 We're still on with the breakfast and plus TV Africa, many thanks for staying with us. We delve into your second conversation. Let's look at the concerns with the Governors and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit. However, reports are saying that Governors and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit may be set on a collision course over cash withdrawals and the use of security votes. Now, according to the information that's been guarded, the restriction on cash withdrawals has been put out on public account and will still be enforced. That's according to the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit. Now, some months back in my interest to know that the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit had disclosed the Government's plan to stop cash withdrawals from all public run banks account. This was later followed by an official directive banning transactions on all government accounts for Match the Fest 2023 with the NFIU, Guernig for Enforcement, despite the introduction of the cash withdrawal limits in the country. State government, we drew a total of 701 billion-dollar cash that's above the 225 billion-dollar withdrawal by the federal government and 156 billion-dollar withdrawal by local government from 2015 to date. As a consequence, any government official that withdraws even one hour cash from any public account from Match the Fest will be investigated, prosecuted in collaboration with relevant agencies, like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the FCC, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Order-Related Offences Commission. That's the ICPC. And the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit also advised banks and government agencies to move into online payment as all transactions involving public money must be routed through the banks for accountability and transparency. I mean, the conversation is almost endless, but let's quickly introduce our guest this morning. He's a public policy analyst, writer and legalist, Bolaho Lujide. Bolaho, it's good to have you join us once again. Thank you so much. Yeah, good morning. Nice to be on the programme. Yes, so what exactly could be the problems with the governors or public accounts in Nigeria when the option of transacting online is still very open? So what exactly are we dealing with now? OK, on one side is the fact that cash does not leave traces. So people who want to be able to do transactions without leaving traces are interested in cash and that has implications for corruption and abuses all over the place. However, it's a very tricky situation we have found ourselves with these particular policies. And I'll tell you why. Number one is the reality that as such today, a lot of government revenues are still being collected in cash. So you go to the courts or you go to certain government offices or markets or tolls are still being collected in cash. The problem with that is that if you say I should not transact in cash, how about I hold some of those cash revenues that won't allow me to take it from the bank? Then I would not bother to take them to the bank. I can make an arrangement like that. Number two is the readiness of the banking infrastructure to take on a huge additional volume of electronic transactions. What we have seen in the last 30 months does not show that the infrastructure is ready and will be readily available to take on these transactions as they come. So we also have an infrastructure problem with us today. The other part yet again is that some security related transactions by their very nature are such that you want to hide certain things about them. So there are certain payments that you don't want to leave traces. You don't want them to leave traces because of the security nature. However, if everything has to be done by electronic transfer directly to the beneficiaries, those transactions will leave traces. And people who know the bank as, for example, who know who the beneficiaries of this money is at. So it's a very tricky area. Meanwhile, don't forget that Nigeria has been greatly stepped by the existing financial task force. And I let that even the EU have done the same thing. So it means that we must necessarily do something about it. So having a meeting between the critical stakeholders, the governors who want to be able to spend cash. Number two, the CBN, as well as CFC, CNF, IU, all the stakeholders must sit down together to work out what can make this policy work. Otherwise, it will fail because of those issues that are discussed. You can't even prosecute the governor anyway. So what are you going to do if it is the governor that did the cash withdraw that you're talking about? What do you do? You can prosecute him for civil liability, not for criminal liabilities. So the best you can do is to report them. There is an international quota on which they can be reported. And I'm sure that the governors will not want to be reported internationally. So we can put all this together and work out something that will work for all the stakeholders in this matter. No, but I'm taking a back, especially when the governors had meetings or meeting with the Nigerian financial intelligence unit, as well as all the stakeholders agreeing to collaborate and just be part of the entire committee and the process. And then you'd also report that it might probably just be a clash. But of course, it's very obvious, the point that you have raised why the governors might be having issue complying with just go ahead and you spend your money, but you don't have to withdraw cash. You have to transact online. And those points that you have raised seem to make a lot of sense to all of this. But moving forward, now, do you think that the body, that's the Nigerian financial intelligence unit, has the capacity, as it were, to ensure that this particular statement or policy is respected by the governors? If it agrees to work with other stakeholders, including the governors themselves, it is possible that we can significantly deal with the matter. I am not so sure that we're going to get to a point where it would be zero cash. I'm not sure about that. However, we can significantly agree on critical issues of transparency and accountability. The so-called security boat has been a very big issue. It's a dark hole. Nobody knows exactly what goes on there. And the expenditure in that dark hole are done in cash. It leaves no traces. I think it is a call for more transparency and accountability. On the part of the governors, they need to come forward and be more transparent in this matter. But whatever concerns that they have, whatever January concerns they have, can be presented before the stakeholders so that the stakeholders will examine the degenerate of this issue and be able to find a way around it, such that this policy will not fail. On the part of NFIU, strictly by itself, it will not be able to execute this policy if it will fail. It needs to work with those other stakeholders. Especially when state governors make claims to the fact that they are not chief security officers, literally because the security architecture is controlled by the center, that's the federal government, and then they constantly say, oh, we're not in control of the security architecture. Then on the other hand, security votes have been allocated. What's the rationale behind all of this? And why is there so much interest in the security votes? The reason there is so much interest in the security vote is that there is no accountability for it, as simple as that. So it's an easy way to make money. It's an easy way to make payment that are not backed up by vouchers. It's an easy way to make payment to unknown beneficiaries, who could be anybody. So it's a very dark poll. Now, if you're going to deal with a matter like, forget about what the governor said when they packed the bug to the federal government. They do that, not just in security. In the real sense, they are the chief security officer of that. But when they need to pack that bug, they will package it to the president and say, oh, I don't control the police. They've said the same thing about power. They've said the same thing about several other things that they don't control. Because most of them are not ready to accept full responsibility that have been put on their lap. I agree that elements of the security issues are not within their control. However, it raises a question. So why do you always appropriate this huge unaccounted amount as a security vote? If you're saying that you are not in charge of the security of your state, there are levels of security and there is no doubt that some of the level of security in the particular state resides within the poor view of the government. And they can do something about it when they need money. And they will definitely need money. It's a matter of how accountable are they about what they spent in terms of security. But there is no security vote in Nigeria's constitution. It doesn't exist. So then, do you think that the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit is not addressing the issues as it should be rather than talking about the limit of, I mean, cash withdrawal limits? Should the attention not be on the funds that cannot be accounted for? It's not part of the policy. You see, as much as possible, you don't want people withdrawing cash, especially government. So it is not just about security. Every time that transactions or payment have to be done in cash, the reality is that the cash leaves no traces and it is the attraction. When something leaves no traces, it is open to abuses and corruption. So it has to go even beyond the issue of security vote that is not been accounted into other dimensions of corruption that cash payment presents. So it goes beyond security vote. And that's why NFIU is approaching it in this way. Something more encompassing, of course, with the full cost on security vote because that is a chunk of where these issues reside. And like I said, NFIU by itself cannot swing this. It must work with the other state. So moving forward now, what do you think would be the implication if the NFIU gets it right? And what would be the implication if we don't? Because already today we're looking at the fourth day in April. So we can't actually categorically say if these governors have actually made withdrawals, they have gone ahead to take cash from the account because the policy should have taken place, been effective from the first of March. OK, if we get this right, the implication will be better transparency, financial transparency at the state levels by the governors. It will become more accountable for that security vote. Another cash-related expenditure that they made because electronic platforms will leave it at risk. And you can find out who is the beneficiary, how much was it paid and all of that. But when those things start down the cash, you lose track of everything. So transparency and accountability will definitely improve if we get it right. If we are to also help the issue of Nigeria being released by some international bodies for issues around maybe money laundering, financing of terrorism or lack of transparency around financial contact, which is why we're being released. So if whenever you get this right, definitely that will improve as well. We might be removed from those lists. If we don't get it right, we're likely to have some of our governors end up on those lists. Some of them might not be able to move around and some of them will run into further trouble with those international organizations, especially when it has to do with foreign trips or foreign transactions. Well, Bolaho, thank you so much for being part of the show this morning. It's been very insightful. Your thoughts this morning on the conversation. Thanks for having me. All right, then we have been speaking with Bolaho Olujide. He was a public policy analyst in Lagos. He joined us this morning to look at the consents of the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit right here and the fact that there might just be a clash with the governors. As to the limits on cash withdrawal and the fact that they also been advised to embrace electronic transactions, I mean, e-payments where traces can be left just like Bolaho Olujide who had already said that's the sign. Thank you so much for being part of the show. You can follow us on any of the social media platforms on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Do subscribe to our YouTube channel at Plus TV Africa and Plus TV Africa lifestyle. We'll join the newsroom at 9 o'clock for the news brief. Many thanks for watching. I am Mehseh Bofour. Have a great morning.