Just when it looked like the Federal Government’s youth employment scheme dubbed N-Power scheme which targets the mass employment of 500,000 youths throughout the country was about to take off, it became mired in controversy. Applicants and other Nigerians are claiming irregularities in the process of recruiting the first batch of 200,000 youths. According to them, most of the names appearing against some states and local government areas do not match the demographic characteristics of such areas. Also featuring in the complaints is the report of padding of the lists with fictitious names. The gale of accusations followed the posting of the names of successful intakes on the internet by the Office of the Vice President which is coordinating the scheme.
States that were specifically mentioned by the critics as affected by such obvious maladies include Borno, Adamawa, Zamfara, Kano, Katsina and Kebbi. A key example of the situation is Abadan local government area in Borno State where it was reported that over 90% of the intakes from there do not have names that resemble those of the indigenes.
According to a Facebook comment, “Abadam is one of the Borno Local government areas that suffered Boko Haram attacks which forced its citizens to become IDPs in Maiduguri and Niger Republic. How come that names like Grace, Favour, Oyebisi, Adebayo, Onilola, Okechukwu appeared on the N-Power list as those from Abadan…If the indigenes fled to Niger Republic and Maiduguri as IDPs, how did non indigenes stay back and even fill an online portal from Abadam when the internet connection is non-existing?”
However, Senior Special Assistant to the Vice President on Media and Publicity Mr Laolu Akande said the process was carried out without any form of importation of any name as the highest level of transparency was adopted. According to him, the committee adopted different criteria for selecting the intakes, with concessions for states and local government areas with challenges such as in the North East. Also considered by the committee was the need to locate intakes within their state and localities of residence in order to minimise their travelling at great expense and thereby fail to benefit from the exercise since the stipend is low, with only N30,000 for university graduates. Akande also said the process was carried out through focal persons who are in a better position to verify the bio data of applicants and intakes.
While the clarifications by the SSA to the Vice President may be valid, the fact remains that integrity of the project can only be assured if its processes enjoy the attributes of fairness and equity in the public assessment. That is why the need exists to exercise more discretion on the focal persons who should ensure that bio data of the participants reconcile as much as possible with the demographic considerations of the localities.
Seen in context, the conflicting claims define the scope of adjustments needed for the future of the scheme, as it should have been driven by the extant administrative structure in the country starting from the local government councils who should have been more visible in the scheme than relatively faceless, arbitrarily appointed ‘focal persons’. Working through the local government councils would have provided verifiable safeguards for resolving any anomaly in implementation.
Allegations of names padding apart, this programme is already very late and we are unhappy that much time could be taken to iron out the problem areas. It was intended to commence in January 2016 as a key welfare scheme of the administration. For its commencement to drag on until the tail end of the year, only to be enmeshed in avoidable controversies is doubly disappointing. The success of the programme is not in dividing the country but fostering a new hope in the youths that the country cares for their future.
