Security votes as conduit pipes?




Buhari with APC Governors at the meeting

When the acting chairman, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr Ibrahim Magu, spoke at the induction programme for returning and newly-elected governors, he did not mince words in accusing governors of misusing security votes.

Governors abuse security votes

He alleged that some governors deliberately fuelled insecurity in their states just to collect more money as security votes. He noted that some of the governors “now covertly promote insecurity as justification to inflate their security votes.”

Magu also alleged that there was a link between corruption, banditry and terrorism. His allegations were contained in a paper, titled, “Imperative of Fighting Corruption/Terrorism Financing in Nigeria.’’

Magu told the session that a debate on the legality of security votes enjoyed by the governors was ongoing. We have also seen evidence of theft of public resources by some state governors, cashing in on the insecurity in their states.

“Insecurity has also offered the required oxygen for corruption to thrive as evident in the $2.1bn arms procurement scandal involving top military commanders both serving and retired.”

Research confirms

A study carried out by the University of Nigeria, agreed with Magu on the abuse of security votes. The study is titled “Legitimising Corruption in Government: Security Votes in Nigeria.’’

It was authored by Obiamaka Egbo, Ifeoma Nwakoby, Josaphat Onwumere  and  Chibuike Uche, of the  Department of Banking and Finance, University of Nigeria.

“The tendency among Nigerian politicians, particularly the executive arm at the various levels of government, to manipulate security issues for political and economic gains is widespread.

“This has been fuelled by the abuse of security votes, an ‘opaque fund’ reserved for the executive, which is not appropriated, accounted for or audited through the legislature.

“Sometimes, a state governor could (mis)appropriate as much as N100 million monthly as security vote. Such slush funds are channelled into the secret funding of militias and gangs of government enforcers.’’

ICPC questions vote

The appropriateness or otherwise of security votes was at the centre of discourse at the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC)  second Quarterly Anti-Corruption Policy Dialogue Series.

The dialogue focused on Accountability for Security Votes. The ICPC chairman, Prof Bolaji Owasanoye, who spoke, agreed with Magu that security vote is an easy and attractive route for stealing public funds.

According to him, it is also a veritable avenue for abuse of public trust, escalation of poverty and underdevelopment and ironically the escalation of insecurity. “It has pushed up insecurity somehow, that is not to say we do not need security vote.

“In the 2019 budget as appropriated, for example, 162 Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) had money appropriated for them as security votes.

Security votes for MDAs

“These MDAs span boards, centres, committees, ministries, commissions, councils, hospitals, schools, law enforcement agencies, obviously the armed forces and intelligence offices.”

Owasanoye said that the number and categories of MDAs given security votes, suggest that something was wrong with the parameters for determining those who are entitled to security votes.

“This then provokes some question as which MDAs are entitled to security votes and how should security votes be accounted for?

“It is clear from our present approach, that we do not have any rational principle being followed at the moment. If there is one, I will be happy that my ignorance will be diminished and removed,” he said.

The chairman explained that it was clear from the current approach to budgeting for security votes, that no principle was being followed.

He said that this is clear from the quantum and range of sums appropriated in the 2019 budget for MDAs, where the lowest amount for security vote was N3,600, while the highest amount was N4.20 billion.

“What on earth can anyone do with N3, 600, and I am not talking of an individual.

“If the N3, 600 is the security vote of an individual, most likely it will take him from somewhere to his house. That is the safest place to be.

“But what on earth can an agency do with N3, 600 as security vote, as appropriated?”

With this disparity, what then should security votes be used for?

Owasanoye opined that it was pertinent because MDAs with budgets for security votes also have separate budgets for other security related matters, such as the production or procurement for security or defence equipment.

“In the case of defence and core security and law enforcement agencies, some of these items and the votes are undoubtedly justified. But the quantum and use is open to scrutiny,” he said.

He, however, explained that it was apparent that security vote was not for any of those other security items mentioned, because they were often separately covered in the budget.

“There is the erroneous impression that security votes are not being accounted for with our recent experience as a country that almost lost a geo-political zone to insurgency.

“Whereas billions of dollars were appropriated for security, but diverted by corruption to matters like engaging prayer warriors demands that we reflect very closely and ask ourselves whether we can afford to continue on the same trajectory of lack of accountability for security votes.

“We need security votes; we should give the votes to those who deserve to have security votes and we should demand some framework for accountability,” he said.

On his part, Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen Tukur Buratai, said that security vote was subject to audit and “if it is not done, it is wrong”.

He said that the votes were not votes for defence and were also not meant for the armed forces.

“Strictly speaking, if you look at security votes in the true context, it is not meant to tackle insecurity.

“We have funding for Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces and if you have budget lines for these services and organisations, then, why security votes?

“However, it can be used for security; but it is not meant to solve insecurity. There are other votes which are constitutional which include the contingency fund,” he said.

Buratai explained that even though there was security vote that was generally applied, it must follow the Public Procurement Act 2007.

The chief of army staff said that if security vote was made constitutional and proper guidelines set out on utilisation, the issue will be laid to rest

Spent without obligation

Governor Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti, described  security vote as the budgetary or extra budgetary allocation ostensibly for security, received by the president, governors and local government chairmen.

This allocation, he said, is spent without legal obligation to account for how it is spent. Fayemi said that security votes have not been widely accepted by citizens, because of the assumption that such funds are being abused by state governments.

He said that the problem really is not about the security vote but about its usages and the character of the people administering it.

“Security votes attract more attention because of the seemingly non accountable nature of the expenditure under the budgetary provision.

“There is widespread belief that the appropriation of security votes in Nigeria is unconstitutional and thus illegal.

“This is not correct because in the Nigerian constitution, the executive is entrusted with the responsibility of preparing a budget which is then sent to the legislature for ratification.

“The fact that huge amount of monies are routinely being budgeted and expended in the name of security vote does not make it an illegal practice

“The act of approving any sum allocated to such a heading, covert or overt, legalises the concept. The insinuation that such money is not budgeted for is not true,” Fayemi said.

Like Magu said, the legality or otherwise of security vote is ongoing, and must continue until it properly defined. The earlier it is the better to avoid misuse and diversion of public funds in the guise of security vote. (NANFeature)

Matched content



Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*