As the president-elect has himself already noted, attracting FDI or a return of Diasporan funds will be critical to kick-starting our moribund economy. To do that we need to reduce the barriers to entry, make our economy more competitive and allay the fears of potential investors who clearly have a choice of where to put their money. As I have noted, the importance of an enabling infrastructure has been well documented. Muhammadu Buhari has already made tackling the problems of security and corruption two of his priorities. In last week’s column I noted investors’ fears about their ability to manage their investment effectively, without undue interference – what we call the ‘ease of doing business’ question. So, how does the new administration help Nigerian industry become more competitive by improving the business environment and thus our competitiveness?
In several columns I have argued the case for implementation of Stephen Oronsaye’s report. Earlier this year I wrote: “It has been recognised that this duplication and regulatory inefficiencies are a cost and an administrative burden. The Oronsaye report itself recommended abolition of 38 agencies, merger of 52 and reversion of 14 agencies to departments. A breakdown of what could be saved was quoted as N124.8bn from agencies proposed for abolition; N100.6bn from agencies proposed for mergers; N6.6bn from professional bodies; N489.9bn from universities; N50.9bn from polytechnics; N32.3bn from colleges of education, and N616m from boards of federal medical centres. This is in addition to the increased efficiency and savings in the private sector. The CME herself told This Day recently that in reference to reducing the nation’s recurrent expenditure, ‘you are right, we should look at the Oronsaye report’, but cited legislative hurdles for the failure to take action. She went on to say, ‘We have to bite the bullet …. We have to look at those agencies that are duplicating efforts’. But over two years on from the report, nothing seems to have been done.”
This is not a new problem. The Oronsaye report itself noted that “the Ahmed Joda Committee (1999) posited that the challenge of ministerial interference and bureaucratic control needed to be eliminated in order to restore the effectiveness and efficiency of parastatals in the delivery of service to the public. In addition, the Joda report alluded to the challenge of lack of managerial competence in some of the parastatals as well as the incompetence and unnecessary size of some boards that had over 10 members”.
This then is a ‘win-win-win’. The government reduces recurrent expenditure AND increases the efficiency of our governance structure AND improves the business environment. I will not say ‘at a stroke’ because it will have its difficulties. As the CME herself noted, some of these agencies are enshrined in law. The fact that so many administrative regulations are enshrined in statute is itself a problem and would benefit from a thorough overhaul but being realistic, this would be a major task and not achievable as a quick win. So, somehow, we need to be pragmatic and push through these changes by making an absolute case for the reform. This will also entail hurdling another barrier in that it would require a major programme of retrenchment and redundancies. No government will do this lightly, especially one that is prioritising employment as a policy. However, in the longer term, taking the tough decision will free up funds for investment, increase efficiency and productivity and will lead to the creation of more jobs. Employment not for pen pushers and timeservers but for people ready to provide value add and productivity to our economy. If this seems harsh, I will take a longer look at the issue.
In a 2013 paper on the ‘Civil Service and the Cost of Governance’ for the University of Nigeria, Okechukwu Eme and Ogbechie Andrew quoted some typical examples of inefficiency: “The cost of running the government is also questioned in the incessant and uncontrollable duplication of government agencies and its attendant cost of funding. An example of such duplication is the Nigerian Maritime and Safety Agency (NIMASA), whose functions are duplicated by the Presidential Implementation Committee on Maritime Safety and Security (PICOMSS). Also, many of the functions of the Nigeria Police Force are performed by other agencies. For instance, the Special Fraud Unit of the Police carries out functions that are not exactly dissimilar to what the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission carry out. The functions of its traffic division are duplicated by the Federal Road Safety Commission and Road Traffic Service, also known as VIO, while the National Security and Civil Defence Corps perform the security role of the Police. Yet another example is the Border Community Development Agency and National Boundary Commission.”
[Continues next week]
Keith Richards
