Governance is often judged by how effectively it addresses the needs of the people it serves. However, in many instances, inconsistencies in decision-making highlight glaring contradictions that undermine public trust and hinder development. A pertinent example is the ongoing debate over the rehabilitation of the Eku/Agbor Road, a crucial infrastructure project in the state.
Since the previous administration, the refusal to repair the Eku/Agbor Road has been a contentious issue. The state government’s stance has been clear: the road is a federal responsibility, and therefore, its maintenance falls outside the purview of the state. On the surface, this argument might seem reasonable, as delineating responsibilities between state and federal authorities is essential to ensuring accountability. However, when viewed against the backdrop of other state actions, this logic unravels, exposing a contradiction in governance priorities.
Consider this: the same state government that declines to rehabilitate the federal Eku/Agbor Road routinely allocates resources to procure vehicles and equipment for the police, a federal institution. While such support for law enforcement is commendable and necessary, it raises an obvious question: if the state government can extend assistance to a federal establishment like the police, what prevents it from rehabilitating a federal road that serves its citizens directly?
This inconsistency points to a deeper issue in governance—an apparent lack of prioritization and an unclear framework for decision-making. Roads like Eku/Agbor Road are vital to the socio-economic well-being of the state’s residents. They facilitate trade, transportation, and access to essential services, directly impacting daily life. Neglecting such infrastructure not only hampers development but also sends a message of indifference to the plight of citizens who rely on these roads for their livelihoods.
Moreover, the argument of jurisdictional responsibility loses credibility when juxtaposed with the realities of governance. Citizens do not differentiate between federal and state roads when traveling—they see roads as a shared public resource. When these roads are in disrepair, they hold their closest government accountable. In this light, the state’s refusal to act on Eku/Agbor Road appears as an abdication of responsibility.
The issue also brings to the fore a larger question about the nature of federalism in Nigeria. The current system often leaves critical public services in a limbo of overlapping responsibilities, where neither the federal nor state governments take decisive action. This creates a vacuum in which essential projects, like the rehabilitation of roads, are left unattended.
Governance should ultimately be about service delivery. If assisting the police—a federal institution—enhances security for the state’s residents, then rehabilitating Eku/Agbor Road, a federal road, should be equally justifiable as it directly benefits citizens. Development should not be bogged down by bureaucratic technicalities when the welfare of the people is at stake.
To build a governance model that truly works for the people, there must be a shift in perspective. Authorities at all levels must prioritize the needs of citizens over institutional boundaries. For the Eku/Agbor Road, the state government can undertake rehabilitation work while engaging the federal government for reimbursement or partnership. Such collaborative efforts demonstrate a commitment to development and foster trust among the populace.
In the end, governance is about making choices that reflect a dedication to public welfare. The contradictions in handling issues like the Eku/Agbor Road do little to inspire confidence. It is time for leaders to embrace pragmatic solutions that transcend administrative divisions and prioritize the collective good. Only then can governance truly fulfil its mandate of improving the lives of the people.
Comments
Post a Comment