Kings College, Lagos, 'old boys' are peculiar people any day, and immediate past Minister of National Planning, Mohammed Sanusi Daggash, has not proved to be an exception.

Or was his aristocratic disposition a product of his sound upbringing? Anyhow it turns out, the Borno State-born gentleman, who did executive programmes Budgeting and Financial Management in Harvard and Columbia universities, is one personality whose views on the polity and economy are 'unputdownable'. Despite his being booted out of office, in this interview with Deputy Editor, SAM AKPE, he speaks on his faith in the present administration. Excerpts...

You are fresh out of government. The popular opinion is that Nigeria means nothing to you politicians. What's your perception?

Nigeria is all we have as a country. We were born here in this country; we have to find a way of developing our immediate space, which is Nigeria. Despite all the challenges and problems that we face as a country, we have no option but to work day and night to develop it, to change it. And because of what we have seen elsewhere, those are the standards that we are going to use. We always say that this is a blessed country; yes, we are blessed with human and material resources, but we have not been able to exploit either to its optimum level, for us to convince ourselves that we are doing enough to develop our country and ourselves. So, Nigeria as a country means everything to me. This is a country that you can achieve your personal and collective as well as national aspirations. You cannot do it any other place. So Nigeria means every thing to us. It is our only country, so we have to find a way of developing it and moving it forward.

I read a book, 'It's Our Turn To Eat', by Michella Wrong. Does that not describe your attitude and that of your colleagues when you were in government?

I wouldn't say it is our turn to eat. That is some kind of a philosophy of mind. It is unfortunate that it is a philosophy about the type of politics that has developed since the post-colonial times. When the colonialists came, they created that foundation for corruption. They introduced taxes. The people, who were in that environment, were not used to paying taxes, but tributes maybe to the monarchs. Now it became mandatory or you were fined or sent to jail. So, this was a tacit strategy to get the labour force to work in the plantations, in infrastructure, in production so that the colonial powers would exploit those resources that you had. So now, they had to offer their labour power to the white man who would exploit it and pay them a wage. It therefore meant that you had to work to pay tax. So, without us knowing, even the ownership of land, the taxation system inherently started putting a structure that was going to facilitate corruption. Unfortunately over the years, anytime an opportunity of reforming or restructuring the nation's economy came about, or another opportunity came for reconfiguring the political system, you find out that corruption changed from one form to another. So, the form of corruption that was being applied in the 1950s would have changed in 1960s, would have changed in the 70s, changed in the 80s to what we have today. The element of accountability is what is missing. So you could take public office; you can abuse public trust; you can abuse your powers and your office without being called to question because the institutions that are supposed to protect the public interest, unfortunately, are so weak. They exist, but are so weak or try to do more than they can handle to the point that they are now inefficient.

Possibly, you exploited that weakness too when you were serving as a minister.

No, you are wrong. I was Minister of planning. The office allows you certain privileges. If you are in public office, they say privilege and rank are synonymous. You will be able to be in that inner circle to take decisions.

What does power mean to you?

Power in a broad sense would mean the capacity to exercise and manage resources. Those resources belong to the public. But you are, by virtue of an election or appointment or a coup d'etat, given those powers to decide on behalf of the polity on what is best. If you decide to be straightforward, to God be the glory. If you decide to be a crook, then you see the fall-out is very clear. So, that office allows you certain privileges.

And you came out a saint?

That is based on my background of having integrity, honesty, being religious and focused. The office of a planning minister, in other countries, is the second largest and most powerful office after that of the President. So, with that, it becomes an intellectual-based kind of office. It is not a contract- awarding office; it is an office for analysis, research, guidance, philosophy, national, national values and so on. So you keep on churning out documents; that doesn't mean you are churning out money. But other ministries may have the responsibility of awarding and monitoring and evaluating contracts. Now, if you are dealing with crooked contractors, what do you think they would do? They'll try to abuse and compromise those who are regulating them. So, even in the course of regulation, people still try to abuse the standards, and that is the ultimate corruption. Not just what you are putting in your pocket, but abusing a system. That will have far-reaching effects on those who you are supposed to be leading and administering.

You were a powerful minister, or were you muffled?

Well, I didn't feel muffled because if you ask my colleagues who were in the Federal Executive Council (FEC), they would tell you if there were three very dominant and powerful ministers at the council level, I would probably make the three, even if I say so myself. I viewed the Ministry of Planning based on the Act of 1993 and I tried to exercise my powers to that extent without compromising it. So, if a minister comes from his sector with a project, a programme, some strategy, we carried it through in the ministry and tested it. If we have reservations about it, I speak to him privately or publicly in the Federal Executive Council about it. So, nobody could escape: power, oil, energy, defence, finance, economy, planning, infrastructure, you name it; we always had a position.

What thrilling conclusion can you draw about your person as minister?

My personal challenge to myself was that I would never find myself in a position where the President would ask me a question and I would say I had no idea. And I can say this comfortably, up to when I left the Federal Executive Council, all my interactions with my colleagues, Mr. President, the Vice President; there was never a time I would be asked a question of what was happening in this country and I wouldn't have an answer.

You must have been asking your colleagues, "what is in it for me?" since your ministry wasn't awarding contracts.

Never, in fact, most of the ministers didn't even want to relate with the planning ministry because they see us as stumbling block. So, they mostly work directly through the presidency, even the Secretary of Federal Government, but we end up meeting at the Federal Executive Council and questions would come up. When we ask those questions, you don't ask "what is there for me?"; you say "what is there for Nigeria?" I believe that whatever we do in public office should, first of all, be in the national interest; secondly, in the interest of government of the day; thirdly, if we have any personal benefits and privileges, it should be in the interest of both the person providing as well as us facilitating.

How then did you make your money as a minister?

I never made any money as a serving minister and as I speak to you, as somebody who has come out of government, I had more money in 1998 than I have today as an individual.

One is trying to believe you.

And I had more money in 1998 than I had in 2007, just before I became a minister. And today, I am even less more endowed financially than I was two years ago. I had a 10-year stint with public office. I was no longer a businessman where I would accrue anything for myself. I had influence. I could put people together. I could solve problems. I could facilitate things, but people may show their appreciation. Personally, any time somebody made a personal gift to me, I reported it to the President. I would say Mr. So and So gave me so and so and I would thank him. I did that twice.

To prove that you are not corrupt?

To prove transparency, so that if anybody tries to measure my lifestyle as against my salary as a minister of planning, they would understand that there was something coming in which was not necessarily from the Nigerian government's treasury.

On assumption of office, how did you see the management of the national planning ministry under the immediate past administration?

In the immediate past administration, planning was going to take off on a reasonably good footing under Chief Philip Asiodu. At that point in time, if you recall, he was always with the President; he was his Chief Economic Adviser, Minister of Planning and chairman of the National Planning Commission. Now, for the first two years that he served as minister, if Obasanjo was anywhere, his minister of planning was beside him. They would discuss, have the same experience, share the same discussions and they would plan and move forward. Two years down the line, there was a falling out of Philip Asiodu; it could have been because of a personality thing. Once Asiodu left, essentially, (Olusegun) Obasanjo became National Planning Minister. Those who later headed it were no longer ministers, but what they call chairmen or Chief Economic Advisers. So, that kind of lowered the status until when I was appointment and I said: no, this is a central ministry; it is beyond the Chief Economic Adviser's office; it is a ministerial office. It is even a supra-ministerial office where, after the Presidency, you have the planning commission. Then below it, you have the line ministries.

What impact did Obasanjo's handling of that particular ministry have on the economy of the country?

I don't think there was really anything negative, just that the ministers had a lot of powers to decide to do things on their own without coming back to a coordinating point. So, the ministry of finance took the budget out of the planning ministry. Before then, it was planning and budget. The National Planning Commission would be in charge of capital projects and the capital budget. That was taken away and tucked into the Ministry of Finance. During Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala's time, she insisted that she wouldn't serve as a minister without having the budget office under her ministry. That was when they appointed the Director of Budget and made him both SA (Special Adviser) budget as well as Director, Budget. So, as the Director of Budget, he was under Okonjo-Iweala but as SA Budget, he was under Obasanjo. So you know what happened.

Budgeting under Obasanjo administration was never easy, why?

When we came in, in 1999, we met all the structures that had served military administrations and regimes. We had a civilian administration in place. Those structures needed to be replaced or dismantled. So the first challenge Obasanjo had was to dismantle them and it is not a switch that you could put on and off; it's a process. There wasn't, effectively, a proper budgeting process in place. The budgeting process we had had the legacy of the parliamentary system where the budget is prepared and send through parliament and there is no objection; you don't change one dime. You can reduce, but you cannot add, else it is a vote of no confidence and that could even kick the government out of the place. But we are operating an American system. Essentially, anytime the budget proposal comes out of the Presidency, once it comes to the congress of the U.S., it is essentially what they call 'dead on arrival'. They just discard it. They use the congressional budget office and research office (CBO) to base their own work. There must be some little differences but not much. And because of the type of economy the U.S. has, only about 15 per cent of that budget is debated. Eighty-five per cent of the budget of the US is transfers. The 15 per cent is what all this trouble comes to. And the U.S. has a two-year budget plan. When they are budgeting this year (2009), it is not against 2010; it is against 2011. So, they have a more sophisticated thing because information and data are available. But in Nigeria, no. Then, there is what they call the Federal Office of Statistics, which is just there. It really couldn't provide the necessary numbers, but by law and international convention, they should be giving us the numbers. Today, we have a fairly reasonable and working National Bureau for Statistics and their numbers are respected.

In all this, to what extent does the National Assembly exercise its powers over the budget?

The Constitution is very clear. That was what Obasanjo didn't want to let go of without a big fight. And that fight, to me, made the budget the most important law in the year. I think we are still in the process of developing, and the more open and accessible the information the better. We haven't reached the level of perfection yet. We still tend to budget more than what we really have. That means we are not cutting our coat according to our size. So, the tendency is that you have a very large budget and very low cash flow. At the end of the day, you have a large hole, which is what you call the deficit. Once you want to deal with the deficit, you run to the capital market. And how big is the capital market itself?

But over that period of time, one legacy is that he allowed the budget to develop; he allowed the process to endure and then here we are, 10 years down the line, we should be able to pick up a document, read it, understand the revenue framework, agree with it, not agree with it, make your comments on it, make your own input. There is still a problem of who decides the content of the budget, but the Constitution says it is the NASS that should decide and prescribe the manner in which the budget will be passed and operated.

What is the implication of being a minister under President Umaru Yar'Adua?

The fact that I came from the National Assembly, I came with some measure of confidence in the FEC. I was coming with the little of a senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. So I stepped into the office with a lot of confidence. Being in the NASS exposed me to a lot of things. In the House of Representatives, I was chairman of Finance Committee. In the Senate, I was vice chairman of several committees and I served in the Finance, Banking and Insurance committees, and some of the technical committees too. To that end, I had a fair idea of what was happening in the system. I was more or less current about issues. So, I came in with a lot of knowledge and ideas and exposure on what was happening in the system. And being a politician, I had access to information.

Were you a member of Yar'Adua's kitchen cabinet?

I don't know how you find that as kitchen cabinet. As far as I was concerned, I was a fairly prominent member of the Federal Executive Council and being Minister of Planning meant that I had the opportunity of sitting with the President on several occasions and demanding time, even on a monthly basis, to brief him on issues, programmes, prospects, ideas and views on issues.

You were obviously shocked when you were removed as minister.

No, I wasn't shocked to the extent that I had a fairly open mind. I didn't expect to be removed as a minister in view of, as far as I am concerned, my performance and my standing in the Federal Executive Council. But if other considerations beyond just hardwork, commitment and performance are being considered, it is not for me to assess. I've heard all sorts of reasons for my removal from cabinet; from local politics to personality issues between individuals, etc. As far as I am concerned, the President has the prerogative to work with whomever he wants. He can work with you for a day, four years or eight years. If at a point in time when he hired me to work for him as the National Planning Minister, he felt I'd served my own term, and he felt he wanted a change, he had the prerogative to say "thank you very much. At this point, I am making a change."

Have you ever tried to find out from the President why you were sacked?

I don't have access to find out why, and it would be out of place to question somebody who takes a decision. When decisions like this are taken, with my kind of exposure and experience, those kinds of decisions could be taken over a dining table, in a meeting or in an office. It could just be the whims and caprices of the sovereign. So you don't start questioning. The issue is: what did you do while you were there? I have my records, and I can say what I wanted to do and what is being done. And I could say I was always ahead of the pack. With that, I had a fulfilling experience in the Federal Executive Council.

Is it true that at a time the President was going to shake up the cabinet, other ministers came to see how you could present their cases to the President because they saw your closeness to him?

It didn't happen that way. I always wanted to give everybody his due respect. If anybody had a case or problem and I was aware of it, I would openly have to go and discuss it with the person as a colleague. I did it for three or five ministers who had issues that were coming up. If they were ready to open up and discuss, I would say: this is pending and this information is coming, and if you don't handle it carefully, it will end up with the President; it will end up in the pages of newspapers. If the minister was forthcoming and opened up on ways of mitigating, I would discuss with him. It was not my prerogative to keep anyone in office.

Who constitutes the orchestrated Katsina Mafia in this government?

There is nothing like Katsina Mafia. We have a President who is from Katsina. It is not unusual for him to have very close associates and aides that are from his immediate environment. How these aides and assistants operate and relate to the public is what is very critical and necessary. So, there isn't anything like that. I think there is a reasonable network of information to and from the President. It's just that people will tend to want to be a bit mischievous by labelling people. You know, once you are working for the President, you work for him with 110 per cent loyalty, commitment; your time, your energy, your capabilities. If it so happens that some people will have some prominence in the exercise of their duties and they so happen to be from the President's immediate environment, you have to realise that the President has been in office since 1999. Over the years, he must have worked with people that he can trust and can rely on and use for his backdoor channels.

Who exerts the greatest influence on Mr. President?

I think Mr. President himself, has had the greatest influence on himself. Everybody is an appendage, an aide, a supporter, a friend, well-wisher, a contributor. He has a few close friends, aides and associates, and definitely, they would obviously have some impact because if he sees them more often, it means he is relating to their views more often than the views of others.

What manner of man is Yar'Adua?

I think he is somebody who is very reserved. He is very calculating in speech and interaction. If he is not sure of the person, he listens and listens very much. He can give you all the time you need to get your points across, and once you get those points across, he can repeat almost word-for-word, exactly what you have said. You can't pin him down to take a decision; he has a streak in him that is very strong. Once he has made up his mind, he stands by what he wants to do. So, I saw somebody that did not breathe down the necks of his ministers. He allowed them a free hand.

The President is said to be too slow in taking decisions.

If you want to analyse this specifically, I don't expect the President to be standing before the public and be taking decisions because a lot of input comes in before a policy position is taken. A policy starts from the ministry. Once it leaves the ministry, it comes to the government as a council. Once it leaves the council, they have other aspects of security and national interest, before the President decides. What Nigerians want is to see the President in the public saying "okay, I have approved this, this will be done". As I said, he is deliberate and very methodical in his approach to things. One thing I know, he tries to protect his integrity; he doesn't want to defend his position on anything. By that reason, which we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, he wants to be thorough, precise, and sincere before he stands on a position. If I am to expose something, when a memo comes to Mr. President, he could actually ask three to four different groups of people to make comments on it, and by the time the thing goes to three or four people, it could probably take three months before it gets back to him. Everybody will assess, analyse and make his input. And he would call for a meeting where they would discuss the strengths, the weaknesses, the most acceptable to government and national interest. Then, he makes his point. So, somebody would say he sent this thing three months ago to the president; he has not taken a decision. It's because it is going through the normal machinery of decision-making. It is not a business enterprise where the chief executive will say 'approved', 'not approved'. He says he is following the rule of law, meaning that he has to be within constitutionality.

What greatest challenge does Yar'Adua face in governance?

This government has the challenge of making Nigeria work. I had a friend many years ago in the university. There was a debate on how to define a Nigerian. Everybody gave his own definition. One friend said his definition of a Nigerian is somebody who is very good at doing anything bad and somebody who is very bad at doing anything good. We thought that was so apt at that time (about 30 years ago). Now, Nigeria and whoever is in leadership has the challenge to change that, so that Nigerians would be very good at doing things that are good and very bad at doing anything bad.

Between Obasanjo and Yar'Adua, who has impressed you more?

They are two different human beings. Obasanjo was in the army. He is an engineer by training. He has so much experience. He had three different opportunities to lead this country. Yar'Adua is just doing it for the first time. If he comes back a second time or even a third time, probably you'll see his approach to things will be different because he would have understood the terrain better. Obasanjo, for his kind of person, is gregarious, strong, very witty, intelligent, hard-working; yet there were still times he made wrong decisions, or took decisions as a General, irrespective of the facts on ground. But Yar'Adua is a civilian and is more deliberate, and he said at the point of oath that he would respect the rule of law. So they have two different approaches. What matters is the result? I think both of them are achieving things at different levels, commensurate to their style of leadership.

Have we seen the end of Sanusi Daggash in politics?

Politics is a life-time endeavour. Even when I am 80 years old, as long as my faculties are in order, I should be able to have a voice and even support and deal with people as an elder. For now, I come from Borno State, a state that is run by the ANPP (All Nigeria Peoples Party). Presently, the PDP (Peoples Democratic Party) doesn't have a single representative at any level in the government of Sheriff. We won't be kidding ourselves to say that we are in a serious problem. We had problems in 2003 from the centre. We had in 2007. We had to even withdraw from the election of 2007 for the National Assembly. I was a candidate and we were forced to withdraw because of the treatment that was meted out to the candidate at that point in time. We still have a crisis in Borno State. How committed are we? Do we want change? Are we going to get the necessary support from the centre? This is anybody's guess. For now, I would want to say I have to use my senses, knowledge and faith in God to decide what the next step is. People think I'm running for Senate or governorship or whatever, it is really up to God.