The rejection, by principal
officers of the National Assembly, of the housing facilities being built for
them, underlines the wastage of public resources that has become an
administrative routine in government circles. It also buttresses the fact
that members of the ruling class are largely responsible for the bloated cost
of governance that stultifies the country’s growth.
Sadly, the federal
government appears incapable of finding a clean and acceptable way around the
housing of key officers of the national legislature, 14 years into the present
republic. Rather, every time new officers are elected, government goes into a
spending spree either by purporting to build new houses, renovating existing
ones with stupendous amounts or monetising the houses to the recipients, all in
a vicious circle and in a manner that portrays endless financial rigmarole.
The incumbent presiding
officers, namely, Senate President David Mark, Deputy Senate President Ike
Ekweremadu; Speaker, House of Representatives Aminu Waziri Tambuwal and his
Deputy, Emeka Ihedioha who rejected the facilities cited security concerns and
delay in the provision of infrastructure, for doing so. Intriguingly, the
housing facilities being built by the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) were
sited at Maitama extension now known as Goodluck Jonathan District behind the
Lungi military formation.
Curiously too, the officers
concerned are already accommodated at the Apo Legislative Quarters which
suitability has also been supposedly undermined by security concern. The
consequence is that the facilities are to be downgraded to guest houses while a
new site has been acquired at the Three Arms Zone for the construction of the
same structures for the presiding officers, notwithstanding the huge
amount of money already expended on the rejected facilities estimated
originally to cost about N3 billion.
This is a typical Nigerian
story – one of gross irresponsibility and self-interest over and above
the interest of the country and its people. This development is
reprehensible, and calls for a fundamental review of government’s monetisation
policy under the broad rubric of privatisation embarked upon by the Olusegun
Obasanjo administration.
The interrogation of the subversion of government
policies by agents of government who ought to play by the rule of law is
necessary. So also, the pervasive culture of profligacy should be questioned.
For example, it was initially gazetted that the official quarters of the presiding
officers of the National Assembly should not be sold. Yet, previous presiding
officers sold the official quarters to themselves under the guise of the
monetisation policy.
It is worth recalling that
former Speaker, House of Representatives, Mrs. Patricia Etteh was impeached
ostensibly for alleged inflated cost of renovation of her official quarters. Is
it not ironical that government that set out to monetise benefit-in-kind of
public officials would start anew the construction of housing facilities in a
ridiculous policy summersault?
The rationale for monetisation as spelt out in
the Federal Ministry of Finance Circular in July 2003 was to facilitate
ownership of house ahead of retirement; reduce waste and abuse of public
facilities; minimise capital expenditure as well as cost of maintenance of
public facilities; reduce cost of rent; promote a culture of maintenance and
discipline in the use of public facilities and save resources for use in
capital projects. Critics of the monetization project had called into question
the feasibility of the exercise on the ground that those saddled with the task
of implementation could sabotage the process and, more fundamentally,
cost-benefit analysis was not carried out in quantitative terms. In a manner of
speaking, the chicken has come home to roost.
The attitude of the
incumbent state actors with regard to state policies amounts to a subversion of
government plans. What makes public servants more important than the people
whom they are elected to serve? What has become of the monetisation policy? Has
it been jettisoned and consigned to the garbage bin of history? Does the
massive construction of official houses for so-called presiding officers of the
National Assembly who bought over the houses that were initially built with
hard earned public funds not amount to hypocrisy and revisionism of the
monetisation policy? All considered, it is the common business-as-usual
attitude and the perpetration of a culture of waste. It is deplorable.
The FCT authorities should
discontinue the waste of public resources on another site for substitute
facilities. And above all, it is high time the expedient colonial policy
carried over to the post-independence era was jettisoned. In the colonial era,
it was necessary to offer a basket of incentives to expatriate administrators
who were reluctant to serve in the tropics.
Unfortunately, the post-colonial
elite took over those incentives and reified them within the civil/public
service. It is thus apposite to pose the question: what sort of logic is it
that governs the allocation of 100 percent of basic salary to housing, 75
percent to furniture, 350 per cent to car loan and 25 per cent to personal
accident allowance among others? The monetisation policy should be revisited,
reviewed and backed by the necessary legislation to avoid the free-ride of
self-seeking public officials.
Source: The Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment