BY: NASIRU WAZIRI & BASHIR BELLO GARKO
The Kano State Government’s recent decision to disburse livestock worth 2.3 billion Naira has raised eyebrows among many stakeholders.
While the intention behind the initiative may be to empower farmers and boost the state’s agricultural sector, a closer examination of the project reveals several red flags.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability
The first concern is the lack of transparency and accountability surrounding the disbursement process. How were the beneficiaries selected? What criteria were used to determine the distribution of the livestock? The absence of clear answers to these questions may raise suspicions about the potential for favoritism, nepotism, and corruption.
Misguided Priority
The 2.3 billion Naira allocated for this project could have been better spent on more pressing needs in the state, such as improving the healthcare sector, upgrading educational infrastructure (dilapidated class rooms across local government out of the metropolitan areas), or addressing the state’s notorious traffic congestion (provision of working materials to KAROTA officials). The fact that the government chose to prioritize livestock disbursement over these critical areas is a clear indication of misguided priorities.
Inefficient Use of Resources
The disbursement of livestock may not be the most efficient use of resources. The state government could have considered alternative initiatives, such as providing training and support for farmers, improving agricultural infrastructure to farmers across 36 local government areas outside metropolitans, or promoting value addition and processing of livestock products. These approaches would have had a more sustainable and lasting impact on the state’s agricultural sector.
Empowering the Few at the Expense of the Many
The livestock disbursement program may also be seen as a form of patronage, where a select few benefit at the expense of the broader population. This approach reinforces the existing power dynamics, where those with connections to the government or ruling elite receive preferential treatment. This not only perpetuates inequality but also undermines the government’s commitment to fairness and equit.
Poverty and Unemployment are also significant concerns, with many youths struggling to find employment and resorting to street begging or crime. The almajiri system, while providing Islamic education, does not equip students with skills for the modern economy, exacerbating poverty and unemployment.
Government Corruption and Inefficiency are also significant challenges, with many residents complaining of corrupt and inefficient government services. These issues are often linked to poverty, unemployment, and lack of education.
Now let’s break down the Kano state government’s disbursement of livestock worth 2.3 billion Naira to 7,158 beneficiaries.
Assuming each beneficiary received an equal share of the livestock, we can calculate the value of livestock each beneficiary received as follows:
Value of livestock per beneficiary = Total value of livestock / Number of beneficiaries
= 2,300,000,000 / 7,158
= approximately 321,319 Naira per beneficiary
This calculation raises several questions:
Transparency and Accountability: How were the 7,158 beneficiaries selected? What criteria were used to determine the distribution of the livestock?
– Value for Money: Was the livestock procured at a fair market price? Were there any irregularities in the procurement process?
– Economic Impact: How will the distribution of livestock to 7,158 beneficiaries impact the broader economy of Kano state?
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Kano State Government’s decision to disburse livestock worth 2.3 billion Naira raises several concerns.
The lack of transparency and accountability, misguided priorities, inefficient use of resources, and empowerment of the few at the expense of the many all point to a flawed initiative.
The government must reevaluate its priorities and consider more effective and sustainable ways to support the state’s agricultural sector and improve the lives of its citizens.
Recommendations
1. Transparency and Accountability: The government should provide clear and detailed information on the disbursement process, including the selection criteria and beneficiary list.
2. Reevaluation of Priorities: The government should reassess its priorities and consider allocating resources to more pressing needs in the state than other peoples needs.
3. Alternative Initiatives: The government should explore alternative initiatives that promote sustainable agricultural development, such as training and support for farmers, agricultural infrastructure development, and value addition and processing of livestock products.
4. Inclusive and Equitable Approach: The government should adopt a more inclusive and equitable approach, ensuring that resources are allocated in a fair and transparent manner, and that the benefits of the program are shared by all.