Executive Summary
Fighting corruption, or misappropriate use of public funds, is intimately linked to poverty reduction. Among Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari’s 2015 campaign promises, tackling corruption is one of the most difficult issues that needs to be addressed in the country. As President Buhari asserted, “unless Nigeria kills corruption, corruption will kill Nigeria.” 1 A difficult question arises that both Nigeria and the international community ask: how do you prevent and end corruption? Tackling such an issue requires an open, inclusive, and accountable budget and procurement process in which citizens, Auditors- General, governors, civil society, and the media play a vital role.
The budget translates policies into programmes, such as those meant to provide vaccinations, textbooks in schools, and subsidies to farmers. In a contracting economic environment, budget transparency and participation are essential to ensuring that the allocation of public funds is prioritised to reflect the needs of the public. Following Nigeria’s fiscal decentralisation process,
state governments have had the onerous task of prioritising the allocation of scarce resources.
Since state and local governments are closest in proximity to citizens, the need for an open, transparent, and participatory budget and procurement process is crucial to ending the misappropriation of public funds that could be used for development purposes.
While state governors are entrusted to develop the budget, honourable members of the State Houses of Assembly, Auditors-General, citizens, civil society organisations (CSOs), and the media have a role in not only determining what gets included in the budget but how it is executed as well. This accountability ecosystem depends on each accountability actor playing their role.
To play a constructive role in the accountability ecosystem, citizens, civil society, and the media need to have access to budget information.
Access to budget information should not be limited to a select few individuals. All citizens should have access to how State Governments plan to raise revenue, spend public resources, and incur debt necessary to finance programmes. It is with this in mind that CIRDDOC developed the Nigerian Sub-national Budget Transparency Survey, the first independent assessment investigating transparency and public participation in the budgeting and procurement processes in Nigerian states. This report compares the performance in all 36 Nigerian states, identifies best practices, and recommends how state budgeting and procurement systems can be more open and participatory.
Methodology
CIRDOOC partnered with local civil society organisations in all 36 states to conduct the Nigerian Sub-national (States) Budget Transparency Survey. Partners completed a multiple choice questionnaire, adapted from the International Budget Partnership’s Open Budget Survey, to evaluate the public availability of key budget documents, public participation in the budget process, and the public availability of procurement information. 2 The data collection period lasted from July to December 2014. The responses to each of the questions in the Survey are used to derive the State Budget Transparency Index that assigns a numerical value between 0 and 100 where higher values denote greater transparency. In addition to the State Budget Transparency Index, three additional sub-indices (using a subset of the questions in the Survey) evaluate three key aspects of financial governance: the State Budget Document Availability Score, the State Public Participation Score, and the State Public Procurement Score.
Key Findings
State Budget Transparency Index 2015 at a Glance. The State Budget Transparency Survey 2015 finds that, overall, the state of budget transparency around the country is deplorable. In most of the states surveyed the public does not have access to comprehensive and timely information needed to participate meaningfully in the budget process and to hold government to account. This lack of transparency encourages inappropriate, wasteful, and corrupt spending and—because it shuts the public out of decision making—reduces the legitimacy and impact of anti-poverty initiatives. Each of the multiple choice responses to questions in the Survey are assigned a value. A state’s score and placement within a performance category is determined by averaging the responses to 51 questions on the State Budget Transparency Questionnaire related to information contained
in the eight key budget documents that all states should make available to the public. The State Budget Transparency Index 2015 finds that over half of Nigerian states fail to provide: adequate budget information to the public, opportunities for public involvement throughout the budget process, and publicly available information on the procurement process. Only Cross River, Ekiti, and Lagos states score above 50 on the State Budget Transparency Index, meaning that, on average, they publish more than half of the eight key budget documents, they hold consultations to provide inputs in budget formulation and public hearings on the budget, and they publish bidding documentation and awards on procurement projects. Twelve states are moderate performers, scoring 25 to 50 on the Index. This means that these states provide some budget documents to the public in a timely manner, hold public hearings at the State House of Assembly during the approval of the budget,and release basic information on the procurement process. The remaining 21 states score less than 25 out of a possible 100 on the State Budget Transparency Index, meaning they provide minimal, scant, or no budget information to the public, opportunities for public participation, or information on the procurement process.
Further analysis of the State Budget Transparency Index and its individual sub-indices follows. Public availability of key budget documents. The State Budget Document Availability Score evaluates the public availability in a timely manner of the eight key budget documents, including: State Budget Call Circular, State Draft Estimates, State Budget Appropriation Law, State Quarterly Reports, State Mid-Year Review, State Accountant General’s Report, and the State Auditor-General’s Report. Few states make key budget documents available in a timely manner. Only Adamawa, Benue, Cross River, Ekiti, and Lagos states score above 50 by making an average of four out of eight documents publicly available. Ten states score between 25 and 50 points and make three out of eight documents available, on average.
Twenty-one states score below 25 meaning that, on average, only one of eight budget documents are available in these states.
Public participation in the budget process.
In addition to timely access to budget information, public participation is key to ensure government accountability. The State Public Participation Score evaluates participation in all stages of the budget process: formulation, approval, execution, and auditing. Overall, participation is fairly limited in Nigerian states. Only Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Ekiti, and Lagos states scored 50 or above; they hold consultations on what should be included in the State Draft Estimates, hold public hearings on the budget, and provide mechanisms for participation in the budget execution and auditing processes.
Twelve states scored between 25 and 50, with most states having some public hearings on the budget but few states allowing citizens to provide inputs for the State Draft Estimates. Citizens in the remaining 20 states usually do not have public hearings during the final legislative approval stage.
Public access to procurement information
The last section of the Survey evaluates the existence of a State Procurement law and the availability of bidding documents, contract awards, and project dispute resolution mechanisms. The State Public Procurement Score finds that few states provide significant information about the procurement process in their states. Those states that scored above 50 out of 100 – only Cross River, Ekiti, Jigawa, Lagos, Rivers, Sokoto, and Taraba states – have a State Procurement law and provide the public with most bidding documents and contract awards. The ten states that score between 25 and 50 points have a State Procurement Law and publish some contract awards, for the most part. The remaining 19 states that scored below 25 do not have a State Procurement Law and sparingly publish contract awards.
Recommendations
States should use existing resources to make publicly available all budget documents that are already produced at no cost and on time by making reference copies of budget documents available at public information desks and in state libraries. States can partner with the donor community and the private sector to develop websites where budget documents can be posted.
State governors, Honourable Members in SHoAs, and Auditors-General should provide and institutionalise spaces for effective public participation in the budget process. Citizens and civil society can help identify areas and sectors with the greatest need to help an already burdened state government.
State governments should produce Citizen’s Budgets. Citizen’s Budgets are powerful tools for state governments to disseminate budget information in accessible language. National and sub-national governments are increasingly understanding the importance of not only publishing budget information but doing so in formats that would be easily understood by the majority of citizens. Citizen’s Budgets are integral to ensuring that the public understands the sources of public funds and how the government is proposing to spend them.
The procurement process in states should be regulated by legislation and have an open, competitive, and transparent awarding process.
Each state should have procurement laws that are assented and implemented to appropriately regulate the procurement process. Such laws should exhort state governments to ensure that all bidding documents are available from a procurement agency. Such an agency should publish awarded contracts with their justifications in a timely manner.
Looking Ahead
Ensuring budget accountability is not a one-time activity. It requires that all accountability actors are committed to establishing open and transparent budget and procurement processes. However, it is the responsibility of state governors to publish timely budget information and the responsibility of civil society to pressure governments to publish such information. It is the intention that this report serves as a basis for reform in state governments to ensure that budget information is publicly
available in a timely manner. CIRDDOC intends to continue to be a part of the accountability ecosystem in Nigerian states by conducting the State Budget Transparency Survey every two years.
Structure of the report
Section 2 of this report goes in depth laying out the arguments for transparency and participation in the budget and procurement processes. The third section focuses on how to measure budget transparency and participation and procurement transparency in Nigerian states. The results of the survey and more information on the political economy of transparency and participation are presented in Section 4. The concluding section offers recommendations and challenges for the
implementation of budget and procurement transparency and participation.
Key
The states that scored:
76-100 % Provide Extensive Information,
51-75 % Provide Significant Information,
25-50 % Provide Some Information,
16-25 % Provide Minimal Information,
0-15 % Provide Scant or No Information
Courtesy Cirddoc Nigeria
Comments are closed.