Ekiti State Governor, Mr. Ayo Fayose’s recent efforts at presenting the financial situation of the state to the media and blaming the immediate past administration for the turn of event, provide some interesting  insights into developments in Ekiti State.

Many of the reports centred on Governor  Fayose’s appeal to labour union leaders in the state and some contained in his media interviews, where he tried to falsify the state’s  debt portfolio (in a manner that has become the standard practice of his regime) in the bid to  appeal to the striking workers.

While there is nothing wrong in Governor Fayose’s appeal to the workers, what one finds quite strange was the governor’s resort to cheap blackmail of his predecessor in Office, Dr Kayode Fayemi, currently the Minister of Solid Minerals Development.

Fayose said he paid N1bilion monthly on the loans allegedly taken by the Fayemi administration, hence the finances of the state were being affected. In another forum, he claimed to be making a monthly payment of N1.5 billion on the state debt. This claim, coming almost 20 months after the exit of the APC-led government in the state is not only lame, it s infantile and laughable. It is nothing but another in the series of Fayose’s bizarre rants.

While the Fayemi administration’s main loan was the N25 billion naira bond it raised at the capital market in 2011 and other minor facilities taken from a few commercial banks, the DMO had put the state’s indebtedness at N18.8 billion. That is outside the N20billion loan recently taken by Fayose.

This figure contrasts sharply with the figure usually bandied by Fayose. He had upon resumption put the state’s indebtedness at N86 billion, then to N96 billion, and later to N68billion, insisting that it would take about 35 years to service the debt.

One fact Fayose had refused to disclose is that his administration , had, within the first year in office accessed about N20billion loan from commercial banks with attendant huge interest rate, plus commitments to a few contractors.

While Fayemi opted for a capital market bond, with low interest rate and a well structured repayment plans, Fayose opted for commercial bank loans with its huge interest rate. Through the repayment plan put in place, it is on record that the Fayemi administration had repaid more than N14 billion from the N25billion bond money.

The repayment of the bond money taken by Fayemi, was spread along seven years from the date of its approval. Hence, the repayment is expected to be completed in 2018. It is also on record that throughout Fayemi’s tenure, the state was paying about N500,000,000 (five hundred million naira ) monthly to service all its commitment (both bond money and bank facilities).

One is then baffled how Governor Fayose came about the N1billion he claimed to be paying monthly on the loan taken by the immediate past administration.

While Fayemi spent the bond money for infrastructure development of the state, including major roads, street lightening, school renovation, government lodge/office, a civic centre, the Ikogosi warm spring resort and Ire Burnt Bricks Company, among others; Fayose had opted for white elephant projects including an airport and a flyover.

While the loan taken by Fayemi has a well structured repayment plans and a thorough monitoring of projects by the Stock Exchange Commission (SEC), Fayose has yet to disclose the repayment plans for the loans he took, the same way he did not account for the Federal Government’s bail out released to the state by the President Mohammadu Buhari’s government.

In his craftiness, Fayose also failed to tell the labour leaders and indeed Ekitis that the only reason the bond money would not be liquidated in 2018 as structured was that he had, upon assuming office in October 2014, gotten the nod of the then PDP-led federal government to suspend repayment for a certain period of time.

The beauty of leadership is being able to evolve creative ways to manage and bring succour to the people in times of crisis. Fayose has, through his constant references to his immediate predecessor in office in negative terms, demonstrated his inability to provide the right leadership at this critical moment.

It must be stated clearly that while the DMO put the state’s indebtedness at N18.8 billion , the recent N20 billion taken by Fayose had increased it to N38.8 billion, and that is just the ones we know about.

We implore Governor Fayose to lessen his infantile attitude, play less to the gallery and concentrate more on governance- which as he should have realised by now,  is not a monkey business.

While we sympathise with the governor over the financial burden of the state, we urge him to look inward and work with relevant stakeholders, developmental partners and the state workforce as well as entrepreneurs from the state to help his administration. This we consider a better approach to development that will lift the state from its current economic mess, much faster  than trying to bully the workers, institutions and investors in the state.

Governor Fayose should now put on his thinking cap, roll his sleeves and go to work, rather than going about the streets drinking local gin and cutting ‘asun’ meat. He should also take a cue from some of his colleagues who have become quite innovative in their approach to governance and stop constituting a nuisance to the polity.

Barrister Adeoye Aribasoye, an Ado-Ekiti based legal practitioner, is also Southwest Zonal Coordinator of APC Youth League. [myad]

We have arrived again at the anniversary of June 12 Presidential Election, that event that laid bare the intent of the military dictator, General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, to subject Nigerians to an unending farce in the guise of seeking a credible national democratic election.
For a time, the points went to the military leadership who continued the musical chairs started in 1966. But the persistence of pro-democracy resistance was such that in the end, a coup against the movement had to be within the confines of civilian rule. As we bear witness to the reactions of certain parts of the country to the 2015 elections, the most promising since 1993, it shows us that what Nigeria lost in that singular opportunity where a country came together behind one man, we have yet to regain.
Perhaps at this juncture, we might want to ask ourselves, who is afraid of a united Nigeria? In the way that investigators ask, ‘who stands to gain from a murder’ when drawing the list of suspects. Not because of June 12 itself, but because the difficulty we currently face in pulling together is costing us dearly.
Recently, the Minister for Power, Works and Housing said efforts to generate more power were hindered by the continued attacks of gas pipelines by the Niger Delta Avengers, a new militant group in the South-South region. Without power, there won’t be much in the way of economic development given that every industry depends on it. So it seems that the fallout of
President Jonathan’s March 29, 2015 electoral loss is the rise of NDA; similar to the way the loss of political power in the north seemed to have given rise to Boko Haram. But are these splinter groups the natural outcome when the proliferation of small arms and light weapons meets the high proportion of unemployed, idle young people? Or is there an invisible hand disturbing the hornet’s nest?
Elections always produce winners and losers. In multi-ethnic countries like Nigeria though, where ethnic groups have been known to identify with candidates, it is difficult for certain parts of the country not to feel alienated by the results except when a candidate wins in every part of the country. This happened before, on June 12, 1993, thus giving us an unprecedented opportunity to work together to get to higher ground. That landmark poll was annulled for mysterious reasons ‎and that opportunity was wasted.
At the time, our attention was on the leadership of the military, ‎on explanations centred on their unwillingness to lose their hold on power, their lack of patriotism,their
greed. The annulment is now in the past. Here, in the present, we ‎are back to the suboptimal situation we have faced since independence when crisis erupts in
the region that is or feels alienated, weakening the ability of the country to pull ahead. So what can we learn from June 12?
The Yoruba say that a child should not ask to know who killed his father unless he has been able to hold the sword that was used to kill him by the hilt. And if the question was merely about how an elected president died while in the custody of the military government on July 7, 1998, I would abide by the wisdom of the elders and not ask questions. But the fact that the people that find themselves in the territory called Nigeria will continue hustling to make ends meet under impossible odds should the prevailing situation (or arrangement?) continue, forces the question – who or what stands opposed to our coming together?
These continual interventions in our affairs are killing our chances of escaping poverty. But if there is a cabal, however it is constituted, let them be warned: Nigerians also say, every day is for the thief, but one day is for the owner. [myad]