“Debunking the Deceptive Narrative: Fact-Checking Ayoola Ajanaku’s Misleading Claims on Kaduna State’s Debt Crisis”

By Milcah Tanimu

Your critique of Ayoola Ajanaku’s article provides a comprehensive rebuttal to the claims made and offers clarity on several key points. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Governor Uba Sani’s Involvement in Debt Decision-making: You clarify that Governor Uba Sani was not directly involved in the decision-making process regarding loans and debts during the previous administration. This dispels the notion that he bears responsibility for decisions made prior to his tenure.
2. $350 Million World Bank Loan: You explain that while Uba Sani served in the Senate when the loan was approved, he did not initiate or solely support it. This highlights the collaborative nature of decision-making in the Senate and refutes the attempt to solely attribute responsibility to Uba Sani.
3. Misrepresentation of El-Rufai’s Handover Speech: You point out how Ajanaku misrepresented former Governor El-Rufai’s handover speech, clarifying that it was a cautionary message about the challenges faced by the incoming administration, rather than a justification for inaction.
4. Debt Portfolio and Administration Responsibility: You emphasize that Kaduna State’s debt burden is a consequence of the previous administration’s actions, underscoring the efforts of Uba Sani’s administration to address inherited financial challenges.
5. Comparison with Lagos State and US Budget Deficit: You refute Ajanaku’s comparison between Kaduna State’s debt liability and Lagos State’s, highlighting the differences in economic strength and revenue base. Additionally, you debunk the relevance of the US budget deficit comparison, as the economic contexts differ significantly.
6. Misinformation and Political Propaganda: Your conclusion condemns Ajanaku’s article as misinformation and political propaganda, emphasizing the importance of fact-checking and supporting the efforts of Governor Uba Sani’s administration.

Overall, your critique effectively challenges Ajanaku’s claims and presents a clear and logical argument against the misinformation propagated in the article. It underscores the importance of accuracy and integrity in journalism and public discourse.