|
BNW |
|
B N W: Biafra Nigeria World News |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Governors and the president's travel order
THE other week, President Olusegun Obasanjo formally wrote governors of the 36 states of the Federation requesting that his office should be informed whenever any of the governors plans to travel out of the country. The President observed that this became necessary due to "national security reasons".
It is unfortunate that the President has to resort to this step in order to achieve what moral suasion could have taken care of in a normal democratic environment where political maturity and mutual respect obtain. Implicit in the directive is a sharp criticism of the rate at which serving governors abandon their duty posts and travel abroad. Indeed, the conduct of many state chief executives is scandalous. It is public knowledge how little of their official and private time is spent at their duty posts, how large a retinue of aides, and hangers-on accompany them on, as it were, trips within and outside the country, and how public money is spent " nay, wasted " in the process. For example, nearly half of our state chief executives were reportedly in Athens to watch the recent Olympic Games. They did not go alone, eventhough they had no business being there.
The commonest explanation that is often given is that state governors have to travel abroad in search of foreign investments. Strangely enough, this is perhaps the only country where government officials shop around for investments. Rather than stay at home, think through and confront the challenges of their positions, high officials of the state take the first available flight to shop for solutions designed by and for peoples of other lands. There are state and regional governors in other countries of the world; they don't behave in this manner.
What is certain is that not a few persons in the present democratic dispensation arrived at their high office ill-prepared for the duties and responsibilities that go with it. Of course, this is understandable considering the rather flawed electoral process through which all sorts of persons, got to their present positions. And now, Nigerians are saddled with absentee governors and profligates to boot. The President may have no legal basis for his demand on the governors, but can anyone, honestly deny that some of these governors need to be called to order?
The only caveat is that state governors can only be expected to inform the President of their travel plans as a matter of courtesy, and not out of compulsion. The larger objective should be how this can help strengthen inter-governmental relations, and eliminate conflict and duplication of efforts. For example, both the President and the governors would be in a better position to share useful information about the intended country of visit, and the latter can even serve as Presidential envoys in certain respects. Sadly, many state governors routinely embark on dubious and wasteful trips which explains the reluctance to disclose their whereabouts.
Unfortunately, there is a precedent " a poor one we dare say " for the behaviour of these state bosses. For much of his first term, and despite the fact that there was so much work on the ground, President Olusegun Obasanjo spent precious official time in the air or in foreign lands in search of, he said, foreign investments. Nor did he travel lean; he was usually accompanied by a retinue of aides at public expense. The pressure of informed public opinion may have slowed him down a bit but it is a matter of public record that he once had to admit the futility of his trips, by which time so much public resources had been expended. Nigerian leaders would still have to tell the electorate the value of investment brought in so far and at what cost to the public. There can be no justification for the frivolous travels of our public officials.
The moral motive that impels the President in this matter is, on the face of it, justified. But it becomes suspect when the reference to "national security" is re-examined. Sections 190-191 of the constitution state the order of temporary succession whenever a state governor is not available, provided, of course that the governor follows the letters of the relevant provisions. The Presidency can therefore have no difficulty identifying who is in charge of a state at any point in time. Second, who is really the officer responsible for national security? With the present arrangement, state governors are merely nominal chief security officers of their respective states. Third, "national security" is increasingly becoming an omnibus, but nebulous excuse by an intolerant government to abridge the rights of its citizens.
Again, why would the President, beyond committing his directive to the state governors into writing, go so far as to make such correspondence public, whereas the matter could have been discussed at the Council of States meeting? Obviously, there is a communication gap between the President and the governors. Both parties must exercise political maturity to bridge this gap and get on with more serious issues of governance.
|
|
||||||||||||
