Although the principle and practice of N5,000 monthly stipend to the economically disadvantaged may sound on the surface like a magnanimous gesture that will positively impact on the poverty level of the poorest in Nigeria. Considering the enormous problems the implementation is bound to encounter and the doubtful outcome, one cannot fail to question its appropriateness at this point in our development.

First, the problem of identification

At this point in our development, the characteristics of the organized private sector are not well documented let alone the unorganized private sector. How in heavens name is the government going to be able to achieve accurate identification of the individuals that are eligible for the programme? Those members of society who though not on regular employment but earn or live above the target poverty level are not supposed to benefit.

Even the World Bank documentation that is said to have been utilized for some of the states are known to be referring to rapidly changing demographics and so must need to be frequently updated to remain valid.

Second, the problem of corruption

In the most organized establishments such as the Federal Government MDAs the stench of corruption has reached and remained at high heavens over several decades despite numerous wars waged against it by many regimes. Even in this regime of this era when it can safely be said that a majority of Nigerians do actually desire that corruption in the Nigerian society be wiped off, some successes have actually been registered in this regard in some sectors, this stipend policy implementation is bound to be fraught with a lot of corruption issues. We have not forgotten the corruption stories on disbursements to the Boko Haram induced IDPs in Borno state and the reported missing N500m reconstruction fund for the same area.

Third, the charity problem

Charity, as a way to solve the problem of poverty, has been demonstrated again and again not to be the way to go. Most experts and promoters of poverty alleviation such as Muhammad Yunus share the same opinion. Instead, the impact of charity is negative. Muhammad Yunus, a professor of economics at Chittagong University, Bangladesh won the Nobel peace prize in 2006 for founding the Grameen Bank and pioneering the practice of micro-finance.

Fourth, the problem of sustainability

The policy of N5,000 monthly stipend was part of the campaign rhetoric of the current President, one would have thought that the plan for implementation would have been put together before inauguration. Actual disbursement started 19 months into the 48-month tenure of the current regime. Even if the current regime is able to sustain it for the whole of its tenure(which is doubtful) it is very unlikely the incoming regime will continue.

Looking at our myriad of problems, it is difficult to argue that this kind of gesture comes top on our priority list. For a population of millions of healthy men and women such charity gestures can only have series of negative impacts. Targeting a much weaker segment of society such as the poor and sick through medicare is even a better option. The colossal resources; money, manpower and disbursement machinery could have been channeled towards boosting or sustaining numerous poverty alleviation programmes whose positive impacts are quite obvious. Better still, borrowing a leaf from Prof. Muhammad Yunus will definitely yield much better and sustainable results. His huge success in Bangladesh was based on a simple concept: Lend poor people money on terms that are suitable to them, teach them a few sound financial principles, and they will help themselves.

All said and done, the solution to sustainable poverty alleviation is simply empowering people by way of doing those things that only governments do:

  • easiness of doing business
  • crime control
  • corruption control
  • ensuring justice
  • security of lives and property
  • flourishing infrastructure, etc.

The current levels of all of the above in this country are unpardonably low. When significant improvements in them are made, jobs will naturally spring up, the army of unemployed will get engaged, earn good income and sort out other problems such as feeding, health, shelter, education, etc.

It is my candid opinion that the government should rethink this policy and concentrate on other more urgent assignments that will generally enable the citizens to be substantially independent and allow their potentials to be fully developed.