The League of Civil Society Organizations in Kano State, watched with a mixture of cautious optimism and profound systemic concern the official inauguration of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Steering Committee by the Kano State Government on 1 April 2026.
While we acknowledge the government’s stated intent to embrace the global standards of transparency and accountability, a rigorous analysis of the committee’s composition and the process of its emergence reveals deep-seated structural flaws that threaten to undermine the very essence of the OGP framework.
As Kano State stands at a critical political crossroads, the League asserts that an OGP process that lacks true co-creation is not merely a procedural error; it is a democratic deficit that risks transforming a global platform for reform into a localized tool for political optics.
Structural Flaws in Composition
The Open Government Partnership is founded on the principle of “Parity of Power.”
The OGP Global Operational Guidelines and the OGP Nigeria Framework are explicit: the Steering Committee must be a balanced, multi-stakeholder body where government and non-state actors sit as equals to co-design and co-monitor reforms.
The recently inaugurated committee in Kano, however, suffers from “Executive Dominance Syndrome.” By loading the committee with five high-ranking Honourable Commissioners (Health, Information, Budget, Environment, and Public Procurement), the state government has created a lopsided hierarchy.
In a culture where political subordinates and even civil society actors find it difficult to challenge the “Honourable Commissioner,” the space for honest, critical dialogue, which is the heartbeat of OGP, is effectively stifled.
Furthermore, the exclusion of the Private Sector, Academia, and Professional Bodies (NBA, ICAN) from the non-state side of the 8-member civil society cohort is a significant regression.
OGP is not a “CSO-Government” club; it is an “Open Government” platform.
By narrowing the non-state representation, the government has denied the committee the technical expertise required to tackle complex thematic areas like Access to Justice, Climate Finance, and Anti-Corruption.
A Violation of the Co-Creation Mandate
The most glaring departure from global best practice lies in the process of evolution.
Under the OGP Articles of Governance, the selection of Civil Society representatives must be independent, transparent, and led by the Civil Society constituency itself.
The League of CSOs, Kano State, notes with disappointment that there is no documented, transparent evidence of an independent election or selection process by the wider Kano Civil Society Forum to determine the eight members inaugurated.
When the government handpicks its “partners,” it is no longer a partnership; it is an extension of the executive arm.
This violates the OGP Nigeria Operational Manual, which mandates that the emergence of the Civil Society Co-Chair and members must be free from government interference to ensure the integrity of the oversight role.
Moreover, the statement by the Government Co-Chair, Comrade Nura Ma’aji Sumaila, that stakeholders will “soon reconvene to be guided by the principle of co-creation” is an admission of a “top-down” approach.
Co-creation is not an afterthought; it is a precondition.
To inaugurate a committee before the co-creation of its operational roadmap is to put the cart before the horse.
Implementing a Lapsed Action Plan
Kano State currently operates under a State Action Plan (SAP) for 2024–2026.
With only a few months remaining in this cycle, the sudden “rush” to inaugurate a Steering Committee raises serious questions about the sincerity of the implementation to date.
For the past two years, where was the oversight? Who was monitoring the milestones? By waiting until the twilight of the action plan to formalize the steering body, the government risks a “Point-of-No-Return” failure, where targets are “marked as achieved” on paper to satisfy international donors, without any real-world impact on the lives of Kano’s citizens.
This “compliance-based” rather than “impact-based” approach is a direct affront to the OGP’s global mission.
Implications for Democracy and Good Governance in Kano
The current political climate in Kano State is characterized by high stakes and a burgeoning demand for responsive, inclusive leadership.
In this fragile context, the OGP is designed to serve as a “Neutral Governance Buffer”, a space where political differences are subordinated to the common good.
However, the current flawed composition creates a series of “Systemic Failure Points” that could derail Kano’s democratic trajectory:
1. The Erosion of Public Trust & The “Conflict of Interest” Trap: When a “Transparency Committee” is predominantly composed of the very Executive actors it is mandated to oversee, it creates an inherent conflict of interest.
According to the 2024 Nigeria Governance Index, trust in state-level institutions remains under 35% in the Northwest region.
By filling the Steering Committee with political appointees rather than independent technical experts, the government risks a “Trust Deficit Spiral.”
Citizens are unlikely to engage with a platform that mirrors the exact power structures they are meant to hold accountable, effectively rendering the “Citizen Participation” pillar of OGP dead on arrival.
2. Institutional Fragility: A “politically-heavy” membership creates a high degree of Policy Volatility.
In sub-national governance, cabinet reshuffles are frequent. By relying on Honourable Commissioners rather than Technical Directors or Permanent Secretaries (the “Institutional Memory” of the Civil Service), the OGP momentum becomes tied to political tenure.
Historical data on state-level reform in Nigeria shows that over 60% of initiatives led exclusively by political appointees stall or collapse within 100 days of a cabinet change.
Without technical “anchors,” Kano’s OGP is one reshuffle away from total collapse.
3. Structural Marginalization: The current Steering Committee list fails the OGP Global “Inclusion” Test.
Effective governance requires a diversity of perspectives to solve complex problems. Despite women making up approximately 49% of Kano’s population, their representation in this high-level steering body is statistically negligible.
Similarly, the total absence of People with Disabilities (PWDs) in the steering core ignores a demographic that faces the highest barriers to service delivery.
You cannot claim to have an “Open Government” if the doors remain closed to half the population.
This exclusion directly contradicts SDG 16.7, which mandates responsive, inclusive, and representative decision-making at all levels.
4. Devaluation of “Kano Brand” & The “Check-Box” Reform Culture : This flawed process risks signalling a “Performative Transparency” culture to the international community.
Entities like the OGP Global Secretariat in Washington monitor the “Co-Creation Factor” as a primary metric for funding and partnership eligibility.
Sub-national governments that fail to demonstrate authentic co-creation risk being downgraded in international transparency rankings.
For Kano, this could lead to the loss of technical assistance grants and a decline in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), as investors increasingly view “Check-Box” reforms as a sign of underlying institutional instability and high “Regulatory Risk.”
5. Distortion of the “Civic Space” and Democratic Accountability: In the current political happenings in Kano, the OGP should be a safety valve for civic pressure.
By handpicking Civil Society representatives without a documented, independent selection process, the government is effectively “Capturing the Civic Space.”
This creates a “State-Managed Civil Society” that lacks the independence to offer the “Constructive Friction” necessary for genuine reform.
Without a truly independent non-state side, the Steering Committee becomes a hollow echo chamber for executive decisions rather than a crucible for governance innovation.
Our Demands and The Way Forward
The League of Civil Society Organisations, Kano State, as a primary custodian of civic space, refuses to remain a passive spectator while the integrity of the OGP is compromised.
To restore the credibility of this reform process, we demand the following immediate actions from the Kano State Government:
1. Institutional Re-validation of Non-State Membership: We call for an immediate suspension of the current non-state appointments to the Steering Committee pending an Independent Validation Exercise.
Global OGP Best Practice mandates that civil society members must be selected via an open, fair, and documented process led by the Kano OGP Civil Society Forum.
The Ministry (MPPPME) must step back and allow the broader CSO constituency to ratify its own representatives.
Any “partner” handpicked by the government lacks the “Independence of Voice” required to provide credible oversight, risking a total breakdown of the OGP’s “Checks and Balances” system.
2. Technical Expansion: The current composition is an administrative silo that excludes the engine rooms of Kano’s economy.
Small Hydropower, Climate Finance, and Digital Transparency, key pillars of current donor interest, cannot be managed by generalist CSOs alone.
We demand the formal inclusion of the Private Sector (KACCIMA), Professional Bodies (NBA, ICAN), and Academia into the newly constituted steering committee.
This expansion is essential to ensure that the 2024–2026 State Action Plan (SAP) is evaluated with professional rigour and market-aligned data.
3. Mandatory Gender and Social Inclusion (GESI) Audit: The current “Male-Centric” committee structure is a violation of the OGP Global Inclusion Policy and National Gender Policy benchmarks.
Research indicates that gender-diverse steering committees are 25% more likely to achieve their reform milestones.
We demand an immediate restructuring to ensure a minimum of 40% female representation and the explicit, permanent inclusion of a Person with Disability (PWD) representative. Inclusivity is not a “favour”, it is a core OGP eligibility requirement.
A committee that excludes the marginalized is inherently “Closed,” not “Open.”
4. Immediate Disclosure of the “Missing 20-Month” Progress Report: For nearly two years, the Kano SAP (2024–2026) has operated without a functional Steering Committee to oversee its commitments.
In the absence of a steering body, there is a high risk of “Report Padding”, where milestones are claimed but not verified. The MPPPME must, within seven working days, publish a comprehensive, data-backed status report on all 2024–2026 SAP commitments.
This report must be subjected to a Public Hearing to allow citizens to verify the “on-the-ground” impact of claimed reforms in health, procurement, and justice sectors.
5. Formalization of a Multi-Stakeholder “Co-Creation Portal”: To move beyond “Check-Box” transparency, Kano requires a digital and physical infrastructure for continuous engagement. We demand the establishment of a Kano OGP Co-Creation Portal where citizens can track budget implementation, contract awards, and SAP progress in real-time.
This will shift the OGP from a “one-off inauguration event” to a living, breathing ecosystem of digital accountability.
Conclusion
Kano State has the potential to be a global leader in sub-national governance. We have the history, the intellect, and the civic energy. However, transparency is not a gift that the government gives to the people; it is a right that the people exercise through their government.
We call on the OGP Nigeria National Secretariat and the Global OGP Support Unit to take note of these deviations.
The League of CSOs, Kano State, remains ready to collaborate, but we will not be silent partners in a process that ignores the very rules of the game.
‘Kano deserves a government that is not just open in name, but open in deed.'Endorsed By:
- Comrade Bala Abdullahi Gaduwama – Wuro Development Concerns (WDCN)
- Yusha’u Sani Yankuzo, Esq. – Centre for Human Rights and Social Advancement (CEFSAN)
- Mohammed Bello – African Centre for Innovative Research and Development (AFRI-CIRD)
- Abdullahi Y. Sule – Youth and Environmental Development Association (YEDA)
- Abdulkadir Musa Hausawa – Youth Enlightenment Forum
- Adeniyi Aremu, Esq. – Civil Society Organization for Conflict Resolution in Nigeria (CS-CRIN)
- Sani Ilyas Abdullahi, Esq. – Joint Action Front (JAF), Kano State
- Comrade Fatima A. Ibrahim – United Action for Democracy (UAD), Kano State
- Comrade Khadija Hudu A. – Justice, Accountability and Rights Advocacy Centre
- Comrade Moh’d Sani Garba – Pay it Forward Initiative
- Fatima Muhammad – Gender Inclusive and Development Support Initiative, Kano
- Aminu Sani Muhammad, Esq. – Rule of Law and Justice Advancement Network (ROLJAN)
- Comrade M. K. Adam – Societal-Based Initiative for Rights, Peace and Development (SOBIRPED)
- Fatima Ibrahim Badamasi – Gender Support and Youth Empowerment Initiative (GENSAYE)
- Buhari Abubakar Usman – Centre for Legal Orientation and Humanitarian Aid (CELOHA)
- Abdullahi Yahaya, Esq. – Publish What You Pay (PWYP), Kano State
- Comrade Auwal Salisu – Centre for Awareness Reorientation and Empowerment (CARE-Africa)
- Umar Isa Sulaiman, Esq. – Frontier for Gender Advocacy, Accountability & Empowerment Initiative.
- Maryam Garba Usman – Centre for Gender and Social Inclusion (CAGSI)
- Fatima Chabir Aliyu, Esq. – Community-Based Equal Justice Initiative
- Comrade Salisu Ibrahim Sa’eed – Kano Youth Integrity Forum
- Comrade Baraya Garba Hassan – Centre for Education, Health and Entrepreneurship Development (CEHED), Nigeria.
- Abba Bello Ahmed – Campaign for Democracy (CD), Kano State
