Peculiarities of implementing Special Public Works Programme across LGA’s

Beyond the rift between National Assembly Joint Committee on Labour and the Minister of State for Labour and Employment (hereafter, the Federal Minister), it is important to cross-examine the job outlines and contents of the 774, 000 special public works programme with the realities across the Local Government Areas (LGAs) in Nigeria. While the National Assembly Joint Committee holds obligatory roles to perform oversight on the activities of special public works programme with well-intended effects as the underlying assumption. It is, to the same extent, morally fit for the Federal Minister to guide the programme administratively and religiously without enabling political clogs in the wheels of the programme implementation process.

Nevertheless, the public concern is largely precipitating upon its economic consideration and stimulus capabilities for survival in this critical period. Unfortunately, much attention was observably centered on the politics of recruitment with less interest on the implementation agenda across diverse local cultures and topographies. It has become axiomatic that a well-designed policy/programme might suffer at the execution stage consequent upon inadequate technical review of implementation plan.

Also, the diffuse nature of the programme could create a wide gap between the overarching goal of the programme and the implementation at the local level. In addition, little or no efforts have been geared towards addressing the overlapping nature of the special public works which would, most likely, necessitate legislations for smooth coherence with similar public works that might be carrying out by other levels of governments. Moreover, there seems to be obscurity in terms of possible policy outcomes which the programme could smartly be measured against at the time lapse. There is also a question about the shortness of the programme duration (3 months) for result-oriented implementation exercise.

The special public works programme is first of its kind in terms of establishing a direct connection between the local people and national economy. This underlines the relative laudability of this presidential initiative on 1,000 jobs across each of the 774 LGAs in Nigeria.  However, there are three identifiable enablers of implementation worthy of consideration for a grassroots-centered programme of this nature. Broadly, leadership becomes foremost as the key enabler of the implementation.

In this case, craftsmanship style of leadership seems suitable which would manage complexities and interdependence as well as local emerging issues in the course of implementation. Specifically, this leadership structure is earlier expected to be strapped in each of the LGAs that would shrewdly define exigency needs of the heterogeneous local communities. This should be a pre-implementation activity upon which local manpower would be recruited under this scheme of special public works programme. At second, systematic bottom-up communications should be defined for sharing information about the dynamics, complexities and milestones of the special public works programme across the LGAs in Nigeria.

Specifically, exhibitions of valuable works represent a medium of systematic communication to the public and sense of fulfillments by the coordinating agencies of the programme. Continuity remains a big question in the outlines of the programme. Despite its transient in dry season/off season, its contents should be designed in a life-long context so that its implementation strategies could stand the test of time; and be a subject of modification on seasonal basis.

This programme is adopted on the basis of its workability in foreign cultures without taking cognisance of the Nigerian local dynamics. Moreover, the public engagements of the beneficiaries are not, in any way, special works across localities. They are the usual routine public duties already being carried out at the respective state and local government levels.

On the contrary, the Indian example was thoroughly domesticated in local labour intensive infrastructural projects not just with a view to alleviating the poverty status of unskilled residents, but also facilitating the catalysis of local development agenda. This became achievable, not just in three months, as envisioned in the Nigerian case with less economic-driven responsibilities. Another peculiarity becomes considerable in terms of the provisioning of light equipment for the work duties.

Suffice to say that, this is yet to be ‘logistically’ addressed in the programme protocol. Hence, the beneficiaries might likely wait for the provisions during the commencement of the works – which could constitute an act of time wastage. Also, the medical treatment scheme should be envisaged for possible health hazards infringing upon beneficiaries during the course of the public works. These issues are supposed to have been clearly attended upon prior to implementation.

It is however much expected that outcomes of the pilot study should have also prepared a congenial ground for the programme implementation. Evidences of which are not evincible across 40 LGAs in the eight pilot States. What is even more to be technically addressed is the assessment of economic significance of the programme on the 40, 000 itinerant workers during the pilot period for good projection towards its nation-wide implementation. This would aid projection for ancillary equipment needs, economic propensity for beneficiaries and rural economic benefits of the programme.

The trepidation of programme politicisation still beckons, despite the ‘political’ non-alignment of the state selection committee. This is because politicisation is, by inference, an act of allocating who gets what, when and how. Thus, the committee seemingly has a mandate of politicisation: more open is the Ministerial directive to allot not more than 10 per cent of the political office holders in each of the states. A rhetorical question is that: will the allotment only be restricted to that of the Federal Minister’s directive alone? Won’t the committee members replicate the same for themselves? The possibilities of slot requests by traditional institutions among other stakeholders are predictably plausible. So, what is then left for the interested applicants to benefit? More wearisome, the minister decided to constitute the state selection committees across the states of the federation with little or no signature of monitoring and supervising mechanisms, except for the acclaimed and impractical online technology.

Also, the committees would double as the main identifiers of the works to be done across the LGAs in their respective States. A quick question here is that: Do the committee constituents have the civil, technical and environmental competences to identify or recommend public works to be done? Going forward, there is tactical need for affiliations with the state ministries, departments and agencies on collaborative public works, as mapped out at the special Inter-ministerial committee meeting at the federal level.

Besides, state complementary benefits are expected to be considered in this programme; and the institutional supervisions can also be carried out by the State for the purpose of project integration and structural orderliness in line with the existing project plans and specifications. Another issue is the non-involvement of Local Government Works Department in the execution of the special public works in their jurisdictions. It is important to state that local institutional support system remains imperceptible in the implementation of a top-down programme of this nature. This appears inordinate for many administrative reasons.

Local peculiarities are important valuables aimed at ensuring the realisation of the special public works programme outcomes. The peculiar factors are hedging towards the improvement of the contents of the programme. In furtherance, it is therefore instructive to annotate the implementation strategies guiding the peculiarities. Creation of list of outcomes is a leading strategy for the programme. This should be created in each of the LGAs across the country. It should succinctly state what the special public works would be, prioritise them in terms of exigency, and what are their expected results on the local communities. In furtherance, assignment of the works should be given to professional team with civil knowledge and technical expertise with some personal traits of passion, interest and commitment to successful implementation of the programme. These criteria are to be clearly defined by the selection committee.

Also, steps of activity must be well-ordered and explained in terms of what to be done, who gives the instructions and material? In face of adversity, who do we complain to? Upon these clear outlines, a tracking sheet should then be put in place for monitoring the outlined duties and responsibilities. More importantly, it will give a comprehensive update on the duties and responsibilities that are complete, in progress or late. It thus enables quick response to impeding factors so that the programme comes back on track. At least, these are simple project management tasks to guide the peculiarities of the programme at the local level.

As stated by the minister, the registration process should be well-monitored and made conducive for the beneficiaries: most of them are assumed to be less technologically savvy. The customer care system of the selected banks should be reviewed for easy access and registration. Also, the stipend payment system via the Central Bank of Nigeria is highly commendable because of its non-intermediary intrusion by any of the committees or even the coordinating agency, National Directorate of Employment (NDE).

This must be further strengthened to ensure prompt payment as and when due. There should also be a complaint avenue for the beneficiaries in case of non-payment among other transactional accounting errors and omissions. It will presumably be more laudable if the stipend is tax-free. This suggestion should be considered, if not standing opposite to any tax law. In addition, the NDE should adopt best practices for the implementation of this local economic empowerment and development programme.

Conclusively, the special public works programme is a catalyst for poverty eradication especially for its beneficiaries. Its outcomes would achieve some levels of project maintenance; manage disasters and emergencies; as well as, mitigate collapse of public properties across the LGAs in the country. It would subdue the level of criminality and crime rate mostly carried out by unemployed youth. By the virtue of this programme, local economy would most likely increase in terms of peoples’ sustenance and evident purchasing powers. In lieu of these and other indefinite advantages, this programme should be cautiously implemented vis-à-vis its contents taking cognisance of dynamics and complexities across the LGAs in Nigeria.

Dr. Lamidi, a lecturer in the Department of Local Government and Development Studies, OAU writes via akandekande@oauife.edu.ng

YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THESE HEADLINES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE