Abuja FileAll The NewsIssueNewsPoliticsSecurityState House

Fayose, Yari Differ on ECA Fund Withdrawal

4 Mins read

 

By Time Nigeria

 

The Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, Alhaji Abdulaziz Yari, the Governor of Zamfara State and the Ekiti State Governor, Mr. Ayodele Fayose, on Tuesday, publicly disagreed on the $1bn the governors recently asked the Federal Government to withdraw from the ECA to fight insurgency.

 

The Zamfara State Governor insisted that the resolution was reached at the forum’s meeting in November, Fayose declared that he was not part of such a decision.

 

The two governors took different positions while addressing State House correspondents at the end of an emergency meeting of the NGF held inside the old Banquet Hall of the Presidential Villa, Abuja.

 

Yari said the decision taken by the governors was not new, stressing that a similar decision to withdraw $2bn from the same account was taken during the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan.

The Chairman Governors’ Forum, Gov. Abdulaziz Yari,

He said, “Nigeria Governors’ Forum discussed this issue at our November meeting and we agreed across party lines that this thing had been done in 2014, where $2bn was withdrawn in agreement with the governors at that meeting. Governor (Godwill) Akpabio (then governor of Akwa Ibom State) was the one that moved the motion.

 

“This time, we realised that there was the need to purchase equipment for the military. So, we felt we should not compromise the issue of security for the entire country.

 

“We said as governors, we agreed to forfeit $1bn out of our own share of excess crude, which we are going to back up with state assembly resolution at a later time.

 

“This is not the first time a decision like this is being taken. It happened during Jonathan’s era when they took $2bn. We all agreed at that time, collectively, in the same chamber to withdraw $2bn to procure equipment for the military and also for logistics for the military because they were telling us whether it was true or false that our soldiers were being killed.

 

“Some came on the social media saying they were being killed like rats because they didn’t have the training and the equipment. That was what generated discussions at the same chamber and there was no controversy; there was no opposition to the decision at that time.”

 

He recalled that under the late President Umaru Yar’Adua, over N5bn was withdrawn when funds were being sourced for the Niger Delta Power Holding Company, added that the same process was followed to withdraw the money from the same account while respective Houses of Assembly confirmed the resolution.

 

Yari urged all stakeholders to stop playing politics with national security.

 

“At the governors’ forum, 12 members form a quorum. At the time we took this decision, we had 32 members in attendance and there was no single opposition to the decision.

 

“If anybody has his own way, that he wants things to go, we had the majority and there was no (even) minority opinion at that meeting.

 

“We looked at the country first before any other issue. It is only when you have the country that you can have politics.”

 

Yari alleged that the Federal Government had, in the past, deducted money from the account illegally. Saying that those in charge, as of the time, failed to listen to the governors’ complaints, expressing delight that the present government listened.

 

On the contrary, Gov. Fayose claimed that he was not in support of the decision to withdraw the $1bn, adding that he had approached the court in order to get justice.

 

The Ekiti State governor stated, “I’m not in support of $1bn and I will never be in support.

 

“In my state, we have agreed to go to court to contest this. It is our legitimate right. All accruals to the federation must be shared by the three tiers of government and for me to get justice, I have to go to court.”

 

Fayose said although the issue was not discussed at the Tuesday meeting, he had taken the appropriate steps because the money belonged to the people of his state.

 

When he was asked if he was opposing the decision on behalf of the Peoples Democratic Party governors, Fayose said, “I am speaking for Ayo Fayose. With the PDP and the stakeholders, we have not met.

Governor of Ekiti State Ayodele Fayose

“I did not attend the meeting. Even if I was part of the meeting, I would have made it expressly clear but I will not support it.

 

“Every state has its own peculiarities in terms of security. In Ekiti State, people are hungry.

 

“A lot of people are being kidnapped daily. Whatever is in that money for me, we should share it. Let everybody go and solve his own problem. I have challenges and they should give me my money. It is Ekiti money.”

 

“I filed the case in court as early as 12noon today. If it was not listed as part of the meeting, how am I going to raise the issue? I have options and I have said it expressly: I have gone to court. He said.

 

“If it was one of the issues discussed, I would have said so. I am not a pretender, I won’t suffer in silence.”

 

In a related development, the Governor of Bayelsa State, Dr Seriake Dickson advised that the approval should not be politicised, the Governor said that the NGF’s decision to grant the Federal Government permission to utilise $1bn from the ECA for security was taken in good fate.

 

Dickson emphasised that the decision was not a political one but meant to strengthen the country’s security apparatus.

 

“It was a decision taken in good fate to support our security services; to strengthen our national security and enhance operations in the interest of everybody else.

 

“This is not a political issue and I thought that I should say that, but the details of what we would do and say and the clarifications will come at the end of the meeting of the governors,” he added.

 

Dickson said the governors would meet later in the day to fine tune how to move the matter further, noting that there was a lot of unnecessary controversy on the approval in the media.

 

He stated, “After the meeting this afternoon, our chairman and some of us may have to talk to the media, may have the need to interact with the President and the Vice-President on it.

 

“These are issues of national security and I think that we, as leaders, must be circumspect in terms of creating controversies on issues of national security.

 

“Our duty is to collaborate among ourselves, collaborate with the Federal Government on two critical issues of national security and issues of the economy, and that is what the NEC does.”

 

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com