KANO NORTH PROJECTS: ANWAR’S REASSESSMENT WITHOUT A BASELINE
A Response to Abba Anwar’s “One Building, Three Names”
By Sani Kabir Hamza, Senior Legislative Aide (SLA) to the Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Barau I. Jibrin, PhD, CFR
Abba Anwar’s article, “Reassessment of DSP Barau’s Projects in Kano North: One Building, Three Names,” raises questions about project completion, public expenditure and the delivery of constituency-related initiatives. These are legitimate subjects for public discussion. However, a serious reassessment must be balanced, comparative, evidence-based and informed by an understanding of how government works.
Before thanking Anwar for his criticisms, I must first thank him for one important acknowledgment: he has identified and discussed several major projects associated with Senator Barau I. Jibrin’s interventions in Kano North. In doing so, he has recognised the scale of the initiatives under discussion, even while questioning their implementation and present status.
But this raises a fundamental question: by what standard has he assessed the Distinguished Senator’s performance?
1. Where Is the Comparative Assessment?
Anwar discusses projects facilitated by Senator Barau, but he does not establish a comparative baseline against which the Senator’s performance can reasonably be measured.
Kano North has produced political leaders, legislators, ministers and other public officeholders over several decades. Did Anwar examine their records? Did he review their legislative interventions, federal projects attracted to the zone, educational institutions established, roads facilitated, security institutions attracted or other development initiatives undertaken during their respective periods in office?
Did he assess the efforts, proposals and achievements of other sons and daughters of Kano North who have occupied positions of influence at the state and federal levels?
If he could not identify comparable initiatives from previous representatives, he should have explained why. If such initiatives exist, he should have documented them and compared their costs, timelines, implementation and outcomes with those of Senator Barau.
A proper reassessment requires more than selecting the projects of one politician and examining their shortcomings. It requires asking what existed before, what was subsequently initiated, what resources were committed, what progress was achieved and what remains outstanding.
Without such a baseline, his article may raise questions, but it does not provide a complete assessment of Senator Barau’s performance.
Indeed, did Anwar find comparable projects initiated by previous representatives of Kano North? Did he examine the records of Kano’s former governors and senators who had the opportunity to influence federal development?
For perspective, he could have examined the records of Senator Kabiru Gaya from Kano South, former Governor Ibrahim Shekarau from Kano Central, and Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, who also served as governor of Kano State and held federal legislative office.
These are not identical political positions, tenures or responsibilities, and their records would have to be compared fairly. Nevertheless, their experience provides a reasonable starting point for a broader discussion of development in Kano State.
Why is Senator Barau being assessed in isolation, without a documented comparison with the leaders who preceded him or those who currently share responsibility for Kano’s development?
That is the first question Anwar must answer.
2. Let Us Understand the Three Arms of Government
Anwar’s argument also presents an opportunity to educate the public about the constitutional responsibilities of government.
Nigeria operates a system in which the executive, legislature and judiciary perform distinct functions, subject to constitutional checks and balances.
The executive is primarily responsible for implementing government policies, executing public projects, managing the relevant agencies and ensuring that contractors deliver according to their contracts.
The legislature makes laws, considers and approves public expenditure through the budgetary process, represents constituents and performs oversight functions to promote accountability and effective implementation.
The judiciary interprets the law and adjudicates disputes.
These functions are related, but they are not interchangeable.
A senator may advocate for a road, facilitate the inclusion of a project in the federal budget, lobby the relevant ministry, engage government officials and use legislative oversight to seek progress. However, a senator does not ordinarily act as the contracting authority, construction company, supervising engineer or project manager.
Therefore, if Senator Barau facilitates a federal road project, it is important to distinguish between the facilitation of the project, its budgetary allocation, the release of funds, the contractor’s performance and the completion of the road.
These are different stages, and each requires evidence.
This does not mean that a senator should stop asking questions once a project is approved. On the contrary, effective representation requires sustained engagement and appropriate oversight. But it is unreasonable to attribute every implementation delay to the legislator who facilitated the project without examining the responsibilities and records of the agencies charged with execution.
Facilitating a project is one responsibility; executing it is another. Effective representation requires both initiative and persistent oversight, but constitutional responsibility must not be confused.
3. The Kano–Gwarzo–Dayi Road: Who Is Responsible for What?
Anwar’s article identifies the Kano–Gwarzo–Dayi Road as a major project and cites substantial budgetary provisions associated with its continuation.
If the figures he presents are accurate, the public deserves a clear explanation of the project’s original contract sum, variations, annual budgetary provisions, actual releases, certified work completed, payments made and outstanding liabilities.
But these questions must be directed to the appropriate authorities, including the responsible federal ministry, the implementing agency, the contractor and the relevant oversight institutions.
A budgetary allocation is not necessarily the same as cash released to a contractor. A release is not automatically equivalent to a certified payment, and neither proves the percentage of physical work completed.
Consequently, Anwar’s assertion that the road is only 35–40 per cent complete, despite the cited allocations, requires supporting evidence from official project records or a properly documented independent assessment.
If Senator Barau facilitated the relevant provisions, he deserves recognition for that intervention. If implementation is delayed, he should also use his position to seek answers and press for completion. Both propositions can be true.
But the central question remains: what has the responsible executive agency done with the funds actually released, and what explains the pace of construction?
Anwar must answer that question with evidence, not merely direct public frustration towards the Senator.
4. Immigration Training School, Bichi, and NSCDC Training College, Gwarzo
Anwar acknowledges the existence of the proposed training institutions while alleging that they remain under construction.
If the reported completion percentages are accurate, they indicate that work remains outstanding. They do not, by themselves, establish that the projects have failed or that the Senator has abandoned his responsibilities.
A fair assessment should establish the original commencement dates, contractual completion dates, approved budgets, amounts released, physical progress, reasons for any delays and the current plans for commissioning and operational readiness.
The relevant agencies must explain why the institutions are not yet training officers and what steps are being taken to complete, equip and staff them.
Senator Barau should continue to press for delivery through appropriate channels. At the same time, the officials responsible for implementation must account for their performance.
Anwar cannot reasonably demand accountability from the legislator while leaving the executive authorities responsible for executing these projects outside the centre of his investigation.
5. Federal University of Science and Technology, Kabo: Legislation Is Not Construction
Anwar describes the conversion of the Federal Polytechnic Kabo into a university as the only project that has achieved what he calls legislative completion. He then argues that the physical facilities do not yet meet his expectations of a fully developed university.
This distinction is worth examining.
A university’s legal establishment, its physical infrastructure, its academic programmes, its accreditation, its staffing and its long-term development are related but separate matters.
Legislative action may establish or enable an institution, but building laboratories, expanding lecture halls, recruiting lecturers, developing research facilities and providing the infrastructure necessary for its academic mission require further administrative, financial and institutional action.
No responsible person should claim that a university is fully developed merely because its enabling legislation has been enacted.
However, neither should a newly converted institution be judged solely by comparing its initial facilities with those of a mature university that has developed over many years.
The relevant questions are whether the conversion has been legally completed, whether admissions and academic activities are properly authorised, what facilities are currently available, what additional investments have been approved and what development plan exists for the institution.
If Anwar believes the facilities are inadequate, he should provide an inventory of what exists, what is required, the costs involved and the timeline for delivery.
That would be a genuine reassessment rather than a general dismissal of an institutional intervention.
6. Can One Building Serve More Than One Institution or Programme?
Anwar’s most striking allegation is that certain buildings are being presented as National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) study centres, Federal University Dutsinma (FUDMA) satellite campuses and ICT or e-learning centres.
This claim deserves a factual investigation. But the existence of a shared building does not automatically establish duplication, deception or misuse of public funds.
Across Nigeria, government facilities can accommodate multiple programmes, agencies or services. The decisive questions are whether the arrangements are officially authorised, whether the facilities genuinely serve the stated purposes, whether the relevant institutions recognise the centres and whether separate budgets have been presented for the same work without corresponding additional deliverables.
If the same building has been described in several announcements, the public deserves clarification about whether those announcements refer to distinct services operating from a common facility or to the same project being improperly counted several times.
Anwar should therefore publish the addresses of the centres he visited, identify the institutions responsible for them, provide documentary evidence of their operational status and establish whether separate contracts or expenditure claims were made for the same infrastructure.
He should also distinguish between the earlier NITDA centres he mentions and any subsequent initiatives associated with the Barau Foundation. Their relationship must be established through records rather than assumed.
If duplication is proven, it should be exposed. If a shared facility is legitimately serving several educational purposes, that fact should equally be acknowledged.
The issue is not simply whether one building carries more than one name. The issue is whether each claimed service exists, is authorised, is functional and is supported by transparent financial records.
7. Let Us Examine the Wider Record of Project Delivery
If delayed projects are sufficient grounds for condemning a legislator who facilitates them, then consistency demands that the same standard be applied across Nigeria.
Major infrastructure projects frequently extend beyond their original timelines. The Abuja–Kaduna–Kano railway project, initiated during the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari after earlier planning and development of railway infrastructure, illustrates the importance of distinguishing project initiation, funding, construction and completion. The precise history and status of each section must be established from official records.
Similarly, major federal road projects can experience delays across successive administrations. These examples do not excuse poor performance, nor do they establish that every delayed project is acceptable. They demonstrate why an assessment must investigate the causes of delay and identify the officials and institutions responsible at each stage.
The same principle applies to projects initiated by former governors of Kano State. Some projects may be completed within a governor’s tenure; others may continue beyond it. A fair assessment must examine the facts of each project rather than assume that every administration can complete every initiative within eight years.
Why, then, should the standard change when the subject is Senator Barau?
If Anwar intends to conduct a serious review of public development, he should apply the same method to all relevant political leaders and administrations.
8. Where Are Ganduje, Abba Bichi, Abdullahi Tijjani Gwarzo and Other Stakeholders in This Assessment?
Anwar’s article concentrates on Senator Barau. Yet Kano North’s development involves numerous political representatives, public officials, institutions and community stakeholders.
What interventions have the other elected representatives and influential stakeholders in Kano North made to support these projects?
What representations have they made to the responsible ministries and agencies? What meetings have they held with the implementing authorities? What budgetary interventions have they pursued? What oversight efforts have they undertaken to secure the completion of the road, the training institutions and the educational facilities?
These are reasonable questions to put to the relevant stakeholders, including Dr Abdullahi Tijjani Gwarzo, Abba Bichi and other elected representatives and influential political actors in the zone.
Former Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje’s record may also be examined where relevant, taking account of the offices he held, the periods involved and the responsibilities attached to them.
However, I will not accuse any of these individuals of obstructing the projects without evidence. If Anwar has evidence that any person deliberately frustrated their implementation, he should publish it and allow the person concerned an opportunity to respond.
Likewise, if they have made substantial efforts to secure the projects’ completion, those efforts should be documented and acknowledged.
The public deserves to know what each relevant officeholder has done, not merely what one senator is alleged to have failed to do.
If the purpose is truly to serve Kano North, accountability must be comprehensive, not selective.
9. What Is Anwar’s Baseline for Measuring Senator Barau?
Anwar promises further assessments of the thirteen local government areas of Kano North. That is an opportunity to improve the quality of public debate.
For each project, he should establish:
1. The original project proposal and the public official or institution responsible for initiating it.
2. The approved contract sum and any documented variations.
3. The budgetary allocations and actual releases, clearly distinguished.
4. The implementing ministry, agency and contractor.
5. The verified percentage of physical completion and the evidence supporting it.
6. The original completion date and any formally approved extensions.
7. The current operational status and benefits already delivered to the public.
8. The specific legislative interventions and oversight actions undertaken by Senator Barau.
9. The contributions, if any, of other relevant representatives and public officials.
10. The remaining work, funding requirements and realistic completion timeline.
With these facts, the public can distinguish between a project that has been facilitated but delayed, one that has been poorly executed, one that has been improperly represented and one that has genuinely failed.
Without these distinctions, an article may be politically forceful but analytically incomplete.
10. My Questions to Abba Anwar
Anwar, you have raised questions about Senator Barau’s projects. I now ask you to answer a few questions in return.
First, what comprehensive comparative study did you conduct of the development interventions of previous representatives of Kano North before concluding that Senator Barau’s performance deserves the assessment you have presented?
Second, what documentary evidence supports your claims about the percentages of completion, funds released and operational status of the projects?
Third, which executive agencies and contractors are responsible for implementing the road and training institutions, and what explanations have they given for the delays?
Fourth, what efforts have other relevant representatives and influential stakeholders in Kano North made to secure the completion of these projects?
Fifth, on the NOUN, FUDMA and ICT facilities, have you established that the same infrastructure has been improperly counted as separate projects, or have you established only that some facilities share premises?
Sixth, what methodology will you apply to ensure that your promised local-government-by-local-government assessment is balanced, verifiable and consistent?
These are not unreasonable questions. They are the minimum questions expected of anyone who claims to be conducting a serious public reassessment.
Conclusion: Criticism Is Welcome, but It Must Be Fair
Let me make my position clear. Senator Barau I. Jibrin is not above criticism. No elected official is. Public projects must be completed, public funds must be accounted for and representatives must remain answerable to the people.
But accountability must be based on facts, institutional responsibility and a fair comparison of records.
If Senator Barau has facilitated projects that are yet to be completed, the appropriate response is to establish their actual status, identify the obstacles, determine who is responsible and insist on delivery. If the Senator’s oversight efforts have been inadequate, that too should be demonstrated with evidence.
What cannot be accepted as a complete assessment is to acknowledge major initiatives, cite alleged progress on some of them, overlook the responsibilities of the implementing agencies and then present the entire burden of execution as though it belongs to one legislator.
The Deputy President of the Senate is a legislator. His role in facilitating federal interventions, shaping legislation, engaging the executive and exercising oversight should be assessed on its own merits. The performance of the executive agencies responsible for execution must be assessed separately, while recognising the importance of sustained legislative follow-up.
To Abba Anwar, I say this: please conduct the comparative study, publish the supporting documents and account for the contributions and responsibilities of all relevant stakeholders. If your evidence establishes shortcomings in Senator Barau’s interventions or oversight, the public deserves to know. If the evidence demonstrates achievements that your article has overlooked, those deserve recognition too.
Kano North needs completed roads, functional educational facilities, operational training institutions and accountable public officials. It needs constructive criticism, not selective accountability.
Allocations alone do not make history. Neither do criticisms. History is made when initiatives are translated into completed projects, functional institutions and lasting benefits for the people.
That is the standard by which every leader should be judged.
Sani Kabir Hamza
Senior Legislative Aide (SLA) to the Deputy President of the Senate
Senator Barau I. Jibrin, PhD, CFR
