By Igbotako Nowinta
Abacha forgot that life was transient; he made himself an emperor over the people of Nigeria; pushed his country poorer and made the international banking manipulators richer. Abacha was a catalyst for administrative irresponsibility, injustice, and disoriented society; he was a political misfit who crystallized misgovernance in a most unprecedented manner. Therefore, when the Abacha ll loot was transferred into the coffers of Nigerian government, to avoid the calamity that befell the Abacha l, the Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ) made itself available to be part of the process of monitoring the disbursement process to the poorest of the poor people of Nigeria. ANEEJ’s involvement in monitoring the Abacha loot was built on the fact that it was part of the MoU negotiation between Switzerland and Nigerian government for the repatriation of the loot. The MoU acknowledged Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and provided for transparency and accountability. ANEEJ was tracking the disbursement of the loot through its Monitoring of Asset Recovery through Transparency and Accountability (MANTRA) project launched by former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo.
The late General Sani Abacha made himself the biggest political bandit ever in Nigeria’s history by the time he took his last breath in Aso Rock Presidential Palace, Abuja, in 1998.
Sani Abacha stole and stole; in his corrupt obsession with primitive accumulation of capital, he ensured that billions of Nigeria’s financial resources were buried in foreign banking vaults in Europe and America.
Abacha forgot that life was transient; he made himself an emperor over the people of Nigeria; pushed his country poorer and made the international banking manipulators richer.
Abacha was a catalyst for administrative irresponsibility, injustice, and disoriented society; he was a political misfit who crystallized misgovernance in a most unprecedented manner.
Therefore, when the Abacha ll loot was transferred into the coffers of Nigerian government, to avoid the calamity that befell the Abacha l, the Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ) made itself available to be part of the process of monitoring the disbursement process to the poorest of the poor people of Nigeria.
ANEEJ’s involvement in monitoring the Abacha loot was built on the fact that it was part of the MoU negotiation between Switzerland and Nigerian government for the repatriation of the loot.
The MoU acknowledged Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and provided for transparency and accountability. ANEEJ was tracking the disbursement of the loot through its Monitoring of Asset Recovery through Transparency and Accountability (MANTRA) project launched by former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo.
Some people were pessimistic that the cash transfer was not really benefiting the poor but, it did. People sat in the comfort of their homes in Abuja and Lagos and wondered what N5,000 would do, but ANEEJ said it met with the very poor people who had not had access to such money before, they are now able to buy drugs to treat their children, at least work together to undertake some livelihood project.
That was something very remarkable and something to build on, though there is room for improvement. ANEEJ monitored the process across the country and met with beneficiaries of the N5,000 monthly Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programme and was impressed, although it is not a perfect situation, as there are challenges.
But comparing from that point in time in 2005, to what ANEEJ saw on the ground, there was dramatic improvement, particularly on the issue of access to information from the Conditional Cash Transfer Office, CCT office.
The MANTRA project was designed to strengthen the capacity of the civil societies and the media to undertake independent monitoring of the $322.5 million Abacha recovered loot.
In 2004 and 2005, Nigerians watched hopelessly and helplessly when Abacha l loot went down the drain, because irresponsible political actors provided lethal support to systemic criminals behind the scenes.
The money simply could not be accounted for. But today one can see the benefits of the cash transfer program via the robust intervention of ANEEJ: improved household consumption; increase in utilization of health and nutrition services; improved school enrolment and attendance; improved environmental sanitation and management; encouraged household financial and asset acquisition; engaged beneficiaries in sustainable livelihood.
Therefore, l joined ANEEJ to call on the National Assembly to fast track the passage of the Witness Protection and Whistle Blowers Bills to further give asset recovery legislative backing.
What has happened in the asset recovery in Nigeria is a huge development and something that is remarkable that we must build on. There is now the Social Investment Act 2023 in Nigeria. We have moved from policy to law.
The Federal Government should be commended for the opportunity for civil society to engage in this process. It is interesting to know that the Federal Government has gone further to institutionalize the social investment program in Nigeria by creating national policy on social investment which is a huge step that translates talking into action.
It is on record that the Federal Government of Nigeria, and Switzerland Government did a Memorandum of Understanding which was signed by both countries at the maiden edition of the Global Forum on Asset Recovery (GFAR) summit held Washington DC in 2017.
But ANEEJ via its Executive Director, Rev. David Ugolor raised alarm in March 2022 over the stoppage of the cash transfer by the out gone Muhammadu Buhari government. It is heartwarming to know that
payment has now moved beyond 76 percent disbursement in 2022 to 100 percent disbursement in 2023.
ANEEJ said it conducted spot checks in fifteen states between the period of May and June 2023 for a Payment circle that started in May 2021 and ended in October 2022. The fifteen States were Anambra, Bayelsa, Borno, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Edo, FCT, Gombe, Imo, Kaduna, Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, and Zamfara.
About forty-one communities in twenty-four local government were covered during the exercise. Different Payment Service Providers were used across the states. Some challenges were encountered, as some of the findings will reveal. A detailed look at the various state reports will throw more light on these challenges.
Extract of general findings by ANEEJ
Beneficiaries do not know the Program status if it has ended or not and as such, they are still expecting continuous payment and at the same time hoping for increment.
In one of the states, it was observed that all beneficiaries interviewed are now being paid through the banks with the use of ATM cards. Few beneficiaries complained of incomplete payment amounts which as at the time of spot-checking have not been resolved.
In one situation, the money caused a problem between the Caregiver (wife) and the Alternative (husband). The wife said that the husband was the one that filled out the household form, and because of that, he feels the money belongs to him.
He always beat her for collected money anytime payment was made. Also, the amount disbursed was not enough for them to establish their businesses fully. We noticed a delay in payment and a lack of effective services in the disbursement of payment in some communities.
Almost 80% of the beneficiaries complained of payment delays. Other complaints by the beneficiaries include loss of pins, ATMs, and non-dispensing ATMs.
One observation that is cross-cutting among those using ATMs is that there is no information about the account details for the debit card issued to beneficiaries, pointing out that in the event of misplacement or damage, they wouldn’t know how to resolve such problems.
On some occasions, all efforts to get the SCTU officials to provide us with the payment records proved abortive. The officials were reluctant to assist us. Some level of ignorance of the program still exists among the beneficiaries across different payment locations.
Extract of recommendations by ANEEJ
More beneficiaries from the age of 60 and above and people living with disability should be identified for this program. Verification of the beneficiary’s financial state and well-being should be made before enrollment. We strongly recommend prompt payment to assist beneficiaries in engaging in profitable businesses and taking care of their children.
Additionally, we recommend the implementation of adequate accountability mechanisms to show the amount of money sent to the program in the state, how it is disbursed, and any undisbursed items. This will encourage transparency in the program.
All beneficiaries should have a bank account for the direct disbursement of funds. This will most definitely mitigate the chances of sabotage or corruption in the process of making payment.
The biodata of the beneficiaries should be recaptured or properly securitized because, in the cause of monitoring, we found out that there is no correlation between either the ages, picture, or as far as a female bearing male name on the beneficiaries’ identity card. It will also be updated to fish out those that may die.
Beneficiaries Data update should be done annually and at the State level. MANTRA should continue to monitor not only the CCT, but also all other SIP Programs including Trader Moni, and Market Moni. Adequate Security should be provided for the CTOs and Payment Agents at the payment points.
Extract of key findings and observation by ANEEJ
During the Exercise, deducing from the administered Beneficiaries Survey and Interviews conducted, the following were key findings. Because beneficiaries are poor, they are most times timid, they find it difficult to complain, and are afraid to be removed from the Programme.
Finally, this is profusely congratulating Rev. David Ugolor, ANEEJ, and other fantastic partners for a job well done in monitoring the cash transfer process in Nigeria so far.
Nowinta Igbotako, a Peace and Conflict Resolution Expert, Media/Research Consultant, could be reached @ Nigeria Good Governance Research Centre: nowintaigbotako@gmail.com.
