Leadership (Abuja)
Sa'idu Mohammed Sanusi
19 May 2008
opinion
This is a very salient question asked frequently by the citizens of Kano. It is equally asked by Kano stakeholders who may not necessarily be natives of the state but are economically based in Kano. Some of such interested partakers may be industrialists or engaged in commercial activities in the state.
Such activities make Kano attractive; it is economically viable. On the surface the question may look simple and apolitical, as it does not in the open denote partisan interests. Yet to some people the why and why not question may sound philosophical because it looks like an enquiry into a cause of action or lack of it. The question might be asked by ordinary and not so ordinary people. One may be right to view such a question from whatever prism one might choose. This will, of course, depend on ones inclination and perception of the situation on the ground. Wherever one stands, the question is ever valid, topical and pertinent, especially when considered in the context of Nigeria and the current socio-political realities.
Kano State is one of Nigeria's thirty-six states. It is, presumably, an integral part of Nigerian polity. By constitutional provisions, states in Nigeria are equal political units, based on which each of them is allowed to elect three senators to represent it in the Senate Chamber, the highest legislative body in the country. Similarly, each of the states is allowed to vote only a governor to be in charge of its affairs and only him as the chief executive of the state would represent it in the Council of States meetings. Representation in most ministries and governmental agencies are, in most cases, on equal representation, though some are short-changed deliberately or cleverly.
Differences occur in the physical structure of the states. Some of the states are small in area; some are medium in land mass, while some are big in geography. Some of the differences are recognized in the Constitution. It is why states are disproportionately represented in the House of Representatives where delineation of constituencies is based on population. In the same token, the states are differently endowed in terms of resources and gift of nature, which is reflected in revenue sharing exercise. Derivation is a factor sacredly-held in statutory allocations. Another remarkable difference is the demographic structure of the states, which is often used in some situations. Some are densely populated like Kano state, which according to recently-held census in the most populous in the country. Population is an index considered differently in politics of development, depending on which school of thought one adheres to. While some see it as a problem others consider population as a critical resource for development. The protagonists and antagonists of population size as a catalyst or hindrance to development have their arguments, and each is entitled to his point of view.
This write-up is motivated by the House of Representatives Power Sector Committee probe of Independent Power Projects IPPs contracts awarded under former president Olusegun Obasanjo. According to the submission of most people that appeared before the Committee, the IPP contracts were shrouded in monumental corruption, and often official thievery beside its skewed nature. Due to the outrageous discovery and gory revelations in the power sector contracts, the committee was forced to embark on fact-finding visits to parts of the country where such contracts were purportedly awarded. When the Committee visited Kano , the state government raised a number of issues on power generation and electricity supply to Kano . The state submission was highly political; it was well-publicized. And as a follow-up, the Research and Documentation Unit in the Governor's office published the states submission in some leading newspapers in the country. The Kano state government submission focused mainly on why it feels Kano state was not fairly treated and its willingness to collaborate with others to put a stop to it.
The government, seemingly acting on behalf of its citizens, was justifiably full of grievances as regard location of IPP and electricity supply to Kano state. The country, according to the Power Holding Company of Nigeria , generates less than enough. PHCN alleges that its total generating capacity fluctuates between 3500MW and 2500MW. This includes hydro-power generated electricity and gas-turbine thermal power generation. This has been the case, for several years, despite huge investments in the sector, especially in the past nine years. As Nigeria sinks billions of Us Dollars in the sector, the country sinks deeper in darkness, abracadabra of a sort, one may say. The problem is supposedly technical where one is obviously inadequate to delve too much into. However, one could probably comment on the distribution aspect, which does not obviously require too much technicalities. As far as one is concerned, electricity distribution is a management decision, or so it appears. If this is the case, one may ask some relevant questions. Some of which are as follows: Granted that electricity generation is less than the demand in Nigeria , but is it equitably distributed? What yardstick has the PHCN used to distribute electricity in the country? Is it true that 10% of what is generated is distributed in Lagos / Ogun states? How equitable is the distribution formula? How fair has PHCN been to Kano State, as the distant second most industrialized in the country, over the years? Is it true that Kano state is gradually and systematically being emasculated with a view to retarding it economically?
The Kano governments submission to the House of Representatives Power Committee was likely informed by the afore-mentioned and similar questions. The state government lamentation might therefore be justified as shown in the position paper. According to the submission Kano state deserves better treatment in location of IPP and supply of electricity for equity, balance development, security and the state economic contribution vis-Ã -vis non-oil sector, which was put at over 20%, among other reasons. The submission further observed, out of more than 400 state-based industries, only 99 are functional, which is a decline of more than three-quarter of the states industrial activities. As a result, of the decline, according to the position paper, there was wide youths unemployment with its attendant implication to socio-political development in the state in particular and the country in general. Furthermore, the state government urged for a collaborative action with a view to stemming the tide of economic decay in the state.
There is no doubt that the state governments position paper on power sector and electricity supply was quite articulate and timely, which might have been prompted by the citizens fury over electricity supply to the state. Public affairs commentators, political analysts, observers and spectators were seemingly unanimous in commending governments bold, well-articulated and carefully presented position on IPP and electricity supply to the state. Several hundreds of businesses were crippled by epileptic or non-supply of electricity. The few that could afford generating plants have been groaning over the costs of diesel/ petroleum, which often make operating costs prohibitive and make the products uncompetitive in the market. Of recent, several Kano-based industries relocated elsewhere in Nigeria and outside the country.
That might not be the first time to make powerful presentation and submission on the issue, though that might not have been done in the public glare. Quite a number of the state citizens and stakeholders have made similar submissions to the relevant quarters in the past. But most of such submissions fell on deaf ears. And there is nothing that suggests that the state position on IPP and electricity supply would not be a repetition of the earlier exercises. One is aware of similar position on some other vital infrastructural facilities particularly Mallam Aminu Kano International Airport, MAKIA which has been consistently and systematically sabotaged by seemingly deliberate actions of the federal government and its agencies that feel duty-bound to retard the economic progress of Kano state. As it looks they have succeeded in making it a glorified local airstrip. It is a pity! Where are Kano state leaders? Do you read loud and clear? Then over to you, our presumed political leaders. One is waiting for a piece of action.
It is, indeed, relevant to ask why and why not questions, especially on issues that border on Kano citizens socio-economic well-being. Anytime the state is denied basic infrastructural facilities, one would ask why. And if what should belong to the state, by right is relocate somewhere else, stakeholders should ask why not located in Kano . It is from this premise one asks why is the delay in the execution of the proposed Kano Export Processing Zone, to be located in Panisau and the Inland Container Port, otherwise referred to as Dry port to be located in Zawaciki. Could there be some conspiracy by some envious element over there, working relentlessly to ensure our collective retardation?
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Leadership. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
