After the deluge of criticisms that attended the embarrassing offshore workshop which the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation organised for some of its staff and 36 state commissioners of finance recently, the Presidency announced certain measures to rein in acts of profligacy and insensitivity in these austere times, albeit, and curiously so, on a temporary basis. In an official communication reportedly signed by Mr. Femi Gbajabiamila, the Chief of Staff (CoS) to President Bola Tinubu, the president placed a three-month ban on ministers, heads of agencies, and other government officials undertaking public-funded foreign trips. The directive issued on March 12 states that the ban will be effective for three months, beginning from April 1st, 2024. Under the directive, officials intending to embark on public-funded international trips must obtain presidential approval at least two weeks prior to their departure and such trips will only be considered if deemed absolutely necessary.

Truth be told, the Presidency ought to have stopped approving this kind of public expenditure after coming to terms with the gravity of the rot in the system, and especially the extent of the parlous state of the economy and its obvious inability to accommodate waste under any guise. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that it has taken the decision even if its action is slightly blighted by the fact that it is a reaction to public censure. It will be more productive and honourable for the Presidency to always take the initiative, be more proactive, and control the narrative in its management of state affairs rather than taking knee-jerk reactions after prompting. It is yet unclear why the Presidency is placing a three-month ban on foreign trips by public officials instead of issuing a comprehensive ban without any timeline. For even in the unlikely event that the economy would have witnessed a full turn around in the next 90 days, that cannot be a plausible reason to resume the kind of wasteful expenditure that landed the country in the current dire straits. We are of the opinion that the ban on foreign trips should be in force until further notice instead of the three-month lifespan given to it. And for overseas courses, training and workshops, in particular, it is time governments at all levels reviewed their capacity building strategies to align them with the quality of human capital needed to revamp the economy and propel it on the path of irreversible progress. And in our view, there is no such skill sets needed to prop up the economy for which there are no adequate and requisite faculties locally to help develop and impart such skills, be it in the public or private sector, and, more significantly, in the tertiary institutions.

In other words, in many cases, save for the personal and selfish interests of the public officials concerned, there is absolutely no compelling reason to undertake foreign trips to attend some of the courses and workshops for which relatively huge budgetary allocations are usually made. Again, it may be a lot cheaper to bring in foreign resource persons or facilitators where it becomes crucially important to do so, instead of letting officials go on jamborees, dissipating resources that are not even available. Similar critical analyses should be undertaken in other areas of official assignments where public-funded foreign trips are proposed in order to stymie avoidable waste of public resources. Perhaps it is time the country started using staff of its embassies abroad, where applicable, to carry out some of the assignments needing public officials to undertake public-funded foreign trips. This approach promises to result in significant cost savings. Besides the seemingly short lifespan of the ban on foreign trips, another complaint is that the directive is not far-reaching or good enough. For instance, members of the public want to know what is in the budget for those trips in the first place and how they were captured, and what happens to the budgetary allocations, if any, for overseas trips with the ban. It may even be imperative to vire allocations to foreign trips in the various Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to other heads or subheads to deliver on some other more important, value-adding projects and services for the public good.

Again, it is one thing to issue directives, but it is another for the directives to be obeyed, especially in an environment where those who are to comply with instructions can be quite ingenious at devising ways to circumvent such directives if they do not align with their personal and selfish interests. Consequently, questions must be asked about the mechanisms to guarantee compliance with the directive on foreign trips and monitor the budget for the purpose. Will the directive be strictly implemented by the Presidency without fear or favour? Will it lead by example by cutting down on its foreign trips and reducing the number of official aides accompanying it on such trips? And will it underscore the importance of this directive by holding the leadership of the MDAs vicariously liable if their subordinates flout the directive? We urge the Presidency to put fool-proof measures in place in addition to mustering the political will to implement the directive and ensure full compliance. There is a need for further tightening of the belt at the level of both the executive and the legislature. Nigeria is broke and needs all the resources it can muster to become fully solvent. This is the time to be frugal, prudent and ensure optimal value for money in public expenditure.

By the way, was President Tinubu responding to a new emergency or something that should have been obvious to him and all those in his government all along? The impression has been created that there is an emergency warranting a presidential directive to limit foreign trips by government officials even when, from May 29, 2023, when the present administration assumed office, it was clear, as acknowledged by the government itself, that the economy was in a bad shape and that Nigerians had to brace themselves up for belt tightening, with this position being further emphasised during the presentation of the 2024 budget. And if the setting already made it clear that government ought to be frugal in its expenditure outlook, why would a ban on frivolous foreign trips not be part of government structure and projection for the year, particularly in the light of the austere times indicated so clearly in the budget? Rather than a whimsical and perfunctory three-month ban on foreign trips for government officials, the government should have woven its entire expenditure framework around frugality.

The country cannot permit profligacy to remain the order of the day, let alone in such a brazen manner despite the austere times.

Update news