For three years, Gov. Udom Emmanuel copiously insinuated and hid behind the excuse of having inherited huge debts from his predecessor
For about three years, Governor Udom Emmanuel has repeatedly referred to the financial obligations inherited from his predecessor and political mentor, Senator Godswill Akpabio, as one of the major challenges confronting his administration.
On several occasions, the governor and members of his administration have spoken about the difficulty of meeting outstanding pension and gratuity obligations, while also explaining the government’s approach to funding existing projects and initiating new ones.
Many Akwa Ibom residents accepted the explanation and sympathised with the administration over what was presented as a difficult financial situation.
However, questions about the actual size and composition of the state’s inherited debt have continued to generate debate.
Despite calls from some members of the State House of Assembly, political actors and members of the public for greater clarification of the state’s debt profile, details surrounding the liabilities inherited by the Emmanuel administration have remained a subject of public discussion.
Against this background, a statement issued on June 13, 2018 by Jackson Udom, then media aide to Senator Godswill Akpabio, has now added another dimension to the debate.
Udom was responding to a social media publication which claimed that the Akpabio administration left behind about N500 billion in debt.
According to him, the Akpabio administration obtained loans totalling N80 billion during its tenure, and the facilities were approved by the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly.
He further claimed that the administration handed over an outstanding debt burden of less than N60 billion to the incoming government in 2015.
Jackson Udom also listed several assets and projects inherited by the Emmanuel administration, including hospitals, hotels, the Ibom International Airport, the Godswill Akpabio International Stadium, Ibom Power Plant and the Gas Processing Plant at Esit Eket.
He argued that some of these facilities were expected to contribute to the state’s economic development and revenue generation.
Another issue raised in the statement was the number of road projects and other infrastructure inherited by the present administration.
According to Udom, the Akpabio administration handed over at least 37 highways, flyovers and bridges to the succeeding government.
He also referred to funds expected from the Federal Government under the Paris Club refund arrangements, putting the figure at more than $103 million.
The former governor’s aide further claimed that the state was entitled to more than N145 billion in verified refunds relating to infrastructure executed by the state on behalf of the Federal Government.
He also cited another N78 billion expected through National Assembly-approved bond-related refunds.
Udom maintained that the Akpabio administration received less than N1.7 trillion throughout its eight years in office and claimed that the state had only one major bank liability, involving United Bank for Africa (UBA), at the time Akpabio left office.
These claims have now become part of the wider political argument over Akwa Ibom’s finances and the economic performance of the Emmanuel administration.
At the time of the statement, the Akwa Ibom State Government had yet to publicly respond to the specific figures contained in Jackson Udom’s release.
The controversy has also revived questions about the state’s revenue profile, its debt obligations and the management of funds accruing to the state since Governor Emmanuel assumed office in June 2015.
Critics of the administration have questioned whether the state’s financial resources are being deployed in a manner that adequately reflects the revenue available to government.
They have also raised concerns about the performance of some sectors, particularly education, healthcare and industrial development, while calling for greater transparency in government finances and project implementation.
Supporters of the administration, however, have continued to point to the government’s development initiatives and policies as evidence of its commitment to transforming the state.
At the centre of the debate is therefore a straightforward question that continues to resonate among Akwa Ibom residents: how much did the present administration inherit, how much has it received since taking office, how much has been spent, and what remains outstanding?
Those questions can only be satisfactorily answered through clear and verifiable figures from the relevant government authorities.
For many residents, greater transparency on the state’s debt profile, revenue receipts, refunds, expenditure and ongoing projects would go a long way towards settling the continuing controversy.
As the debate intensifies, attention is increasingly focused on the financial records of the state and the explanations that may emerge from both the present administration and its predecessor.
For now, however, the controversy over Akwa Ibom’s finances remains alive, with political arguments on both sides and residents seeking clearer answers about the management of the state’s resources.
0 Comments