Continued from last week
It will be seen from V and VI that, with the solitary exception of Niger, all States fare better, and most States much, much better, under our proposals than under those of the Federal Government.
What is more, our proposals are positively promotive of the basic factors of real progress, and of those things that enhance the dignity factors of real progress, and of those things that enhance the dignity of well-being of the entire people. Above all, our proposals are just and equitable. States which have not yet embarked on free education, are not in any way discriminated against. On the contrary, they are provided, in financial terms, with all the sinews of education, technology, and’ health. It is realized that most of the children for whom provisions are made are not yet in the schools. But with funds for capital and recurrent expenditures in their hands before enrolment, the preparations for a successful take-off become a matter of planning, not of financial wherewithal. No arrangement can be fairer, more just and equitable than the one now proposed.
The effect of these proposals is that the States will take 44 per cent of the Federation Account, leaving 56 per cent to be shared between the Federal Government and the Local Governments. It is suggested that this should be shared by giving 45 per cent to the Federal Government, 8 per cent to Local Governments, and 3 per cent for federal grants under Section 151 of the Constitution. In sum, the effects of our proposals are as follows:
Three comments are necessary at this juncture for clarification.
Firstly, I regard Abuja as a charge on the revenue of the Federal Government, and it is from this source that the expense for its initial and continuing development should be disbursed.
Secondly, 1.5 per cent proposed by the Federal Government “to be specifically used for the development of the mineral producing areas” has been more than taken care of in our proposed formula. One important advantage of the latter over that of the Federal Government must not be overlooked. Instead of waiting for grants from the Federal Government which may take long in coming, the state concerned can proceed with the development of its area immediately.
Thirdly, with regard to Local Governments, it must be borne in mind that they are further entitled to such proportion of the total revenue of each state government as may be prescribed by the National Assembly. In this circumstances, it goes without saying that 8 per cent of N6.5 billion which is N250 million is much higher than 8 per cent of N4.5 billion which is N360 million – a favourable difference of N160 million. It must be pointed out that, in both of these cases, we have taken no account of 8 per cent of revenue generated within each state. In other words, the Local Governments stand to gain tremendously under this arrangement rather than under that of the Federal Government.
To be continued