So far, the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu government has spent a total of 73 days (almost two and a half months) in office. On September 7, 2023, which is barely one month away, the government would be 100 days in office. By the actions and inactions of the government, some conclusions have been made about it. Some people think that the government has shown boldness so far in office. Others believe that what has been manifest is crass lack of good judgment.
Whether the Tinubu government has been bold or foolish in its actions is a matter of conjecture. What is, however, clear are missteps of a government trying hard to prove that it has courage to dare and the ability to restore “hope.” It must be noted that being courageous is one thing. Doing the right thing at the right time is a different kettle of fish.
When Tinubu, in his inaugural speech to the nation and the world, declared, “subsidy is gone,” those who would allude to his ability to tackle knotty issues head-on applauded. They saw this as being courageous, thumping their chests that he had done what other leaders before him could not do. The fact that he has stuck to his guns in his position that subsidy has gone has made those who believe in him to amplify his boldness. The question is: If Tinubu was bold in taking that decision, was it plausible the way he did it?
For the avoidance of doubt, before Tinubu assumed office on May 29, 2023, it was obvious that fuel subsidy was no longer sustainable and would give way, sooner or later. Even before then, the previous Muhammadu Buhari government had concluded arrangements to get rid of it, but delayed because the government placed politics and the victory of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the last elections high above the welfare of the people and national interest. During the electioneering for the Presidency, all the top presidential candidates, from Tinubu to Atiku Abubakar (Peoples Democratic Party, PDP), Rabiu Kwankwaso (New Nigerian Peoples Party, NNPP) to Peter Obi (Labour Party, LP), said that fuel subsidy would go. Nigerians expected its removal but hoped that this would happen with a well-articulated programme to cushion the effects.
Therefore, the Tinubu government’s removal of fuel subsidy does not show courage and boldness. Rather, it was proof that Tinubu was wrong in 2012 when he opposed the removal of fuel subsidy during the government of former President Goodluck Jonathan. Had he and others not conspired to frustrate that move by Jonathan, the trillions of naira blown on subsidy with the attendant corruption would have been saved. However, that the Tinubu government removed fuel subsidy on his first day in office and then began to plan for its effects thereafter was a glaring misstep.
The Buhari government made provision for fuel subsidy up to June 2023. Therefore, Tinubu had 30 days’ grace before he could take decision or action on the matter. There was need to have found out the true position regarding subsidy. Is it really true the number of litres of fuel claimed as daily usage by Nigerians, on which subsidy was paid? Was the fund claimed to have been expended on fuel subsidy a true reflection of the commitment or exposure of government?
There has been contention over the daily consumption of petrol by Nigerians. Many believe that the number of litres of petrol stated to be the daily consumption is grossly exaggerated. Where this was the case, it meant that there was corruption in the system. This should have been addressed. And should still be addressed. This is because a few people cannot take our collective commonwealth, while everybody pays the price. The real audit of the fuel subsidy regime should have been done before the removal. It should still be done. Not doing so would mean that malfeasance is not a crime. When evil is left unaddressed, it persists.
One expected, and still expects, the Tinubu government to dig deep and tell Nigerians when exactly the country started paying subsidy on fuel. One recalls that during the government of the late General Sani Abacha, the surplus from a one-time hike in the price of fuel was devoted to the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF), for interventions in infrastructure and others. If a government was using what could pass for excess income arising from increment in price of petrol for PTF projects, this, in my thinking, shows that there was nothing like fuel subsidy at that time. The government of Abacha ended in 1998, while the civilian government was birthed in 1999, after the barely one-year General Abdulsalami Abubakar government in-between. From 1998, when the Abacha government was using the surplus derived from hike in price of fuel, to May 29, 2023, when Tinubu finally “ended” fuel subsidy, when exactly did payment of subsidy start and how did this happen? Nigerians should be told because it is good for one to know where the rain started beating one, while working towards getting out of the rain.
It was a misstep for the Tinubu government to pronounce the removal of fuel subsidy before thinking of measures to cushion its effect. Everybody knew that removal of fuel subsidy would automatically cause hike in price of fuel, cost of transportation and cost of living generally. Tinubu was declared winner of the presidential election on March 1, 2023. He assumed office on May 29, 2023, three months thereafter. There ought to have been a pre-planned programme towards ameliorating the hardship the removal of fuel subsidy is causing now. The current effort for palliatives, therefore, amounts to medicine after death.
Two months after the removal of fuel subsidy, what Nigerians have seen are appeals for the people to endure the sufferings, promises of palliatives and hope for a better tomorrow. The government has promised that salaries would be increased. What happens to those who do not earn salaries? The government has promised to buy buses and distribute nationwide. What happens to people who do not use buses? The government has promised that the Port Harcourt Refinery would start working in December this year. Is this a guarantee that the price of petrol would drastically come down? These are mere tokenism, a case of scratching the surface.
At a time when the removal of subsidy has brought about untold hardship, the government should shun policies that would further worsen the situation. This is not the time to talk about hike in electricity tariff. This is not the right time to implement hike in taxes. This is not the time to dream about hike in duties and others. Although these are necessary policies that would help in shoring up revenue for government, the time is not right. There should be a buffer for the people to stabilise and recover, just like banks give moratorium to borrowers before payment of loans starts. Nigerians need an economic recovery or economic buoyancy policy with a human face.
What is needed in Nigeria is a progressive plan towards people’s welfare, in the face of the removal of fuel subsidy. The money being saved from removal of fuel subsidy should be channelled to a mass transit programme by investing heavily in railways, for instance. Buying buses and distributing them would not be enough. Massive rail services would be better. However, it is not just investing in railways but also doing so in areas where railways are needed, would be used and where there are prospects for return on investment and sustainability. In the past, the federal government was more interested in international white elephant rail-line from Nigeria to Niger Republic and neglected viable national inter-city routes, like East-West and East-North routes. Doing a mass transit rail-line in routes where there is no mass movement is a waste of resources. There are Abuja-Kaduna and Lagos-Ibadan rail routes, where from one point of the trip it takes about an hour by road or at most one and half hours to the other point. This is too short a distance. To make matters worst, the train schedule is once a day, either way. Commuters who do not have scheduled trips would rather use commercial vehicles, instead of waiting for scheduled train service on this route. This is the kind of project that would not help the greater number of people.
There is hunger in the land. The Tinubu government should consciously intervene by controlling price of food. This would not be done by executive order or fiat. It can be done by channeling money saved from removal of subsidy to food for a period of time. Government has talked about releasing grains from the reserves. This is a great idea and plan. The government should also go a step further by devoting money to buy up food from farmers and work out a mechanism or system to sell to consumers. By so doing, it would have control on selling price. If people have food to eat, purchased at controlled/affordable price, they would have the energy to face other challenges.