 We're back with the breakfast and plus TV Africa is time for us to look at the issue of the National Cash Transfer and the fact that it will be ending. Shagun Shopito joins us this morning. Shagun, it's good to have you join us. All right, then the National Cash Transfer Programme, also known as Household of Lifting Programme, is one of the social safety nets programs anchored by the federal government. The National Cash Transfer Programme was also initiated. It's that program that has for social investment, like I rightly mentioned, with the federal government's presence and supported by the World Bank. The program commenced in September 2016 and it was conceived as part of the government's larger growth and social inclusion strategy aimed at addressing key social concerns in the country. And so with all of the financial support from the World Bank is also targeted at poor and vulnerable Nigerians household. Now the beneficiaries of the program are mined from the National Social Register, comprising state social register of poor and vulnerable household. And that's what it is because we know that a lot of people have constantly queried and asked how do we identify the poor, you know, in our society. Meanwhile, the National Bureau of Statistics, MBS has revealed that 63% of peasants living in Nigeria, 133 million people actually are multi-dimensionally poor. Also, according to the 2022 multi-dimensional poverty index survey, over half of the population of Nigeria is living in that poverty. And so we're looking at rates which is high, especially in the rural areas, where 72% of the people are poor compared to 42% of the people in urban communities. And that's why we have Shegu Shokpiton who joins us this morning. He's the chairman of ACT Network, that's the ACT Network right here in Lagos. Thank you for joining us, Shegu. Thanks for having me. Well, so but quickly, what do you make of this? First of all, what's your thoughts about, you know, social intervention program or net programs in our country? And secondly, do you think that this exact program has lead up to high expectation? This program has been on for about six years now. And the government, by its own admission, has said that the primary objective of this program is poverty reduction. So if you want to answer the question about that in the last six years, if poverty statistics to determine whether it's successful or not, and if the information available from the government agency itself is anything to go by, clearly this is not the case. The poverty ratio has increased in the last six years in the country by the latest reports from around 2% of Nigerians living in multi-dimensional poverty, according to them. We don't have, we have a positive of data, we don't have enough data to sometimes analyze our situation and perhaps make decisions regarding policy making and all of that. So it's difficult to speak very categorically, but I think the general data is that poverty rate on the average over the last six years has been increasing from around 60% six years ago to about 72% from the latest reports of the Nigerian Bureau of Statistics. So which means that poverty has gotten worse. And I think that if you then even disaggregate that the statistics further, you find that the irony is that the conditional cash transfer project was targeted deliberately at rural dwellings. At rural dwelling Nigerians. And from the poverty statistics released by the Nigerian Bureau of Statistics, poverty has gotten worse in the rural areas. So urban poverty ratio in Nigeria from that report is 42% in the rural areas is 72%. So the program clearly hasn't achieved its objectives and I think that the reason for that is very simple. From the very onset when this program was announced a few months into the program after looking at the components and how the government had laid it out and what they intended to do with it. It became clear that this was nothing but a tokenistic effort to pander to the public sentiment about poverty reduction and poverty alleviation. This was never a very well thought out and well implemented or well orchestrated poverty reduction process. If you remember a couple of years ago, I think it was about two years ago, Nigeria became what we now call the poverty capital of the world. Over taking India in terms of the number of people, the absolute numbers of people in poverty and in terms of the speed with which people fall into poverty across those countries. India has been able to reduce its poverty prevalence significantly. And if you stop what we are doing in Nigeria, you find that we're just clouding around to be honest with all due regard to the people that are behind this program. So no, this program hasn't achieved its objectives. No, the government hasn't gone about this the right way. And in fact, there are other initiatives and other social safety net issues that the government has not even started to address at all. So then stopping it now, I think it's a welcome development. I think we're just taking all of the hundreds of billions of Naira that have been thrown at this project and we basically wasted it in quotes. Remember that truism that says that it is far better to teach a man how to fish rather than giving them fish to eat. What this program has been doing in the last six years is giving people fish to eat. Even though they claim that there has been a capacity development element to this as well, but there is no evidence of that on ground. And if there is, maybe the government should show us. Shaku, interesting. But you've talked about some of how this conditional cash transfer in Nigeria has worked. I mean, I'm sure you agree with expert who say that conditional cash transfer programs have been an effective way to reconcile the social safety nets. In other words, to reconcile and bring in general acceptance or assistance policies rather. They're talking about investment in human development and they're also looking at the fact that these social safety, these are conditional cash transfers target the extremely poor. Would it be fair for us to say, oh, because they didn't teach them how to fish, you know, as you put it. Therefore, this was not successful. Would it be fair? You also talked about the fact that it targeted the raw areas. I mean, if we're talking about looking at those in the extremely poor bracket in society, I'm sure you have to go to the raw areas to find them. We have 2 million people who have been reached by the conditional cash transfer. Nigeria is a country of more than 150 million people. Even if the poverty rate is increasing in the country, especially in the raw areas, we call it multidimensional poverty. Can we confidently assess the success of this program simply because the overall poverty rate has gone up? Yes, Kofi, we can because at the end of the day, keeping it very simple, you know, that simple acronym K-I-S-S-K, keep it simple and, you know, I mean, there are all sorts of variations of that. Keeping things very simple is always a good way to ensure that you make progress. The more complex and complicated your analysis is in regards to an issue, the more likely it is that you may end up conflating issues and generally mixing things up. The primary objective of this program was poverty reduction. This is the government's own self-admitted program objective that has not been achieved. And unfortunately, we do not have enough data to disaggregate that and look at that component, you know, like you say, for example, as a part of the process of implementing this program, the government has built a social register, which is fantastic, you know. But where is that social register? Who are the people on it? According to the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs in the last two or three years, they've added, if I am not mistaken, I don't have the correct number, so pardon me on that. I think they've added about six million households, six million households, something like that to that register, right? So this ought to be a good thing, because that will then give governments, you know, information about Nigerians that need help, and then you can target the type of help they need to them to bring them out of not just multidimensional poverty, but to actually help them with wealth-creating initiatives that can, you know, grow the capacity of Nigerians. So the question I was asking you, sorry to interject at this point. The question I was asking was, if we're hearing from the MBS that 133 million people in Nigeria are living in poverty, this program has targeted and has been able to reach two million people. Is it easy to say, because 133 Nigerians or people in Nigeria are living in poverty, it therefore means, and that the poverty rate has increased, it therefore means that the conditional cash transfer as implemented by the government has been a failure. If you want to take into context statistics and look at how many people are outside that 133 million, is it possible that you can find two million people or maybe one million people to say this one million have started their journey out of poverty? It's a journey. Is it also possible to pass a verdict in one year of receiving this money? No, but Kofi, when you juxtapose that with the context of the duration of time that this program has been run for, we're talking six years, Kofi, six years. This government has been in office for seven years and this was one of the first things that they started doing. The various poverty alleviation, various social intervention programs, the conditional cash transfer program, the various trader money, market money, all of those different programs all fell under the umbrella of social intervention. In six years, you have reached two million people. In those six years, the number of people living in poverty has increased to 133. A whopping 60 to 70% of the entire population. I don't think there is any other definition for failure. So yes, we can decide to look at it from a glass half, well, you can't say half full. So you can say maybe you can decide to look at it from a glass one over eight full or one quarter full rather than three over four or three quarters empty. It's a matter of perspective. So you can say, yes, the journey has started. But then how can you be talking about a journey commencing at the end of the journey? I mean, for goodness sake, this government is going out of office in months, in just a matter of five, six, seven, eight months, they're out. So in the eight years that they've been there, they've set themselves an objective of reducing poverty. They have been unable to do it. I don't know what other way you want to define failure. This program has failed spectacularly. And the reason for that, Kofi, and that's where I was going is very simple. You do not alleviate poverty by giving handouts. I would have thought that this was just simple common sense. You don't need to be an economist. You don't need to be some sage, wisdom, blessed with supernatural wisdom to know that you cannot alleviate poverty by dashing people money. You alleviate poverty by giving people the capacity to create money. So let's even further talk about this choc piton because I don't know if you think that this is an irony when we talk about these programs and the fact that if you look at the rural communities, there's nothing to write them about. You talk about infrastructure. The standard of living is poor. No road infrastructure. I mean basic infrastructure not available in this community. So how do we say that these programs or social net programs of government has helped the people out of poverty? Yeah, you know, so that's a different angle to the conversation. Very clearly the process of reducing poverty in a society is let me borrow there what is a multi-dimensional process. There are many facets to it. There are many elements that need to be addressed. There's no way you can create wealth. There's no way you can have economic development and progress without setting issues within that society being addressed. Infrastructure is a fundamental one. Availability of social services is another fundamental one. Availability of the appropriate, enabling, and conducive regulatory policy environment and framework is another one. All of these things have been, you know, this government has been trying to address, I guess we can give them that in their own way. But, you know, the jury is out as to how well they've done, you know, in terms of infrastructure, in terms of any of these things that I've mentioned. Where were we in 2015? Where are we now? And if you don't deal with those things, you can't bring people out of poverty. You need power to bring people out of poverty. Where were we on power supply in 2015? Where are we now? We are stagnated. And saying we're stagnated is being charitable. Some would argue that we've regressed, you know. So, yes, if those things are not dealt with, you can't even fix poverty. All right. Chairman ACT Network, it's been a thrill having you on the breakfast this morning. And hope to have you in the studio live next time. Thank you very much for joining us. Thanks for having me. Have a good day. All right. And that's the size of our package on the breakfast this morning. It's going to be quite interesting. We're looking forward to having you here tomorrow. Well, that said, it's OK to follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. And you can also subscribe to our YouTube channel where plus TV Africa and plus TV Africa lifestyle. My name is Messia Bukbo. Have a fantastic Monday morning. And my name is Kofi Bartels. And enjoy the rest of your day. Join us for the news at nine.