Comparing President Bola Tinubu’s government and that of his predecessor, Mohammadu Buhari, some Tinubu protégés are quick to opine that unlike Buhari who was hardly aware of what was happening across the country and took no prompt action to address the problems,  Tinubu listens to the complains of the people and takes action. They often cite the government’s response to the demands of organised labour and his recent agreement with state governors to establish state police in the country as part of measures to check the rising wave of insecurity in the country. The most recent addition to their claim is the federal executive council’s decision to implement the recommendations of the Steve Oronsaye panel on the restructuring and rationalisation of the federal agencies, parastatals and commissions as a way of reducing the cost of governance among others.
What some of these Tinubu’s supporters and beneficiaries of the current government will not point out is that the past nine months of this government has been the worst time in the country in decades past. They will not admit that the protest against hunger, poverty and insecurity across the country is a way of telling the government that enough is enough and that the government had better fix the country before it’s too late. Rather they hold onto the erroneous belief that the protests are politically sponsored. During his campaign, Alhaji Bola Ahmed Tinubu, now President, told Nigerians that he had a great and unbreakable team when he was the governor of Lagos State, including Cardoso (the headmaster), Wale Edun, Dele Alake and others. With the great team, he assured that the nation would be in good hands and the economy would thrive.
What has happened to the team now? Why has the nation’s currency been on a free fall, there’s hike in interest rate and Nigerians are dying of hunger under their watch? Have they lost steam and ran out of ideas?Leadership is more than being a great orator. It requires critical thinking and proper analysing of the challenges on ground and taking calculated and prompt action to address them. The problem of high cost of governance has been a big issue in the country long before Tinubu came on board with people from all walks of life and organisations constantly canvassing for reduction in the cost of governance.   Before his inauguration  on May 29, 2023, speculations were rife that Tinubu would merge or consolidate overlapping ministries, departments, and agencies to eliminate duplication of functions.  There were expectations that government structures would be streamlined to make them more efficient as recommended in the famous  Oronsaye’s report. In 2011, former President Goodluck Jonathan, had set up the Presidential Committee on Restructuring and Rationalisation of Federal Government Parastatals, Commission and Agencies under the leadership of the former Head of Service, Stephen Oronsaye. Part of the recommendations of the panel include: reduction of statutory agencies from 263 to 161, scrapping 38 agencies, merging 52, and reverting 14 to departments in different ministries. Unfortunately,not only did the Tinubu not act on the report promptly as expected, he rather created additional five ministeries, (Marine and Blue Economy, Tourism, Art, Culture and the Creative Economy, Gas Resources and Steel Development), bringing the total number of ministeries to 48, the highest in the history of the country. The question is, is the implementation of the Oronsaye’s report  one of the knee-ferk policy formulations and inept implementations-mostly reactive and scapegoating that have characterised the current administration? If the president intended to implement the report, why did he create more ministeries?
Is the implementation of the Oronsaye’s report a right step? Yes it is. Reports have it that since 2012 when the report was submitted, the number of MDAs have risen to over 1300 with many of them performing basically the same function. Therefore, merging or scrapping some of the MDAs can lead to cost savings through the reduction of duplicated functions, elimination of overlapping roles, and streamlining of administrative processes. This can result in a more efficient allocation of resources.By eliminating redundancies and improving coordination, merged entities may be better equipped to provide more effective and timely services to the public. This can lead to improved overall service delivery and citizen satisfaction, among other benefits.However, as desirable and rationalisation of MDAs may be, one should hope it is thought through, far-reaching and crucial stakeholders involved.
Government should be wary of taking measures that will worsen the woes of the masses, particularly the civil servants instead of ameliorating it. Let us hope that the government will stick to its words of not allowing the move to lead to job losses and redundancies in the affected agencies. It is important to note that the success of any merger depends on careful planning, stakeholder engagement and effective implementation. The George Akume-led Committee, saddled with the responsibility to midwife the necessary restructuring and legislative amendments, needed to ensure full actualisation of the approvals granted ought to be diligent in carrying out their job. The committee should consider the potential challenges and downsides, such as resistance to change and disruptions in the short term. Having said that, one must also align with the views of the Human Rights Activist, Femi Falana and other well-meaning Nigerians, that the reduction of cost of governance goes beyond the scrapping or merging of MDAs.
Deeper cuts in the cost of governance are required from State House to Government Houses. Practical and relatable austere lifestyle for official and conduct of government businesses are desiderata. Having 38 delegates, including two Tinubu’s for a state visit to Qatar amid a nationwide protest against hardship and hunger in the land, does not indicate that the president is serious about cutting the cost of governance. What about reducing the salaries and allowances of public officials, including political officeholders, to align them with economic realities? What about spending less for the purchase of exotic cars for the first lady, governors’ wives, federal and state lawmakers and other people in the corridors of power? How about sincerely dealing with corruption and stopping stealing of the commonwealth which has long become the order of the day across all sectors of the economy?
During the last presidential election campaigns, one of the presidential candidates harped so much on moving the nation’s economy from consumption to production. Explaining that, economists said Nigeria should begin to produce what we consume locally and export to other countries. They say that investment in exchange competitive activities is the only sure way to strengthen the Naira and make life more meaningful for the citizens. Sincerely, that is what the nation needs now. Governments at all levels must deliberately invest in the manufacturing and production sectors. Revival of the dying textile industries in the country must be prioritised. Let us make maximum use of our huge population for the growth of the economy as China is enviably doing. To achieve this, one must emphasise the need for the state governors to get involved in the means of production
Often, attention is being focused on the federal government, while the state governors expenditures are left unscrutinised. Recently, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, revealed the huge sums of money the governors have so far received from the Federation Account to alleviate inflation and the high cost of food in their respective states. What have the governors done with this money? This and other allocations should be utilised for the states and their citizens. And to the widely known fact, without crushing insecurity across the country, especially in the large-food-growing belts to enable Nigerians carry on with the agricultural activities unhindered, no programme or reform will produce the desired result.

Calista Ezeaku