Lagos — It is an accepted fact in logic that any argument based on a false premise is bound to give a false conclusion. Digitally speaking, this amounts to garbage in - garbage out. Since the new governors took over in their various states, a number of them have made statements about the financial health of their states; statements which may in fact be factually correct, but the media presentation and interpretation of which call for an examination.

When a governor says that he met an empty treasury, does that necessarily mean that the treasury was looted; When he says that he has inherited a debt burden, does that necessarily suggest that his predecessor has borrowed money from the bank; do any of these statements necessarily suggest corruption on the part of his predecessor? These are what I would like to examine in this write up.

Let me start with another principle in logic - the principle of "reductio ad absurdum" and the absurd or extreme illustration that I want to give is that of a governor who collects his monthly allocation from the federation account and after paying salaries and other statutory demands, puts everything else into a savings account. At the time that such a governor would hand over, there would be absolutely no development in his state but a large quantum of money in the treasury for his successor to inherit.

If we could just take one minute to look at that, we would realize that there is a very direct corelationship between the treasury, the amount of development and outstanding commitments. I will use some figures to illustrate this. Let us assume that at some point, a governor finds that he could accumulate N50 billion in his treasury. He could take a decision to start project (A) which, for argument sake, he estimates to cost, upon completion, a total of N20 billion. He could also add a second project (B) of the same magnitude and perhaps a third (C) estimated at N 10 billion. Between the three projects therefore, there would be an estimated total cost of N50 billion - exactly the amount that he felt he could accumulate.

However, projects by their nature are executed over time and payments are also made installmentally. So it is possible that at the time he leaves the office, he could have completed project (A); paid the full amount of :N20 billion leaving no outstanding balance. For argument sake, let us say that he is able to complete 75% of project (B) and therefore made a payment of N 15 billion with an outstanding balance of :N5 billion. Project (C) estimated at N 10 billion could be 50% complete with a payment of N5 billion and an outstanding balance of N5 billion. So at the end of his tenure, he would have spent N20 billion + N 15 billion + N5 billion, a total of N40 billion, on the three projects, with a balance of N 10 billion in the treasury. Outstanding balances - which have now acquired the appellation of "debt burden" - on the three projects would be NO billion + N5 billion + N5 billion totaling also N N10 billion.

An aggressive developer might however decide, not to accumulate money in the treasury towards the completion of those projects but rather to apply it to other development projects. Such a decision would have the effect, not only of further reducing the amount in the treasury but also, to the extent that they were not completed, would increase the outstanding balance. In short, every project that is initiated, fully executed and fully paid for, has the effect of depleting the treasury but leaving no debt burden.

On the other hand, any project initiated, and only partially completed and therefore only partially paid for, depletes the treasury to the extent of the payment and increases the "debt burden" to the extent of the outstanding balance. To describe this as looting and to ascribe the phenomenon to corruption is to fall victim to the unfortunate human tendency of always thinking the worst of our leaders and our fellowmen. Of course, where the treasury is empty, with a large debt burden and nothing to show for it, there could be some justification for condemnation.

In Akwa Ibom, we started with massive road construction, the Independent Power Plant and the Five Star Hotel, all of which suffered severe set backs during the locust years of onshore-offshore dichotomy. When we recovered, we added the Airport, the Science Park and the University of Technology.

There were such other siqnificant projects as the Ugo Township drainage, the State Secretariat Complex, the Stock Exchange Building, the ADB assisted township water projects, Ibom Plaza and other major environmental and beautification projects. This is not taking into account the mundane and routine provisions of schools, hospitals, motor parks, markets, industrial estates, housing estates, rural electrification, rural water supply, rural and farm roads, agricultural developments, human capacity building, etc.

Just as it is impossible to compartmentalize government it is also impossible to totally avoid a debt burden. So long as one government starts a project and another completes it, there will always be a carryover of the debt burden. Take a simple issue of scholarship awards. So long as a government awards scholarships annually, another government will have to take over the burden of training those students to completion.

So, there will always be a debt burden. I hope nobody imagines that Akwa Ibom State government had $67.5 million sitting idly in the bank at the time we made our investment in Econet. We had to source for the money. If my governance had terminated before liquidating that loan, issues might have been raised about debt burden. But by the time we sold those shares, the government treasury was enriched with $204 million. Today the government is almost concluding the privatization of its Ibom Power Plant. When that is done, over $50 million will again accrue to the treasury. Besides, serious interest is being shown by a number of respectable organizations to buy our Five Star Hotel.

This too, will yield substantial revenue to the state. Any surprise therefore that I described the issue of "debt" as a concept! I want to thank my successor, His Excellency, Barrister Godswill Obot Akpabio, for never having accused me, or the government that he was so much a part of, of either wasteful spending, or looting or corruption. I can well understand if the massive scale of development caused some apprehension.

After all, did most people that visited Akwa Ibom not describe the entire state as one large construction site and did others not wonder if I will ever complete those projects before handing over His Excellency, Barrister Godswill Akpabio should derive comfort from the fact that the Chairman of his Transition Committee, and indeed a few others in that Committee, were also members of Akwa Ibom Industrial and Investment Promotion Council (AKIIPOC), the engine house that regulated and vetted all our investments. Besides, he has his former colleague, my Commissioner for Finance, Mr. Umana O. Umana as his Secretary to the State Government and the assurance that the debt burden is perfectly manageable within the enhanced financial profile of the state, with lots of room for his own initiative.

It is my fervent prayer that His Excellency, Barrister Godswill Akpabio and I can now be spared further media bombardment so that I can enjoy my rest and His Excellency can get on with governance, the results of which I expect to exceed my efforts.

-Arc. Victor Attah is the immediate Past Governor of Akwa-Ibom State