Between Borno and Kano: Navigating the Contrasting Oversight Models for NGOs/Donors’ Engagement
By Mohammed Bello
The recent establishment of a committee to oversee non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and donor-funded activities in Kano State has sparked widespread debate. Proponents argue it will enhance transparency and accountability, while critics warn of potential overreach and restrictions on civic space.
The current Kano State government has clearly demonstrated a commitment to inclusive governance and attracting investment and development partners to enhance the state’s socio-economic and political development.
It is therefore perplexing that an initiative with potentially negative subnational, national, and international implications for Kano’s progress is being pursued. It is pertinent that stakeholders remain vigilant and ensure that Governor Abba Kabir’s administration is not being misled into supporting a measure that could undermine these very goals.
Meanwhile, some people have drawn comparisons to Borno State’s NGO oversight model, but a closer examination reveals fundamental differences that warrant careful scrutiny.
Borno’s Collaborative Model: A Structured Framework for Coordination
Borno State, a region deeply affected by insurgency and humanitarian crises, recognized the need for a structured and coordinated response to the influx of aid and development efforts. In 2019, the state established the Borno State Agency for Coordination of Sustainable Development and Humanitarian Response (BACSDAHR) through a legally backed framework. The agency’s primary objective is to harmonize NGO activities with the state’s development and recovery goals, fostering collaboration between humanitarian actors, government institutions, and other stakeholders.
This approach prioritizes partnership rather than restriction. By streamlining communication channels, Borno ensures aid is effectively distributed, prevents duplication of efforts, and aligns interventions with state priorities. The legal foundation provides clarity, ensuring predictability for NGOs and international partners operating within the state.
Kano’s Regulatory Approach: A Cause for Concern?
In contrast, Kano’s newly formed committee appears to adopt a more regulatory and enforcement-driven stance. While it aims to profile NGOs and scrutinize their funding sources, concerns have emerged over the committee’s broad powers—including the ability to suspend operations and close offices—without a clearly defined legal framework. The emphasis on aligning NGO activities with “moral and religious values” introduces further ambiguity, potentially leading to arbitrary restrictions on civil society organizations.
Unlike Borno’s well-structured agency, Kano’s model lacks the institutional backing necessary for effective and transparent governance. The absence of clear guidelines raises fears that the oversight committee could be used to exert political influence over NGOs or curtail activities that may not align with government perspectives.
Potential Consequences for Kano’s Development and Reputation
While ensuring accountability within the NGO sector is vital, an overly restrictive approach could stifle civic engagement and discourage donor investments. NGOs play a critical role in filling gaps in healthcare, education, and social welfare services—areas where government intervention alone may be insufficient. If Kano’s regulatory approach creates uncertainty or hostility towards NGOs, it risks driving away essential development partners.
Furthermore, the state’s reputation on the national and international stage could be at stake. Development agencies and foreign donors may reconsider their commitments if they perceive the operating environment as restrictive or politically influenced. This could have long-term implications for Kano’s ability to attract funding and partnerships essential for socio-economic progress.
Striking a Balance: The Way Forward
Rather than adopting a restrictive model, Kano State should consider refining its approach by learning from Borno’s collaborative framework. Establishing a clear legal foundation for NGO oversight, ensuring transparency in decision-making, and fostering partnerships with civil society organizations could enhance both accountability and development outcomes.
As discussions on this policy continue, it is imperative that the Kano State Government remains open to constructive dialogue with stakeholders. Safeguarding civic space while promoting responsible NGO operations will ultimately serve the best interests of the state and its people.
Mohammed Bello is the Chief Executive Officer, African Centre for Innovative Research and Development (AFRI-CIRD). He wrote via [email protected]
