Emmanuel Mbah
In mankind’s recent history, recourse to the establishment and use of interventionist agencies as tools or vehicles to accomplish tasks has become increasingly popular. The reasons for this upsurge will include but not limited to the following : A more complex world, a rise both in number and nature of the challenges confronting modern man, and a need to deal or resolve these problems in an effective, acceptable and timely manner especially in our present globalized and digital world.
Interventionist agencies according to experts are extra departmental bodies or organizations established to handle, tackle, manage and provide workable solutions or services to identified problems. They can be ad-hoc orpermanent depending on the nature of challenges they are to contend with. By their very nature they are means or vehicles for solving well identified and articulated issues. Usually they are off shoots of a larger entity and derive their existence and power from that body. Organizations such as UNESCO, ILO, FAO, WHO, WORLD BANK, IMF, IMO are a few examples. All of them are creation of the United Nation’s. Each of these interveneon behalf of the United Nation’s in different areas of human affairs. But whatever they do must be in consonance with the main mandate of the parent body which is to establish, maintain and ensure a wealthy, healthy, just and secure world.
In the same vein, nations have adopted same model and have established similar agencies with clear cut goals to provide critically needed intervention in sectors where there are complex and intractable challenges, that are or maybe hindering the development of both material and human resources.
Nigeria as a country rightly embraced this strategy and went ahead to establish a good number of such interventionist outfits of which Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) is one. NDDC was set up to help fast track the development of both the physical landscape and human capital of the nine states that make up the Niger Delta area. The mandate of the commission is captured and encapsulated in its name. It is to develop Niger Delta in all ways, using all legal means.
Funding for its operations and activities is to be provided by the federal government and all operators in the oil industry. Since inception hundreds of billions of Naira has been given to the agency to fund her interventions. The nagging question is how has NDDC fared in carrying out it core mandate taking into consideration the huge resources it had? Recent information and revelations in the media about the agency leaves a terribly soured taste in the mouth. It oozes a foul stench that permeates hundreds of kilometers. Communities are bitterly complaining, stakeholders both young and old are wailing, are willingto tear down and burn the stake. The place is described as a cesspool of corruption.A bottomless pit of waste.
We are informed that contracts are awarded ab initio with no intention to execute them –but to corner the cash and share!! And for this reason most of the projects are deliberately poorly conceptualized so as to aid them archive their objective of stealing. As a result the whole ofNiger Delta is littered withdeliberately abandoned projects.
A recent action of President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration may have unknowingly triggered the rebirth and resuscitation of this essential agency. When federal government in August announced the re compositionof the governing board and management team, little did it know that it had opened a Pandora box and had set off a chain of events whose trajectory and end no one can predict, but which if handled well will give birth to a new NDDC.
The president’s decision to conduct a forensic audit of all contracts and projects from 2001 to date is most welcome. But here is a caveat. Is the president ready to deal with the outcome of this ‘dancing naked in the market square? Or unmasking and derobing of the masquerade? Some of the president’s men maybe behind or in masquerade!!
If the forensic audit must go on I see three possible strategies:
1. Allow the incumbent acting management to conduct it
2. Appoint an external outfitto conduct it
3. Inaugurate the new management board and order it to carry out this audit.
Each of the above has its advantages and disadvantages. Possibility number one may be faster because they are on ground and are familiar with the agencies structure and personnel. But it has a major disadvantage. You cannot be a judge in your own case. There is a strong chance that some of the dirt or infractions that maybe uncovered may have taken place under their watch.
The second option of outsourcing it to an external body to conduct is equally good but has two serious disadvantages. It comes with financial cost. The external auditors will be paid. There is also a small possibility of loss of confidentiality especially in this age of social media. And finally it reduces the capacity to do quick damage control in the event that items that can embarrass the government are unearthed.
The last option is to inaugurate the new board and task it as its first assignment this audit. This is the best option out of the three. It exposes them to the workings of the organization, because they will be directly involved in all the investigations. They will direct how it will proceed and will learn from this experience. Their involvement will be an invaluable asset that will aid them in running the agency. Experience they say is a better teacher.
Having said all of the above, what should be of importanceto all Nigerians, is that the rot in NDDC must be stopped. This interventionist agency must be saved, be re invented. The hunter engaged to seek out and hunt down poverty and under development cannot be turned to the prey and hunted into extinction. It must perform its statutory function, which is to develop the physical and human infrastructureand resources of the Niger Delta to thegreaterglory of Nigeria.
Dr. Mbah, a public commentator and management expert, writes from Lagos