Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
A REJOINDER TO THE ASSUMED N3 TRILLION ENTERED KTSG: SEPARATE FACTS, CONTEXT AND THE TRUE MEASURE OF GOVERNANCE BEFORE MAKING YOUR CLAIMS
I have read the article written by my brother, Aliyu Mohammed Kurfi , and watched with utter amazement the accompanying clip in which he appeared to engaged in additions and subtractions searching desperately for grounds to fault the Katsina State Government. The heading appeared attractive, but the substance revealed significant structural lapses in the understanding of how government and public finance operate.
The recent attempt to create the impression that nearly ₦3 trillion has passed through Katsina State since May 2023 without any corresponding impact deserves a careful, factual and evidence-based response.
Let us begin with the central point: public finance is not a political slogan. It is a system of legally defined revenues, obligations, institutions and expenditure responsibilities. It is therefore misleading to add every figure associated with Katsina State and present the total as money available for the Governor to spend at will.
The claim reportedly combines FAAC allocations, VAT, internally generated revenue, loans, grants, interventions and local government funds into one enormous figure. That calculation may produce a headline, but it does not produce an accurate account of the resources under the control of the Katsina State Government.
These financial flows are not interchangeable. They are neither controlled by one authority nor available for discretionary spending in the same manner.
Loans are liabilities, not free revenue. They must be repaid, usually with interest, and are often obtained for specific projects or purposes. Grants and development interventions are frequently earmarked for particular sectors, programmes or beneficiaries. Federal interventions may also be implemented directly by federal agencies, contractors or development partners. Such funds cannot automatically be described as money received into, or freely controlled by, the Katsina State Government treasury.
The same principle applies to local government funds. Allocations belonging to the 34 Local Government Areas cannot simply be added to State Government revenue and then used to suggest that the state administration alone had access to the entire amount. Each tier of government has its own responsibilities, statutory obligations and financial controls.
If the argument is that ₦3 trillion entered Katsina State, then the burden is to provide a transparent breakdown: how much went to the State Government, how much went to the local governments, how much was borrowed, how much was earmarked, how much was spent on recurrent obligations, and how much was actually available for capital investment. Without that breakdown, the figure is not an accountability document; it is an aggregation designed to create outrage.
The period under review has also witnessed substantial investments across critical sectors of Katsina State. The administration of Governor Malam Dikko Umar Radda has pursued interventions in security, education, healthcare, agriculture, infrastructure and human capital development. These interventions should be examined project by project, sector by sector, and against verifiable evidence not dismissed through a single headline figure.
That does not mean the government is beyond criticism. It is not. No responsible administration should claim perfection, especially at a time when inflation, insecurity, unemployment and economic hardship continue to affect households across Nigeria. Citizens have every right to demand better services, greater transparency, stronger institutions and measurable results.
But criticism must be as rigorous as the accountability it demands.
Accountability must be based on sound economics, accurate accounting and verifiable facts. It cannot be built on the assumption that every naira associated with the state was sitting in one account, under one authority, available for any purpose.
If we genuinely want to ask where the impact is, then we must first establish what resources accrued to each tier of government, what portion went to salaries and pensions, what was committed to debt service, what was tied to specific projects, what constituted loans, what was received as grants, and what funds were directly managed by federal agencies or development partners.
Only then can we conduct a meaningful cost-benefit analysis and value-for-money assessment.
The question should therefore not be framed as: “₦3 trillion has entered Katsina State; where is the impact?”
That is not a complete question because it conceals the most important facts.
A more honest question is: “What resources accrued to each level of government, what obligations and restrictions applied to those resources, how were they deployed, and what measurable outcomes were achieved?”
That is the language of responsible accountability.
Katsina State should welcome scrutiny, constructive criticism and legitimate demands for transparency. But scrutiny must not be confused with sensationalism, and criticism must not sacrifice accuracy for political effect. Figures should be verified, financial flows properly classified, responsibilities clearly assigned, and government performance assessed on evidence.
Those making the ₦3 trillion claim should publish the underlying figures, identify their sources, distinguish state funds from local government funds, separate loans from revenue, and show precisely how the total was calculated. If the numbers withstand that examination, the public will be better informed. If they do not, the claim should be withdrawn rather than repeated as fact.
Our collective objective should not be to win an argument or defend a political position at all costs. It should be to ensure that every naira of public resources delivers the greatest possible value to the people of Katsina State.
Facts must guide the debate. Context must inform our conclusions. Evidence must determine our judgments. And accountability must remain our common objective.
