended the fund on the ground that it is vital to finally secure the gains made in the insurgency war. That is the interpretation of the conversation by the APC publicity secretary. That is also the summation of the intervention of Shettima when he drew comparison with countries with low security threats but still vote hugely for national defence. The purport of their argument is, technically defeating Boko Haram is the more reason we should commit more funds to the project to sustain the gains.

It was therefore a big surprise when Osinbajo came in the midst of the controversy to claim that the fund was for sundry security challenges across the country. That clarification came too late and did not tally with what those who spoke on behalf of the government understood of it. If the explanation of Osinbajo is to be believed, how come Wike was demanding that the same measure should be applied to the security and environmental challenges that inundate the Niger Delta?

Beyond this, it is sad Boko Haram insurgency has been a victim of undue politicization since it reared its ugly head. Overtime, this has complicated calculations in the handling of the war. Not only have we been unable to figure out its local sponsors, it is increasingly getting difficult to fathom which interest it serves. The current controversy mirrors the enigma the scourge has become.