“From the outside looking in, it’s hard to understand. From the inside looking out, it’s hard to explain.” – Anonymous
Governance remains one of the most formidable obstacles to sustainable development across many societies. Where public institutions are poorly managed, resources intended to improve citizens’ welfare are often wasted, misallocated, or diverted from their original purposes. The consequences manifest in poor economic indicators, weak healthcare systems, declining educational outcomes, rising unemployment, and a steady erosion of public trust in government.
Governance is not merely about holding public office; it is fundamentally about the responsible stewardship of public resources and the delivery of services in the broader public interest. When leaders fail to plan effectively, make decisions driven by personal or political considerations, or neglect their official duties, society bears the ultimate cost.
The Scourge of Wasteful Governance
Bad governance frequently results in abandoned projects, inflated contracts, unnecessary expenditures, duplication of government programmes, and investments that yield minimal public value. Funds that could have built schools, hospitals, roads, modern water systems, and created employment opportunities are instead expended without delivering meaningful outcomes.
Public resources are inherently finite, particularly given rapid population growth, and must therefore be managed with efficiency and prudence. Waste occurs when government spending fails to deliver commensurate value, or when projects are poorly conceived, executed, or maintained.
A government may allocate substantial funds to a project, yet citizens may experience little or no improvement due to weak supervision, ineffective procurement systems, corruption, or a poor maintenance culture. In many cases, the challenge is not the absence of financial resources but rather deficiencies in management, planning, and accountability.
Waste also arises when governments initiate projects primarily for political visibility rather than genuine public need. Such initiatives are often launched with significant fanfare but may be abandoned once political priorities shift.
The Accountability Deficit
Accountability is the cornerstone of effective governance. Public officials are expected to provide clear explanations of how public funds are generated, allocated, and utilised, and to be held responsible for any misuse or mismanagement of resources.
However, accountability is often weakened when oversight institutions are ineffective, public financial records are neither transparent nor accessible, procurement processes lack due diligence, or citizens are discouraged from scrutinising government actions.
In the absence of accountability, public office can become a platform for personal enrichment rather than public service. When officials operate without fear of consequences for poor performance or financial misconduct, inefficiency and abuse of resources tend to become entrenched.
The Jigawa Context
In Jigawa State, this issue is particularly critical given that governments manage substantial public resources. Since the start of this administration, increased federal allocations following the removal of fuel subsidies, higher taxation revenues, and other income sources have placed significant financial resources at the state’s disposal—resources that citizens expect to translate into improved living standards.
Jigawa, like other states, faces considerable development challenges. Consequently, every naira allocated to government carries immense significance. Citizens have a legitimate expectation to understand how public funds are allocated, which projects are being implemented, their costs, and the extent to which they achieve intended outcomes.
Budgets should not merely serve as formal documents containing ambitious figures; they must represent realistic and actionable plans for improving citizens’ welfare. Similarly, public expenditure should be evaluated not only in terms of amounts spent but also in terms of measurable outcomes and tangible impact.
The Path Forward
Addressing bad governance requires stronger institutions and a deeply embedded culture of accountability. Government should ensure that budgets, procurement data, financial statements, and project implementation reports are published in accessible and transparent formats. Independent audit institutions—at federal, state, and local government levels—and legislative oversight bodies must be strengthened to function effectively, not as mere rubber stamps. Citizens and civil society organisations should be empowered to scrutinise public spending without undue restriction.
Greater emphasis must be placed on value for money. Prior to approving billions for major projects, governments should clearly define objectives, costs, timelines, expected benefits, and robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks.
Most importantly, political leadership must recognise that public resources are not private assets. They belong to the people and must be managed strictly in the public interest.
Conclusion
Governance, resource management, and weak accountability are closely interconnected challenges. Poor leadership creates conditions that enable waste; waste reduces the resources available for development; and weak accountability allows these inefficiencies to persist.
Sustainable development, therefore, is not achieved merely through increased revenue or larger budgets. It requires responsible leadership, prudent financial management, transparency, effective oversight, and enforceable consequences for misconduct.
Ultimately, government should be assessed by its tangible impact on the lives of citizens. When public resources are managed responsibly, they become powerful instruments for development. When they are mismanaged without accountability, they become a burden on society and a missed opportunity for present and future generations.
Beyond Publication: The Questions That Matter
Publishing budgets and audit reports is important, but accountability must not stop there. Citizens need to know:
· What was allocated to the state from the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) on a timely basis?
· What was borrowed for the state, and what has been done with those funds?
· How much money was approved out of the budgetary allocation?
· How much was actually released?
· Who received government contracts?
· What was delivered?
· What did the project actually cost?
· Was the project completed?
· Who inspected and certified the work?
· What happened when government officials or contractors failed to perform?
These questions should not be regarded as attacks on government. They are legitimate inquiries in any functioning democracy.
The World Bank’s experience with the State Fiscal Transparency, Accountability and Sustainability (SFTAS) programme demonstrates that reforms can improve budget publication, financial reporting, procurement, and citizen engagement. However, it also emphasises that transparency must ultimately be connected to better fiscal outcomes and improved service delivery.
