The Kwankwasiyya Movement expresses serious concern over reports that the Kano State Government intends to compel the 44 Local Government Councils in the State to undertake loan obligations reportedly amounting to approximately ₦55 billion from a leading commercial bank.
According to the information available to us, each Local Government Council may be required to assume a financial obligation approaching ₦1.3 billion, with the proceeds reportedly earmarked for the establishment of Computer-Based Testing (CBT) centres, an unspecified project and an empowerment programme.
Read also: KBSG Accuses Former Minister of Justice Over UNDP Poverty Report
A statement signed by Dr. Habibu Sale Mohammed Spokesperson,Kwankwasiyya Movement said while we recognise the importance of educational infrastructure and economic empowerment, these objectives must be pursued through transparent, lawful and financially responsible arrangements that protect the interests of the people.
It said that our fundamental question is: Why should the 44 Local Government Councils be compelled to assume substantial debt obligations for projects reportedly to be administered by the State Government, rather than being allowed to exercise independent judgment over their financial priorities and development needs?
1. WHY THIS LOAN, AND WHY NOW?
The reported timing of this proposed borrowing raises legitimate questions, particularly with the approaching electoral cycle. Why is a loan of this magnitude necessary at this particular time, and what evidence demonstrates that the proposed projects cannot be funded through existing budgetary provisions and available public revenue?
Kano State and its Local Government Councils receive public revenue from statutory allocations and other lawful sources. The State Government must therefore explain its revenue position, existing financial commitments and the justification for imposing additional debt obligations on local councils.
We are not alleging that the proposed loan is intended to finance an election. However, the timing makes it imperative that adequate safeguards be established to ensure that the proceeds are used exclusively for approved public projects and are not diverted, directly or indirectly, to partisan political activities.
Public borrowing must be driven by demonstrable development needs, not electoral considerations or political convenience.
2. WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE 44 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FINANCING?
The reported breakdown includes approximately ₦632.57 million per council for a CBT centre, ₦500 million for an unspecified project and approximately ₦117.41 million for an empowerment programme, subject to verification against the original documents.
We demand a detailed explanation of these allocations. Where will the CBT centres be located? Who conducted the feasibility studies and cost assessments? What exactly is the project carrying an allocation of ₦500 million, and why has its description not been made public? How many beneficiaries will benefit from the empowerment programme, and what mechanisms will ensure transparent selection and disbursement?
No Local Government Chairman should be expected to sign a financial obligation of this magnitude without understanding its full legal and financial implications.
3. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE PREVIOUS JOINT EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMME
We further demand a comprehensive account of the funds reportedly contributed or released by Local Government Councils to the State Government under the joint empowerment programme, particularly the monthly women’s empowerment initiative.
How much did each council contribute from the inception of the programme? What was the total amount received by the State Government? How much was actually disbursed to beneficiaries, what administrative expenses were incurred, and what happened to any remaining balance?
Why did the programme reportedly operate for fewer than ten months despite the expectations created around its continuation?
Before the councils are asked to incur fresh debts for another empowerment programme, the government must account for the previous funds and explain the status of the initiative.
4. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY AND THE ISSUING BANK
We call on the Kano State House of Assembly to clarify whether it has formally approved or authorised the proposed arrangement and, if so, to publish the relevant legislative resolution and supporting documents.
The Assembly must demonstrate that the financial implications, repayment obligations, project costs and legal basis of the arrangement have received proper scrutiny.
We also appeal directly to the commercial bank reportedly considering the facility to exercise the highest standards of professional due diligence. The bank should independently verify the authority of each borrowing council, the legality of the proposed security arrangements, the repayment capacity of the borrowers and the intended use of the proceeds.
The bank must also ensure that appropriate safeguards exist to prevent the diversion of funds and that the arrangement complies with applicable laws governing public borrowing and local government finances.
Our appeal is not a threat to the bank. It is a reminder that lending involving public institutions carries legal, financial and reputational responsibilities that must be taken seriously.
A change of government does not automatically cancel a valid loan. Nevertheless, a future administration has a legitimate responsibility to examine inherited financial commitments and pursue appropriate remedies where credible evidence of illegality or irregularity exists. Any bank entering this arrangement should therefore ensure that the transaction can withstand independent legal, financial and public scrutiny, regardless of which administration is in office.
5. PROTECTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY AND PUBLIC INTEREST
The Supreme Court’s July 2024 judgment on local government financial autonomy reinforces the importance of protecting the financial independence of local councils. The legality of this particular proposal will depend on its actual structure, including who borrows, who controls the proceeds, whose revenue is pledged and which approvals are required.
We therefore call for an independent legal assessment to establish that the proposed arrangement complies with the Constitution, applicable local government laws, borrowing regulations and restrictions relating to local government allocations.
The Local Government Chairmen must not become mere signatories to obligations whose proceeds they do not control and whose repayment could undermine their ability to provide essential services to their constituents.
CONCLUSION
The people of Kano State deserve to know why their Local Government Councils are being asked to assume substantial debts, who will control the proceeds, what benefits the projects will deliver and how the obligations will be repaid.
Read also: PRESIDENCY REPLIES GOVERNOR MAKINDE’S CLAIM ON NLNG DIVIDENDS
We urge the State Government to provide clear answers, the Local Government Chairmen to protect the financial interests of their constituents, the House of Assembly to exercise effective oversight, and the issuing bank to ensure that every legal and professional requirement is satisfied.
Public borrowing must serve the public interest, not political convenience. Local government finances must be protected, public funds must be accounted for, and no administration should impose avoidable financial burdens on the people of Kano State.
