In 2019, Governor Nasir El-Rufai directed Uba Sani, now Governor of Kaduna State, to seek a $350 million loan.
As someone consistently critical of El-Rufai’s policies, Shehu Sani found himself at odds with the former governor once more over this loan issue. But was his stance justified?
Before any state can secure a loan, whether foreign or domestic, it must meet certain criteria outlined in the Debt Management Act 2007.
This includes approval from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, a clear plan for loan utilization, repayment strategies, assessment of financial impact, and assurance of transparent fund management.
Foreign loans to states are essentially borrowed from the federation, with the Federal Government acting as a guarantor.
Kaduna State sought a $350 million loan from the World Bank, similar to Ogun State, but failed to convince the National Assembly of its repayment capability.
Why the skepticism? Kaduna’s overreliance on federal allocations, dwindling industries, and unsustainable revenue sources made its repayment plan dubious.
Sani, along with other senators, foresaw the potential financial turmoil post-El-Rufai’s tenure if the loan was approved.
El-Rufai’s governance, marked by aggressive land extortion and overtaxation, didn’t promise a sustainable future.
Sani’s refusal stemmed from a sense of patriotism—he couldn’t endorse a loan destined for cosmetic projects when vital sectors like agriculture and industry were neglected.
The aftermath revealed Kaduna’s financial fragility. Unfinished projects dotted the state, signaling misuse of borrowed funds.
Sani’s foresight now seems prophetic, as Kaduna grapples with a debt burden amidst infrastructural decay and economic woes.
But Sani’s opposition didn’t sit well with El-Rufai, who resorted to public condemnation and even curses.
Yet, Sani stood firm, prioritizing principles over political expediency. His activism-driven approach clashed with El-Rufai’s authoritarian governance.
Critics argue Sani’s stance hindered development, but he maintains that borrowing for genuine investment, not superficial beautification, is crucial.
The loan’s aftermath, characterized by unpaid salaries and incomplete projects, vindicates Sani’s concerns.
However, navigating Kaduna’s financial crisis requires more than revelations. Sani advocates for a thorough investigation into past administrations’ financial dealings to recover misappropriated funds.
Transparency and accountability are paramount to rebuilding Kaduna’s economy.
Governor Uba Sani’s role in securing the loan raises questions about accountability.
While Sani refrains from personal criticism, he stresses the importance of public disclosure and restitution.
Reflecting on past experiences, Sani emphasizes the need for decisive action.
He draws parallels with historical precedents, warning against complacency in the face of looming economic turmoil.
As Kaduna grapples with its predicament, the rift between past and present administrations widens.
Sani dismisses calls for reconciliation, viewing it as a futile attempt to bridge irreconcilable differences.
Amidst the political turmoil, personal attacks and smear campaigns abound.
Sani’s resilience against such tactics underscores his unwavering commitment to accountability and justice.
In this saga of political intrigue and financial mismanagement, Sani emerges as a beacon of integrity, challenging power dynamics and advocating for the people’s interests.
His unwavering stance against oppressive governance sets a precedent for ethical leadership in turbulent times.
