EMERGENCIES have their place even in politics. What emergency could have necessitated last minute loans some States are obtaining? How would the burden sit with in-coming administrations, especially in the light of the financial burdens dwindling oil prices pose?

A State has a right to manage its finances and other affairs as it deems fit, as long as it is answerable to the public, the ultimate owners of the resources in question, and the conduct of the affairs are within the law.

These laws include the Fiscal Responsibility Act, FRA, a 2007 law that guides borrowing and management of government finances at federal, state and local government levels. Its thrust is transparency and accountability.

Section 44 (1) of FRA states that, “Any government in the Federation or its agencies and corporations desirous of borrowing shall, specify the purpose for which the borrowing is intended and present a cost benefit analysis, detailing the economic and social benefits of the purpose for which the intended borrowing is to be applied”. According to Subsection (2), “Any borrowing requires the existence of prior authorisation in the Appropriation Act or Law for the purpose for which the borrowing is to be utilised”.

We are concerned that some States are still borrowing less than six months to the end of the administrations. A loan, according to FRA, even if proposed as supplementary budget, should undergo scrutiny to align it with the law. To meet this condition, information on the purposes of loan and the ability to repay it, should be contained in the proposal placed before the legislature.

Section 48 (1) of FRA urges government “to ensure that its fiscal and financial affairs are conducted in a transparent manner and accordingly ensure full and timely disclosure and wide publication of all transactions and decisions involving public revenues and expenditure and their implications for its finances”.

The conduct of State Assemblies in approving loans is below the FRA radar. The vacuous disclosure that loans would be used to pay off existing loans or “complete ongoing projects” is untidy.

We are not opposed to governments obtaining loans. We are, however, totally against procedures that break the law. If a government must take a loan, it should be within the law. Financial institutions that grant loans without appropriate legal backing could lose their money if the matter is tested in court.

Sadly, State Houses of Assembly have become rubber stamps for governors, thus abdicating their mandates of representing the people and acting as check and balance on executive abuses of office. The unholy collaboration is responsible for wastes of public resources.

If States need loans, they should obtain them within the law.