Reflecting the immaturity of Nigeria’s democracy, some governors-elect are issuing “orders” to banks and public officers, while some incumbents are making new appointments, taking on new debts and contracts that could saddle their successors with difficult situations. But the law is clear: incumbents are the only legal governing authority in the states until their terms run out. While they should be circumspect in taking on new liabilities, governors-in-waiting should stand by until they are inaugurated and stop interfering in administration.
Going by experience, there are truly grounds for worry by incoming helmsmen that their predecessors could present them with booby-traps such as unsustainable debts, contractual obligations, appointments and uncompleted projects amid lack of funds.While governance is a continuum and succeeding administrations are expected to sustain inherited projects along with their own initiatives, quirky decisions in the past have sometimes presented successors with conundrums.
Striking a balance is key; incumbents should be left to run the government until their terms expire. However, they should avoid mass new hirings, non-essential debt acquisition and emptying the treasury.
Some governors-elect have been issuing statements warning against entering into contractual deals with incumbents. The implied threat is that contractors who ignore their warnings would either not be paid, or would have a long fight ahead to obtain payment for services rendered. This is not the right way to solve the problem.
There are two sides to this. Governors are employed for a fixed term; they must continue to serve the people until they hand over to their successors. The business of government should not grind to a halt simply because an election has produced a successor-in-waiting. The new helmsman has no authority until he is sworn into office.
Therefore, issuing orders and caveats to public officers and third parties before taking office is a blatant interference in governance. It should not be condoned. There should be orderliness and decorum in public affairs.
However, Nigeria’s political and governance landscape is often a riotous melee. Some departing governors have been known to engage in reckless conduct. Some recruit thousands of new hands just weeks before leaving office. Others rush through multibillion naira contractual arrangements; yet others empty the treasury to pay off suppliers and consultants in violation of due process rules. In all this, they pay no heed to the parlous finances of the state. A few years ago, a departing governor in a South-West state appointed a dozen new permanent secretaries just hours before stepping down.
Many governors then take office and spend all their tenure battling to offset the crippling debts acquired by their predecessors, including bank overdrafts taken in the transition period for long-term projects.
There should be a better and more civilised way to manage transitions. Apart from tying up new administrations in debt and controversial contractual obligations, reversal of policies and reluctance to pay contractors entrench Nigeria’s ill-repute for policy inconsistency and lack of fidelity to agreements. This partly explains why domestic and foreign investment has been declining over the years.
So badly that 27 states did not attract any investments at all in 2022, including Rivers, and Kano, where the incumbent, Abdullahi Ganduje, and the governor-elect, Abba Yusuf, are engaged in a public spat relating to caveats issued on governance by the latter.
The global best practice is to set up transition committees featuring representatives of both sides to share briefings and ensure seamless transfer of power. In the United States, a president-elect is accorded the privilege of security briefings by the outgoing administration even before his inauguration. This is also common among the 50 states of the union.
In Abuja, the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.), has authorised a transition team that includes nominees of the President-elect, Bola Tinubu.Some state governors have followed this sensible path.
But immaturity persists. In Benue, though Governor Samuel Ortom has emplaced a transition committee, relations between him and governor-elect,Hyacinth Alia, are less than harmonious. Alia and his party have publicly rebuked Ortom over a planned airport project. They also fault his recent employment of 2,000 teachers and other new hirings on the grounds that these will saddle the incoming administration with huge obligations in a cash-strapped state that struggles to pay workers’ salaries and pensions.
Ortom’s response that his tenure “runs up to 11.59pm of May 29” and therefore has the right to appoint any person until that day is legally correct. But a smoother transition and better negotiating skills on both sides could have helped both sides navigate around the issues.
Similarly, Abia’s Governor Okezie Ikpeazu has been criticised by the governor-elect, Alex Otti, over the recent reconstitution and appointment of new chairmen of some agencies.
While governance must continue, incumbents can only be advised, not compelled, to be circumspect. They should consider the precarious finances of their states before tying up successors with new financial contractual burdens.The recent N7 billion contract variation undertaken by Sokoto’s Governor Aminu Tambuwal is typical. Outgoing governors should follow only already prepared spending plans approved by state legislatures, and projects deemed crucial to the welfare of the citizens and development. With only weeks left in office, they should refrain from new projects and fresh debt.
A former Governor of Osun State, Gboyega Oyetola,said he inherited N407 billion debt from his predecessor, Rauf Aregbesola, in 2018, including N76 billion in salaries, but met only N14 billion in the kitty. Aregbesola has consistently refuted this as a misrepresentation.
It is important for the states to commit to overthrowing their rising debt burdens instead of squabbling over how to spend dwindling resources.
Decorous transitioning is therefore necessary to entrench accountability, transparency, responsibility and continuity. Furthermore, transitions will be seamless when election litigation is concluded before the swearing-in of the elected person as recommended by the 2008 Uwais Report on electoral reforms.
Both incumbents and incoming helmsmen should commit themselves to the highest standards of public service and to stimulating productive activities, investment, job-creation, welfare services and self-reliance. They should have effective transition panels and ensure decorum in the transfer of power.
