Blame Game: Who is Responsible for Nigeria’s Multidimensional Poverty Crisis?
The persistent issue of multidimensional poverty in Nigeria, affecting an estimated 133 million citizens, has ignited a heated debate about accountability, with key figures within the government pointing fingers at sub-national leadership. The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Mr. Bayo Onanuga, has publicly stated that state governments and local councils, rather than the Federal Government, bear the primary responsibility for this dire situation.
This assertion aligns with the views of former Minister of State for Finance, Mr. Clement Agba, who highlighted that while approximately 69.9 million Nigerians subsist below the two-dollar-a-day financial poverty threshold, the broader challenge of multidimensional poverty stems from a lack of access to fundamental amenities. These include essential services like education, healthcare, clean water, and sanitation – services traditionally managed at the state and local levels.
Understanding Multidimensional Poverty
Multidimensional poverty goes beyond mere financial hardship. It encompasses deprivations across various critical aspects of life, including:
- Education: Lack of access to schooling or insufficient educational attainment.
- Health: Inadequate healthcare services, leading to poor health outcomes.
- Living Standards: Absence of basic necessities such as clean water, sanitation, and adequate housing.
The argument presented is that these are precisely the domains where sub-national governments are expected to deliver tangible improvements for their citizens.
Federal Allocations: A Growing Resource Pool for States
Further bolstering this perspective, recent analyses indicate a significant increase in federal allocations to Nigeria’s 36 states. In the latter half of the past year, the Presidency noted that federal allocations to each state had seen a surge of over 62 per cent within a two-year period. This substantial rise in financial resources, it is argued, should have freed up considerable funds for states to invest in development and poverty alleviation initiatives.
Official figures from the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) corroborate this trend. Between January and November of the most recent reporting year, subnational governments collectively received N6.73 trillion. This represents a notable increase of 29.08 per cent compared to the N5.02 trillion disbursed during the same period in the preceding year. This figure also signifies an increase of over 50 per cent when compared to the total allocations in the corresponding periods of 2022 and 2023. For December of the same reporting year, states alone received N706.4 billion from a total disbursement of N1.969 trillion, with January figures showing a similar pattern.
The Challenge of Governance at the Sub-National Level
Despite the increased financial inflows, the effectiveness of these resources in tackling poverty remains a critical question. Observers express frustration that, with few exceptions, many Nigerian states are governed by individuals whose qualifications, experience, and exposure may not be commensurate with the responsibilities of their offices. A recurring concern is the practice of outgoing leaders imposing their chosen successors, often referred to as “anointed boys,” without genuine consultation or consideration for competence. This self-serving approach, critics argue, deprives communities of effective governance and leads to a missed opportunity for progress.
The consequences of such leadership choices, it is suggested, are often more damaging to the states than any perceived benefits gained by the outgoing leaders through their chosen successors. With capable and visionary chief executives at the helm, the substantial resources flowing into states, combined with internally generated revenue and strategic partnerships, should theoretically be sufficient to significantly reduce poverty levels, even beyond the efforts of the central government.
Visible Returns on Investment: A Lingering Question
However, the visible impact of these increased federal allocations is often met with skepticism. Reports suggest that many state governors are more focused on celebrating what are described as “laughable projects” or, in some instances, merely ensuring the timely payment of salaries – a basic expectation in the 21st century. The question arises: given the available resources, are states leveraging them effectively to drive meaningful development and poverty reduction?
The potential for states to break the cycle of poverty is significant. An aggressive, yet altruistic, approach to increasing internally generated revenue (IGR) and forging strategic, mutually beneficial partnerships at both local and international levels could transform their territories. The fact that Nigeria’s poverty level has remained stubbornly high for decades, hovering around 70 per cent, is seen as both worrisome and deeply regrettable.
Beyond State Governors: The Federal Dimension
While the spotlight is currently on sub-national governments, the issue of leadership quality and performance extends to the federal level as well. In many developed nations, elected officials are driven by the imperative to fulfill campaign promises before the next election cycle, not just due to the integrity of electoral processes but also to secure the confidence of the electorate.
In Nigeria, however, the narrative often suggests that elected leaders can operate with a degree of impunity, masking underperformance. While the Federal Government indeed appoints agency heads and controls key institutions, engaged citizens possess the power to organize and safeguard governance processes.
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) having released its timetable, there is a palpable sense that effective governance may be overshadowed by electoral considerations. Historical patterns indicate that in the lead-up to elections, the focus of politicians, including legislators, often shifts from developmental legislation to campaign strategies and resource mobilization for electioneering. Cabinet members, too, may find themselves prioritizing the interests of their benefactors to secure their own political futures.
Realigning for Impact: A Call for Strategic Leadership
The prevailing belief that a president will serve two terms, regardless of opposition, was challenged by the outcome of the 2015 election. While President Bola Tinubu’s administration may be receiving assurances of an imminent victory in 2027, critics advocate for a more tangible demonstration of progress that directly impacts the lives of ordinary Nigerians. Abstract economic figures, they argue, do not resonate with citizens struggling with daily economic realities.
To alter this narrative, a fundamental shift in approach is deemed necessary. This includes a critical review of the cabinet, with a view to replacing political appointees who may be more focused on political relevance than on the effective administration of their ministries. Many current ministers are characterized as career politicians or political jobbers, whose pursuit of personal political advancement has left their critical portfolios neglected.
The suggestion is to reassign such individuals to roles within campaign structures, where their talents might be better utilized, while allowing competent individuals to lead the crucial ministries in the limited time remaining. The upcoming elections, it is cautioned, may not follow the predictable patterns of the past, underscoring the urgency for genuine and impactful governance.
