Enugu, reforms and NPC award
By Onuoha Ukeh(E-mail onuohaukeh@Hotmail.com)
Friday, December 9, 2005

I have watched with interest the controversy generated by the recent rating of states by the National Planning Commission (NPC), in collaboration with some international donor agencies, based on its assessment of reforms and quality of governance in the country. It is really interesting to see states, which thought they were not fairly rated, declaring themselves winners based on what they believed they had done for their people. One South West state, in particular, said it was the best in the federation because, according to it, the people have been touched by its programmes in the last two and half years. Talk of self-glorification.

But while those who were rated low have misgivings about the exercise, I think that assessment of the performance of government, at whatever level, should be left for others, not the parties involved. Nobody would objectively judge himself. It is either the person over rates himself or under rates himself. I believe that instead of the NPC rating being a source of controversy, it should rather serve as a challenge to the 36 states to do more for their people since the essence of government is to better the lives of the ruled.

However, in the midst of the hullabaloo about the rating, I wonder if the states involved have ever sat down to examine the parameters used by the assessors before coming to the conclusion that they were unfairly rated. From the much I know about the NPC exercise, it is about the States Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS), which is the states’ version of the Federal Government’s National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). In sum, it is about the socio-economic and political reforms in the states. It is about the positive changes states have made to ensure that government not only runs better but also fulfils it social contract, which is to cater for the people.

I have studied NPC document on the award itself and I think that those complaining are missing the point. If the states rate themselves on the benchmarks or parameters that NPC and the donors used, perhaps, they would chill out and better prepare for next assessment. From the programme’s document, NPC based its assessment on “policy, budget and fiscal management, service delivery as well as communication and transparency.” In doing this, the commission’s objectives were “to identify general progress towards improved public financial management, service delivery, transparency and tackling of corruption, as set out in the agreed set of SEEDS benchmarks.”

With these objectives clearly stated and communicated to the states before the exercise started, interested state had enlisted. Only Bayelsa State declined. The assessors, made up of NPC and donor agencies, like United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Department for International Development (DFID), European Commission, World Bank and CIDA, with the African Institute for Applied Economics (AIAE) as quality assurance manager, had visited the states. In the states, the assessors examined government based on the agreed benchmarks. On policy, they looked at whether states developed, published and implemented strategies that advanced their policy targets, while they checked, in the area of service delivery, whether government “strategies to improve service delivery, both in terms of quality and in term of reach,” were developed and could be implemented. For communication and transparency, the team tried to ascertain if “policies were planned and implemented in a transparent and accountable manner,” while they sought to know if budgets were “comprehensive, transparent and binding tools for the implementation of government priorities.” To get these, the assessors visited the state Houses of Assembly, state ministries and other government agencies.

With the result of the investigation, I am a little bit worried. It appears that going by SEEDS benchmarks most states are not following due process in the running of government. If only Enugu State and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) scored above average, with the former having 57.22, while the latter scored 50.28 and the third placed Osun State scoring 45.72, it therefore means that reforms have not taken firm roots in most states. The implication being that most states have not evolved a globally acceptable system in which government is run. This may explain why development is not consistent and sustained. I believe that if government evolves a standard system, which is applied in all sectors, targets would be met and the people would be better for it.

I am happy that for the first time in our chequered system, government is being assessed not only by the people but also independent agencies. I think that international agencies, like DFID, World Bank, UNDP, CIDA and EU are credible enough to embark on such exercise and could be transparent in so doing. Therefore, I do not believe they could have been influenced in any way in their assessment of state governments’ performance in Nigeria other than by what they see on ground. With pluses and minuses, the assessment may very well be the situation in the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory as related to the parameters used. But was I shocked that states performed badly in the assessment? Yes and no. No, because with democracy just evolving in the country after 15 uninterrupted years of military rule, it would take some time to get things right, especially in the area of execution of government programmes. I would say I am shocked, because I think it is disappointing that only one state and the FCT are adjudged to be doing things positively different in more than six years civil rule.

I believe that to have topped the chart Enugu impressed the assessors with the way things are done in the running of government. Those who gloat over the state’s feat should spare a thought on the things which could have given it an edge. It is obvious that the state government has developed a frame work on which the wheel of government runs smoothly. No doubt, with a blueprint or policy document, parastatal corporations and agencies of government function better and with that government gets better result. It is not by accident that Enugu State has earned the confidence of DFID, which is involved in some developmental projects in the state. There are certain things international agencies look for in organizations or states: positive programmes, consistency and determination to meet target as well as conscious effort in this regard. These are manifest in Enugu.

Besides, if donor agencies are saying that something is happening in Enugu few months after 13 European ambassadors, who visited the state, said so, something definitely must be happening there. After all, the Igbo said that anywhere a crying child points, it is either the mother is there or father.
However, such assessment as carried by NPC and donor agencies should not just be for the sake of it. These agencies should justify the exercise by encouraging states with more aides. With this, states would not only do more for the people but also follow due process. And NPC objectives would have been met.

Public presentation of my book
On Wednesday, December 14, 2005, Democracy of Our Land: The Story of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, a book I wrote with a colleague, Henry Uche Umahi, would be presented to the public in Lagos. It holds at the Yoruba Tennis Club, Onikan, Lagos at 11am. Former Military Administrator of Lagos State, Brig-Gen Mohammed Buba Marwa has given us the honour to be chairman of the public presentation.
You are invited.