By : Yahaya Sarki Special Adviser (SA) Media and Publicity to the Kebbi State Governor
A Response to the Director, Strategic Media, Research and Policy Analysis, ADC Kebbi Campaign Council
The questions raised by the ADC Kebbi Campaign Council concerning public spending, government priorities and access to basic services are legitimate subjects of public discourse. However, the timing, context and political undertones of its criticism of Kebbi State’s donation of ten Toyota Hilux vehicles to support security operations along the Sokoto–Badagry Superhighway raise important questions of their own.
While the ADC acknowledges the importance of security and infrastructure, it nevertheless questions the justification for supporting security operations aimed at protecting a major national infrastructure project. This position raises a fundamental question: if security is essential, as the ADC rightly admits, why should the provision of operational vehicles to strengthen security become a source of political controversy?
The Sokoto–Badagry Superhighway is a strategic Federal Government infrastructure project designed to improve connectivity, facilitate commerce and stimulate economic development across Nigeria. Protecting such an investment is a shared responsibility that requires effective cooperation between the Federal Government and the states through which the project passes.
Public funds are being invested in the project, making the protection of its infrastructure, construction workers and surrounding communities a matter of collective national interest, including for the people of Kebbi State.
The more relevant question, therefore, is not simply why Kebbi donated ten Hilux vehicles, but whether the intervention strengthens security, protects lives and property, safeguards public investments and helps prevent criminal activities along the highway corridor.
Any expenditure that genuinely contributes to these objectives deserves to be assessed on its merits, rather than subjected to automatic condemnation on political grounds.
Regarding whether the Federal Government formally requested the vehicles, the ADC’s question does not, in itself, establish that the donation was improper. Governments can identify emerging security needs and take proactive measures without necessarily waiting for formal requests from other authorities. Responsible leadership requires initiative, foresight and a willingness to cooperate across levels of government.
Governor Nasir Idris’s administration should therefore be assessed on the purpose, legality, transparency and measurable outcomes of the intervention, rather than solely on whether another government formally requested assistance beforehand.
The same principle applies to the question of budgetary authorisation. Public expenditure must comply with applicable financial laws and procedures, and the relevant records should provide the necessary clarification. However, the mere act of questioning a budget provision does not establish financial misconduct.
Emerging security threats may require prompt responses, but such responses must be undertaken through lawful and properly authorised financial procedures, including supplementary provisions or other applicable mechanisms where necessary. The appropriate course is to examine the relevant records and establish whether the expenditure complied with the required procedures.
The ADC must, however, distinguish between legitimate demands for accountability and the suggestion that an expenditure was unjustified simply because a political article has not presented all the relevant budgetary details.
More troubling is the attempt to link the donation of security vehicles to expenditure on water facilities without establishing a direct financial or administrative relationship between the two.
Access to safe drinking water is undoubtedly essential, and the government must continue to intensify efforts to improve water supply across the state. However, challenges in one sector do not automatically invalidate expenditure in another equally important sector.
Security, water supply, healthcare, education and infrastructure are complementary responsibilities, not competing excuses for inaction. A responsible government must address these priorities collectively, taking into account public needs, available resources and prevailing circumstances.
The ADC cites figures from Kebbi State’s Fourth-Quarter 2025 Budget Implementation Report, claiming that approximately ₦724.28 million was spent on water facilities against a final allocation of approximately ₦5.495 billion.
These figures warrant proper examination within the broader budget implementation framework, including project schedules, procurement processes, payment obligations, implementation timelines and outstanding commitments.
A budget allocation is not the same as actual expenditure, just as a reported underspend does not, on its own, establish that funds were wasted or that communities received no benefits. Equally, a low implementation rate should not be dismissed; it deserves a clear explanation and, where necessary, appropriate corrective action.
The responsible approach is to examine the relevant records, identify the water projects completed or delayed, establish the reasons for any implementation gaps and determine what measures are being taken to improve service delivery. Accountability must be evidence-based, balanced and directed towards practical solutions.
Governor Nasir Idris’s administration has consistently placed infrastructural development and the provision of basic amenities among its priorities. Its performance should be evaluated through verifiable projects, documented expenditure and measurable benefits to residents across the state. Constructive criticism is welcome, but selective figures should not be presented as though they constitute a complete assessment of government performance.
The timing and framing of the ADC’s intervention also deserve consideration. Why has the party chosen to revisit a vehicle donation announced in December 2025, nearly a year later, and frame it primarily as a controversy over water supply?
There may be legitimate reasons to revisit an earlier public expenditure, and no public decision should be exempt from scrutiny merely because time has passed. However, the ADC should explain what new information has emerged to justify this particular framing, rather than relying on insinuations that risk turning public accountability into political theatre.
If the party is genuinely committed to transparency, it must recognise that accountability is a universal principle that applies consistently to public officials and political actors, regardless of party affiliation.
In this regard, the public record concerning the ADC governorship candidate, Abubakar Malami, SAN, also presents matters that warrant careful and factual scrutiny.
In July 2026, reports concerning proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja indicated a final forfeiture order involving 48 properties linked to Malami, members of his family and associated companies, following proceedings arising from an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission investigation. Earlier proceedings had involved an interim forfeiture order covering 57 properties, which the EFCC reportedly valued at more than ₦213 billion.
These developments raise legitimate questions about the circumstances surrounding the properties and the legal proceedings that resulted in the forfeiture orders. However, such matters must be discussed accurately, with due regard for the court’s findings, the nature of the orders and the distinction between allegations, interim measures and final judicial determinations.
The public deserves clear information about matters of significant public interest. What explanations has Malami provided regarding the properties and the issues examined in court? What do the available judicial records establish about the assets, their acquisition and the circumstances surrounding the forfeiture proceedings?
These questions should be addressed through verifiable records, factual scrutiny and due process, rather than political speculation. The same standards of fairness, transparency and accountability that the ADC demands of Governor Nasir Idris must apply to its own candidate.
Ultimately, the debate over Kebbi’s ten Hilux vehicles should not be reduced to a politically convenient contest between security spending and water supply. Both are important, and both deserve responsible attention. The proper test of public expenditure is whether it is lawful, transparent, justified by public needs and capable of delivering tangible benefits to the people.
The ADC is entitled to question government decisions, just as the government is entitled to explain and defend its policies with facts. But criticism becomes less persuasive when it relies on selective figures, questionable comparisons or insinuations that have not been established by evidence.
Public accountability is indispensable to good governance, but it must be fair, consistent and grounded in facts. Public interest must always take precedence over political convenience.
About The Author
