Fayose indisputably right on $1bn ECA fund

IN his argument to support the one billion dollars Excess Crude Fund (ECA) approval given to the federal government by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), the Governor of Zamfara State and chairman of the NGF, Abdulaziz Yari, said the agreement was reached in November at one of their meetings. He did not say whether the approval was their initiative or whether the government reached out to the governors. If it was their initiative, and they can confidently claim responsibility, then Nigerians must be wary about how their governors govern the states without adherence to due process and in contempt of corporate governance. If the federal government reached out to the governors, in effect eyeing the ECA funds, then it is even more shocking that it claims ignorance of budget processes and is willing both to circumvent it and abet illegality.
Right from the day the decision to authorise the federal government to withdraw $1bn from ECA to fund the Boko Haram war, later modified apparently under pressure to include other sundry security problems, Ekiti State governor Ayo Fayose had maintained principled opposition. He is right, even though other Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have also kicked against the incomprehensible idea. Mr Fayose may not be the best ambassador of anything, given his often irrational opposition to anything and everything, not to say his hysterical rantings against President Muhammadu Buhari and issues that common sense ought to resolve, his critics must however learn to look beyond the man on the few occasions when he talks sense on salient national issues. On this subject, Mr Fayose is indisputably right.
Mr Yari, on the other hand, is unduly emotional and misdirected. There is no way to defend the unlawful approval given to the federal government to access an account that is in the first place unconstitutional. First, Mr Yari argues that the approval was secured at one of the NGF’s meetings in November, where 32 members unanimously agreed to authorise the government to take the money. There was no dissent, he said. In any case, he continued, even though Mr Fayose was absent at the meeting, such a decision was binding on all governors. After all, he added, a quorum is normally 12 governors. What he didn’t say, and he cannot pretend not to know, is that surely a decision that has constitutional implications cannot be taken and enforced on all governors without their full consent and the consent of their Houses of Assembly. Any decision on ECA funds has constitutional implications. It cannot be enforced without total endorsement.
Mr Yari himself undermines his own argument by acknowledging that governors would require legislative approvals to give effect to the NGF decision. According to him, and it is not clear whether he accurately reported what happened when a similar measure was taken during the Goodluck Jonathan presidency, State Houses of Assembly gave retroactive approval to the withdrawal of $2bn by the Jonathan government. Indeed, Mr Yari gave a lengthy explanation to back the unlawful and unconstitutional extra-budgetary spending embarked upon by past governments. Hear him: “Nigeria Governors’ Forum discussed this issue (last Thursday’s approval) at our November meeting and we agreed across party lines that this thing was done in 2014 where $2 billion was taken in agreement with the governors. And Governor Akpabio was the one who moved the motion at the time. This time around, we realised that there was need to purchase equipment for the military, so we felt we should not compromise the issue of security for the entire country. As governors, we agreed to forfeit $1 billion of our of own share of excess crude account which we are going to back up with state assembly resolutions at a later time.
“This is not the first time a decision like this is being taken, it happened during the Jonathan era. They took $2 billion. We all agreed at that time collectively in the same chamber to withdraw $2 billion to procure equipment for the military and also for logistics for the military because they were telling us, whether it was true or false that our soldiers were being killed. Some went to social media to say that they were being killed like rats because they didn’t have equipment. That was what generated discussions at the time and there was no controversy, there was no opposition. The $2 billion taken under Jonathan’s time was not backed up by any resolution from the state assemblies…There was this decision under Yar’Adua when they were sourcing funds for Niger Delta Power Holdings. They took over N5 billion for power generation, we followed the same process. The money was withdrawn from the excess crude account, and our respective Houses of Assembly confirmed the resolution. We shouldn’t play politics with the issue of national security.”
But Mr Fayose’s argument is simple and sound, regardless of his motive and his hysterical attribution of the $1bn to politics. Said he: “In the first instance, money in the ECA ought to have been shared by the three tiers and the question to ask is; what if the previous government did not create the ECA and leave $2.07 billion in it?…Under the Exclusive List, security is the duty of the federal government and that is one of the reasons the federal government takes 52.68 per cent; while States take 26.72 per cent and local governments 20.60 per cent. How then can the States and Local Councils that earn less than 50 percent from the federation account help the federal government to bear its burden on security?”
Mr Yari’s response that opposing the withdrawal of $1bn amounted to playing politics with national security is emotional blackmail. The federal government has no reason or right to transfer its responsibilities to the states, especially after receiving its own share from the federation account. More crucially, where on earth did the federal government get the impression that it could access funds and spend them without appropriation? If it needs extra funds for special reasons, it cannot pretend not to know the constitutional process for achieving that end. It is noted, however, that the National Assembly gave indications last week that the money would neither be withdrawn nor spent without Senate input.
The National Assembly is right to want to debate the matter, and hopefully will give a sensible and constitutional consideration to the subject. If the debate is to let the federal government know that constitutional steps have baeen taken to deny it access to the funds, then that superfluous exercise can be excused for its entertainment value. But, in reality, there is really nothing to debate. The federal government should simply look for other means of raising money to tackle the security challenges bedevilling the country. Those challenges are huge and undeniable, and the country must close ranks to ward off any attack capable of threatening the peace and stability of the country. There is no way Ekiti State, for instance, will go to its House of Assembly and get the retroactive approval Mr Yari is talking about. So, what happens if he does not get the legislative assent? It is clear the ECA fund is for all states, and regardless of the illegal precedence set by the Jonathan presidency, it should be shared according to the distribution formula instituted by law.
Taking money from ECA is bad argument. There is no way to defend it. If states face emergencies, there are constitutional ways of dealing with the problems, including running to the federal government and their own legislative houses for help. If the federal government faces an emergency, there are also steps to follow in tackling the problem, but they hardly involve running to the states for help. Together with the input of the National Assembly, there are ways the federal government can raise money, including borrowing, for dire situations. Both the NGF and the presidency should stop the emotional blackmail. They should simply do the right thing the right way. Neither the NGF nor the presidency, nor yet any issue, no matter how grave, can supplant the constitution, let alone excuse that supplantation on the grounds of unanimity of opinion and objective.