The pointed charges against the 36 governors under the aegis of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF) should serve as a strong notice of the failings of the country’s democracy. The governors must identify and correct these lapses to enable Nigeria to reach her potential for development more rapidly than the current one-step-forward and two-step-backwards motion.

Very importantly, governors should recognise that their input to the country’s political and economic well-being is invaluable; its proper application can make a huge difference in the prosperity or failure of Nigeria. The popular verdict of Nigerians, so far, is that the governors have failed largely in their governance duty.

Chief Edwin Clark, well known for, on the one hand, his sustained interest in national affairs and good governance, and on the other hand, his style of speaking truth to power, has come down hard on the Nigerian Governors’ Forum constituted of governors of the 36 states of the Nigerian federation. He accused them of generally undermining democracy and constitutional governance.

He also charged them with failing in their gubernatorial duty to deliver good governance as envisaged in this constitutional democracy. In an eight-point list of dereliction, Clark cited, among others, the use of the NGF as a ‘notorious cabal’ that serves as a ‘platform for power without accountability, influence without responsibility’, of ‘manipulation of [state] legislative processes’, and of ‘challenging constitutional order and stifling local government autonomy’.

Many citizens who have closely witnessed how the state chief executives have gone about their constitutionally well-defined duty will agree with Chief Clark’s scathing observations. A pertinent question is: what are the roles and duties of state governors? Section 176 (2) of the 1999 Constitution states that ‘the governor of a state shall be the Chief Executive of that state’. In the ordinary meaning of the term, a chief executive is fully responsible for the overall management for good results, of the organisation he heads. As the ‘active decision maker’ on policy and strategy, as the ‘leader’ he or she is ‘ultimately accountable for the success or failure of the organisation. A governor, as head of the second tier of government in this federation, is duty-bound to unreservedly implement the provision of section 14 (2) (b) of the extant constitution to wit: ‘the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.’

In line with the clear duty assigned to government at each level by section 14 (2)(b), if the states are not secure, if the people sink into multi-dimensional poverty, if the state is neither growing nor developing as it reasonably should, the successive governors must be called to account. But the governor ‘on top’ must be held responsible because, as chief executive, the buck stops at his desk. Whatever is wrong with the NGF is directly the effect of all that is wrong with the governors who constitute it.

That, as Chief Clark alleges, the NGF has not kept faith with its self-defined vision and mission is glaring enough. This body claims a vision to be a strong, non-partisan institution which actively and effectively promotes inclusiveness, democratic values, good governance, and sustainable development. It commits itself to the mission ‘to provide a platform for collaboration among Executive Governors (a designation alien to the Constitution) on matters of public policy, …promote good governance, sharing of good practices, and …enhance cooperation at the state level and with other arms of government and society’. This is typical of Nigerian institutions that are long in avowal but miserably short in living the principles.

Despite that, the NGF is modelled ostensibly after the American National Governors’ Association (NGA) founded in 1908 to seek ‘bipartisan policy solutions,’ the Nigerian version falls far short of imitating the former. For example, the NGA actively partners with the private sector to solve their states’ challenges. The association says it aims for ‘policy, not politics’, for ‘ideas, not ideology’, for ‘substance not spin’, ‘collaboration, not rhetoric’, ‘inclusive not exclusive’, and ‘leaders, not followers’. We challenge the NGF to benchmark and publish its activities against these catchphrases since its inception in 1999.

The state governors since 1999, have, generally, shown a lack of, first, ingenious thinking to marshal and expand their states’ resources for transformative development, and second of self-control in deploying available resources to serve the public, instead of personal interest. A combination of power and money in their hands has tended to bring out the worst of otherwise normal, well-educated men and women. Thoughtfulness appears distant from persons in charge of affairs in this polity.

In a manner that reflects a somewhat monarchical mindset, popularly elected state governors have chosen to run state affairs as if they are kings over subjects, as if public resources are private to the lord of the manor. The depressing consequence of these gross betrayals of public trust – for the governorship position is a sacred trust – is the decline in all aspects of public service and public life in the states. Hardly has any state merely met the development goals set periodically by the United Nations, despite the huge amount of money available locally and from foreign loans and grants. Much of the funds available for state development is stolen outright or wasted, irresponsibly, on self-aggrandizing spending and white elephant projects named after themselves, expensive vehicles, and bigger government houses.

Almost consistently, the governors get their state development priorities wrong, as can be seen from yearly budgetary allocations specifically in the most recent examples on public health and education. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that governments spend 5 per cent of their yearly budgets on health. In its wisdom, the African Union (AU) agreed in the 2001 Abuja Declaration to 15 per cent. This sensible decision is for at least two good reasons: first, health is the first form of wealth for a person as well as for a nation; sick people cannot at all be productive for development and progress. Second, among the continents of the world, Africa lags miserably behind and has a lot of catching up to do concerning public health.

A look at some of the states’ budgets reveals disappointing attention to the health of their citizens. In the 2025 budget, Lagos State allocates a meagre 6.79% of its huge N3.36 trillion to the health sector; Bayelsa State 2.77% of its 689.4 billion; Katsina State 6.34% of its N682 billion, Enugu allocates 4.72% of its N971 billion, and Ogun State 13% of its N1.054 trillion. However, a few states have earned their respect by meeting or exceeding the AU recommendation. Kano State is putting 16.5% of its N549.16 billion 2025 budget into the health sector; Kaduna 16.07% of N790 billion, and Abia State 15% of its N750.2 billion.

The point to note in these allocations is that as good and bad leadership is a matter of character, a state chief executive sets priorities according to this character. This point remains valid regarding the states’ allocation to education, the primary instrument to develop their human capital which, it is trite to say, is the most important asset of any nation.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) recommends that countries allocate a minimum of 15% (but preferably up to 26%) of annual budgets to the education sector. The amounts dedicated to this critically important sector by successive governments in Nigeria can only be described as embarrassing. Consider the following in their 2025 budgets: Lagos State at 6.93% and Bayelsa at 6.83%. These abject allocations can only be described as contemptuous of the National Policy on Education (NPE) 2013. Section 155 requires that at least 26% …of the Federal, State, and Local Government budgets should be dedicated to funding education at all levels. Even the Federal Government is in breach of its own documented policy. The 2025 budget allocates only 7% of its N49.74 trillion to education.

However, some human development-minded state chief executives are doing what is right for their people. Enugu State budgets 32.99%, Kano State 31%, Abia State 20%, Kaduna State 26.14%.

An association is only as honourable, purposeful and impactful as the quality of its members. Regardless of its mission statement, the ‘sharing of good practices’ among the governor members of the NGF is more remembered for the humongous retirement benefits they copied from one another. The avowed ‘cooperation with other arms of government’ is practised more as crude interference, arm-twisting, and blackmail of other arms government. To behave as a potentate over a conquered electorate is a far cry from the promotion of ‘good governance’.

The NGF does not even function as ‘a strong, non-partisan institution’. It appears more like a collection of –narrow sub-national interest groups such as The Southern Governors’ Forum, the Northern Governors’ Forum, the South-South Governors’ Forum, and even the PDP Governors’ Forum. With such fragmentation, how can it achieve a unity of purpose? These governors do not show the maturity nor the sagacity to cooperate meaningfully in the interest of their peoples, within their regional groups such as BRACED and the NDDC in the South-South, DAWN in the Southwest, and the SEDC in the Southeast.

But of course, the NGF does agree on some things, such as self-serving issues as stiff resistance to the federal government’s attempt to break governors’ literal stranglehold on the local councils, and, in a not too distant past the refund of foreign loan deductions, and related matters. However, the governors have been found wanting on such more urgent matters as the creation of state police to strengthen local security, a transparent peer review mechanism that reveals outstanding improvement in internally generated revenue, prudent management, and judicious application of resources.

It is axiomatic that not everyone in a leadership position is necessarily a leader. We should say directly: governors and all persons in public office urgently and desperately need to learn leadership skills so that, among many other failings, they feel a sufficient sense of shame not to educate their children abroad and seek medical care in foreign lands.

Chief Edwin Clark urges the NGF to revisit its vision, reform itself, and adhere more faithfully to its stated mission. This is a piece of timely advice that only the governors who do it can bring to pass. And it will be wise of them to heed his words of wisdom.

Alas, in a systemically dysfunctional state where to borrow from Barbara Tuchman, people in government gain power over others only to lose it over themselves, it is possible to avoid the current ‘persistence of unwisdom’ among high officials at all levels of government. (The Guardian Editorial)