Palliatives for Whom? NASS or the Masses?

While Nigerians were still grappling with the crippling effects of the pump price of N500 per litre fuel occasioned by the subsidy removal, they were slammed with a further unexpected increase in petrol to N617 per litre last week. Amidst all the wailing and groaning, many were aghast when news came that members of the National Assembly (NASS) were being given a whooping N40 billion for luxury cars, including bullet-proof vehicles for the NASS Leadership, and a further N70 billion for furniture and repairs in the lawmakers’ offices. Where does this leave the hapless masses? Dr Sam Amadi, Dr Akpo Mudiaga-Odje, Jide Ojo and John Aikpokpo-Martins, in this Discourse, delve deeply into the conundrum to tease out the issues and proffer feasible solutions   

Palliatives and the Politics of Poverty Alleviation

Sam Amadi

Nigeria is caught in the politics of choosing the appropriate palliatives, to address the socioeconomic impacts of the abrupt removal of subsidy on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS). Before the presidential election of February 25, 2023, all the major presidential candidates had promised to remove subsidy on PMS, but with variations on what comes before and after. There seems to be a national consensus against petrol subsidy. Although one can argue that the consensus is more elitist, and that those who are up in arms against oil subsidy are elites who are insulated from the impacts of the removal of subsidy. in a country ravaged by poverty.

The Economics of Subsidy

It is important to begin an assessment of the rationale and implications of subsidy removal, by understanding the economic case against subsidy. The case against subsidy, is that it is inefficient. The standard argument is that the price of any good or service, should be determined by its demand and supply. Demand and supply of the good or service will reflect the true costs of its production, and the real value it has for consumers. When the right price prevails, there is incentive for the right kind of investment in the production of the good or service. Price control of all sorts distorts the market of products, and ultimately deprives consumers of value. For sustained economic growth, it is important to allow right prices to prevail in the market. This is the standard argument of the anti-subsidy group. 

Furthermore, subsidy is perceived to ensure inefficiency in two ways. First, it encourages inefficient consumption. Because consumers do not pay the right price, they may be inefficient in consumption of the goods, since someone else bears the cost of the good. The standard theory of economic rationality is that the price people are prepared to pay for the good or service, shows the degree of preference they have for it. So, if the cost is not fully internalised in the price people pay, there will be over (inefficient) consumption. Furthermore, the distorted price may lead to inefficient investment in production activities.

In the case of petrol subsidy in Nigeria, the overwhelming argument of the anti-subsidy   advocates is that Nigeria suffers huge fiscal crisis on account of subsidising petrol. A country that services its debt with close to 100% of its revenue, should not be spending about $10 billion annually on petrol subsidy, especially when a large quantity of such product is smuggled outside the country and sold for a higher price. In such a situation, Nigeria is also subsidising some fraudulent marketers. The facts of Nigeria’s heightened fiscal crisis arising from low productivity, makes it urgent to remove the subsidy to escape acute fiscal crisis. 

But, removing subsidy removes one of the vital fiscal tools for controlling poverty. The main consequence of income poverty, is that many will not be able to purchase many goods and services they need for normal human functioning and for productivity. Underconsumption of essentials like energy, healthcare and education has adverse public consequences, which economists refer to as ‘negative externalities”. Therefore, it is part of public sector economics that government encourages consumption of such essentials by those who may not afford them through direct provision of such goods or reduction of the costs of such goods, so the poor can consume them in adequate quantities. This public interest is why the German government is proposing to spend about $4 billion in 2023, to subsidise electricity for its citizens. This is the reason European countries spent an estimated 800 billion Euros to protect households and businesses from the rising energy costs from September 2021 to February 2023, according to report published by Reuters News. Within the same period, Britain and Norway allocated 103 and 8.1 billion Euros, as energy subsidy. 

Cushioning the Impact of Subsidy Removal

The economics that totally dismisses the utility of subsidy, is not good public sector economics. There is a public interest in guaranteeing consumption of certain goods and services, that are important to livelihood and sustained production. Subsidies are not inherently inefficient. But, their administration could be inefficient. In the case of Nigeria, the corruption associated with government interventions, and the poor design and targeting of petrol subsidy, make it unaffordable in the current fiscal circumstances. It may be that the administration of petrol subsidy in Nigeria, makes compelling argument against it. The additional fact of a near financial bankruptcy of the Nigerian State, creates the consensus against subsidy as it exists, not necessarily subsidy as a tool of antipoverty.

The real issue now is how to manage the palliatives, designed to cushion the impacts of the subsidy removal. The most important starting point is to separate the impacts of the subsidy removal, and other general issues of poverty in Nigeria. Obviously, the removal of subsidy in petrol, aggravates poverty in its multi-dimensions. But, we need to isolate and disaggregate the impacts of petrol subsidy, to effectively mitigate it. The category of poverty in Nigeria, is too broad to be used as the benchmark for effective intervention to mitigate the impact of the subsidy removal. We have chronic poverty; we have ultra-poverty; and we have multidimensional poverty. So, focusing generally on poverty may not be very useful in the specific case of petrol subsidy removal, because the removal has diverse impacts on diverse categories of the poor.

That raises the question: who should be targeted for the palliative? First, the working poor are the most vulnerable, as they will have less disposable income with the rising costs of PMS. The unemployed urban poor, will also be impacted to a great degree. Then the rural poor whose greatest exposure to the impact may be indirect through rising cost of food and other essentials will also be impacted. A palliative strategy that works will design different interventions for different categories of impacted community. For the working poor, palliatives may be in the form of increase in pay cheque and tax credits that restore their disposable income. This is easy to manage, because of existing database that makes it easy to assess impact. A provision of public transport across the country to enable ease of movement at discounted costs, will be an efficient form of targeted palliatives. This will also assist the urban unemployed poor. For rural poor whose greatest exposure will be mostly indirect, palliatives can be in the form of free access to healthcare, education and such services. Government can also enhance their ability to buy essential foods. Well delivered cash transfer could achieve these objectives. But, it is also more susceptible to corruption and politicisation.

The Legal Incidents of an Effective Palliative Regime

Nigeria’s cash transfer regime, fails some important legal requirements. First, there is no clear definition by law, on who should be entitled to palliative. The use of public finance to support the wellbeing of some citizens, needs clear statement of legal entitlement. In appropriating N500 billion for palliatives, the National Assembly ought to write in the law who is entitled to receive the cash transfer, and the methodologies for establishing that class of citizens. It should not be left to administrative discretion. This follows the constitutional requirement, that no public fund should be expended unless duly appropriated. Due appropriation requires that the legislature writes in the law, the basis of establishing entitlement to the benefit. Besides, there is a constitutional requirement of equity and equal opportunity for all citizens in Chapter II of the Constitution. Therefore, granting some citizens any entitlement that other citizens will not receive, should follow a duly established legal criteria.

The requirement of legal due process extends to loans or grants from the World Bank, or any other multilateral financial institution, or based on bilateral treaties between Nigeria and any country or institution. By virtue of Section 12 of the Constitution, every treaty entered into by the Nigerian Government, must be domesticated by the National Assembly through a statute to become implementable in Nigeria. A concessionary loan agreement with the World Bank, is a treaty that needs to be domesticated to be implemented. That process of domestication requires that the legislature establish clear rules, on entitlement and disbursement. Failure to do so, is arguably a violation of constitutional due process. 

Conclusion

The major problem with the administration of the proposed palliatives to cushion the effects of the removal of petrol subsidy, is the difficulty in tracking its impact on diverse social groups and directing mitigations to such groups in appropriate measures. The first aspect of this challenge, is selecting the impacted groups. The second is, delivering adequate and proportionate mitigation to each group. The third is, ensuring that the mitigation is used to fill the hole that the subsidy removal has opened. Adverse social psychology may ensure that even if the desirable social group is targeted, and the amount of cash is adequate, the palliative may still be misused to undermine wellbeing and productivity. To address these challenges, we need clear laws that smartly clarify who ought to benefit, and shows how the benefit should be administered and evaluated from time to time. 

Dr Sam Amadi, Director of Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts 

President Tinubu’s N500 Billion Palliatives: Good Concept, Wrong Approach 

Dr Akpo Mudiaga-Odje

Introduction

Indeed, the removal of fuel subsidy from Petrol Motor Spirit (PMS) as announced by the incipient Government was received with paralysing suspicion by the citizenry, especially as regards what will happen to the saved funds, considering our past leadership failures in that respect. Ultimately, is what will be the effect and impact of this reversal of Government’s subsidised intervention for the citizenry on the same citizenry.

Without requiring any clairvoyance of economic prowess, we are all in a position to accentuate the gargantuan financial ripple effects this withdrawal has inflicted, is inflicting and will continue to be inflicted on all of us, especially the poor and vulnerable of our society.

Responsive Governance

It therefore behooves any government that is sensitive and responsive to the welfare of the people to take immediate, prompt and decisive economic steps, to cushion the horrendous effect of this policy reversal.

Promotion of Welfare of the People

Indeed, to promote the welfare of the citizenry, it is not only a moral duty of Government, but, indeed, it is also a constitutional directive firmly embedded in Section 14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution as amended which pungently directs that: 

“The primary purpose of Government is to promote the welfare and security of the people”

Yes indeed!

The promotion of the welfare of the people, is the first arm of that constitutional order. The Government, having removed the petroleum subsidy, ruminated some palliatives it deemed necessary for the promotion of our welfare as encapsulated by the Constitution. In this regard, we commend the Federal Government by first of all, conceiving that idea of palliatives, which means same is invariably aware of the grave financial stress and burden, this action will cause to our people.

Implementation of N500 Billion Palliatives

Be that as it may, the implementation and/or execution of the template of the Government’s palliative programme is clearly on a wrong footing, wrong sitting and wrong focus.

The N500 Billion earmarked for this palliative session, already appears to have been encumbered and obfuscated by the perpetual greed of politicians, their interests and other vested interests all regrettably, above the interest, welfare and security of the citizenry, that the Constitution has ordered the President to promote.

How can the National Assembly be granted a whooping 70 billion Naira, for…..?

Why N70 Billion for the National Assembly

What is that money meant to be for?

After the same National Assembly has earmarked a gigantic N110 Billion to buy “bullet proof” cars for its leadership and members. The irrepressible and severely patriotic SERAP must be highly commended, for, as usual, taking legal steps over this profanity. I am not a Mathematician, but I was tutored by one on this, and I verily believe him, that with the N70 Billion to the National Assembly of 469 people, same will translate to N135 Million for each person.

And, whereas, the same Government was earmarking a miserable N8,000 for 12 Million Nigerians, and only for a Six Months duration. This is indeed, standing deductive, creative and empirical knowledge on their heads!

Why a Meagre N8,000 for 12 Million Nigerians?

I write in sorrow, rather than anger, at this very insensitive step by the Government.

Mr President is, with the profundity of respect, urgently urged to seek further and better discussions, as well as consultations with Labour Unions Workers and other stakeholders, to reverse this unacceptable act of gross discrimination against his own people, who he claims at the Election Tribunal voted him into power.

N70 Billion to the National Assembly and N8,000 to 12 Million Nigerians is Unconstitutional, for being Discriminatory Under Section 42 of the Constitution 

More importantly, this policy or directive of the Federal Government to widely discriminate in the sharing of the N500 Billion palliative between the National Assembly members and the poor Nigerians is highly discriminatory, and thus, violates Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution as amended which lucidly provides thus:

“(1) A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by  reason only that he is such a person

(a) Be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, place of origin, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject; or

(b) Be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions.“

Consequently, not only is this palliative directive morally deficient, it equally appears to lack any constitutional foundation; thus, augmenting our justified call for an immediate downward review of the N70 billion to National Assembly, whilst contemporaneously upwardly reviewing the scanty N8,000 to Nigerians.

The 12 Million People Also Voted Mr President into Office

Mr President, your conscience must reject this incubus, no matter how pressured you are by the elitist conspiracy and the proclivity for primordial and primitive acquisition of our common wealth, by these quislings.

Another sad neglect by the ex-parte implementation of the palliative debacle, is the Judiciary, which is claimed to be the “Last Hope,” but eventually becoming the “Lost Hope” of the common man.

Why Should a Whole Judiciary be Allocated a Paltry N35 Billion?

We gathered that, this almost neglected arm of government is to receive a paltry N35 billion, as against the N70 Billion allocated to the law makers.

And, to share this N35 Billion in the Judiciary, are 13 Supreme Court Judges, 72 Appeal Court Judges, 33 Judges of the National Industrial Court, 75 Federal High Court Judges, and more than 400 Judges in other courts in the Federation.

How in the world will a government allocate a miserable sum of N35 Billion to these learned men, to dispense justice to the palliative deprived citizenry and over palliative padded National Assembly?

Mr President should as a matter of utmost urgency and national interest, re-allocate a minimum of N150 Billion to the Judiciary if we need to uphold the rule of law in Nigeria. A weather-beaten Judge and her Judiciary, is the calamity of the innocent citizenry. We should not suffer the citizenry with unpleasant palliatives and, at same time, starve the arm of government that will decide its rights from proper funding.

It will be what the Afrobeat Legend, Fela Anikulapo Kuti called:

“Double wahala for dead body”

What is the Current Value of N8,000 in Nigeria

My take is what is the current value of the Naira, in light of the now unified foreign exchange rate by the Government? And, what can the N8,000 do for the poorest Nigerian for a period of 30 days?

A litre of fuel as at the time of writing these presents, is N595.

Obviously, the poorest Nigerian does not own a car, but, he transports in commercial vehicles as the Federal Government does not deem it fit to create a cheap and effect transportation system to ease his endemic stress. He also pay rent, even if he lives in Sambisa Forest! He clothes himself, even though the N8,000 will barely clothe him. He feeds himself too, even at the rate of a prisoner’s feeding allowance. He has medical challenges too!

All of this are to be taken care of by the “Almighty”. N8,000 for every 30 days, and for a six month duration which will terminate like an expired tenure of an elected official. This is totally unacceptable and must be rejected as not a palliative, but a superlative insult on the sensibilities of our people.

Suggestions on the Way Forward for Cushioning the Effects of Subsidy Removal

We thus, respectfully urge the Federal Government to look for, and consider better options of palliatives to cushion the debilitating effects of the subsidy withdrawal on its citizenry.

A look at the following could offer a better support base for the people, to wit:

1.Increase in salaries of workers.

2.Incentives as cheap transportation system.

3.Intervention in the high cost of food and other social services.

4.Reduction in pay as you earn taxes.

5.Channelling some of the N500 Billion to hospitals, power, education and security for our people.

6.Drastically reduce the N70 Billion allocated to the National Assembly.

7.Federal Government should pay for enrolment fees for qualified students in NECO, WAEC, JAMB etc.

8.Reduce or put a halt to the increase in fees of Federal and State Primary, Secondary and Tertiary institution in Nigeria, as we gather that the same Federal Government has now increased the fees payable in Unity Schools.

9.Inject funds to small scale businesses and tax free.

10. Reduce fleet of planes and cars of the President and his recurrent expenditure, together with that of the Vice President and the entire cabinet.

11. Salary cut of all appointees. including the President and Vice President.

12. Reduce the allocations to National Assembly and their mysterious constituency projects and spiritual allowances.

13. Make payment of taxes within three years preceding political appointments mandatory. to be so appointed. S “

14. Increase the allocation to Agriculture from N19.2 Billion to at least N70 Billion in the first half, as food sufficiency heralds a healthy Citizenry. 

15. On the surface, we can also service one at least, of our ailing refineries to function, so as to reduce costs of importation of fuel.

16. Amend the Student Loan Act, to incorporate realistic funding and repayment plans for the students.

17.If ever cash transfer is to be added, same must not be less than the current minimum wage,  to the vulnerable poor, for even more than twelve million Nigerians, and for more than a six months tenure. 

At least the lawmakers after six months of receiving this N70 Billion allocation will also receive more of same, in addition to their gigantic allowances and salaries for a four year period.

18. Properly fund the Judiciary to uphold rule of law and law and order, because in the absence of that, the society will become even more brutal, nastier and shorter, than the proficient Thomas Hobbes prophesied.

19. The Federal Government should liaise with the States, to put in place some and more of the above, to enable the palliatives capture and reach a larger majority, and create the happiness of the greatest number as pungently propounded by the iconic Jeremy Bentham as the best way to gauge how people should access their government and that idiosyncrasy has been expressly incorporated into our Constitution, in Section 16 (2) (b) which declares that:

“that the material resources of the nation are harnessed and distributed as best as possible to serve the common good”.

20. Ultimately, the Federal Government should forthwith conduct a credible Census, to enable it have reliable data to plan as all these statistics, which without a credible Census is a shot at the dark!

The Federal Government is like a Father Under Common Law and is  Responsible for  our Welfare

Against the above slide, is the indisputable fact, that we, the Citizenry, are like Children of a father under Common Law. And, as such, the Federal Government must take appropriate care of us, as we also discharge our duties and obligations.

In Tabansi v Tabansi (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 415, the Court declared that under Common Law, the father is responsible for the upkeep and welfare of the children.

A fortiori, under our Constitution, Section 14(2)(b) thereof, the Federal Government as our personified father, is equally responsible to promote the welfare and security of her people, who are its personified children

Conclusion

It is our fervent prayer that God Almighty give us leaders who envision vision and conceive ideas and ideologies to uplift their people, especially in Africa and Nigeria.

May we the citizenry, also remain eternally and courageously vigilant, to hold our leaders accountable on how they share, manage and/or damage our common wealth.

In other words, the price of upholding our Welfare and Freedom is our Eternal Vigilance and to proactively be in a perpetual state of Comprehensive Consciousness as I concur with the fiery Charly Boy (Area father) that: 

“The last hope of the common man, is the common man”.

Dr Akpo Mudiaga Odje, LLD, LLM (Merit) (London), BL; Member of the British Council; Facilitator of the  Dr Mudiaga Odje, SAN, OFR Centre for the Advancement of the Rule of Law

The Palliative Palaver Between NASS and Nigerian Masses

Jide Ojo

Introduction

The implementation of the removal of fuel subsidy by President Bola Tinubu in his inauguration address has had spiral effects on the economy, especially the cost of living of average Nigerians. The pice of Premium Motor Spirit popularly known as Petrol,  has increased from less than N200 across the official retail outlets in May 2023 to about N700 as of last week. The price volatility is not unconnected to the pricing of crude oil and the importation of refined petroleum products which is done in Dollars. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has floated the exchange rate, with the aim of bridging the gap of the exchange rate between the official and parallel market. This CBN’s decision has led to the plunge of Nigeria’s currency, the Naira. 

Invariably, subsidy removal has led to excruciating pains on the citizens. The cost of living has skyrocketed; micro, small and medium enterprises are currently experiencing high cost, rather than ease of doing business. With the plunge in the value of the Naira, the purchasing power of the currency has been weakened. Commodity prices have simply hit the roof. Nigerian masses are groaning, moaning and agonising, as the citizens now experience high cost, rather than high standard of living. 

Nigerian labour unions have not stood akimbo, watching; they decided to mobilise workers for strike action and mass protests, but the Federal Government rushed to the National Industrial Court to get an injunction to prevent the unions from embarking on any industrial action. 

Short History of Palliatives in Nigeria

World Health Organisation says “Palliative care improves the quality of life of patients and that of their families who are facing challenges associated with life-threatening illness, whether physical, psychological, social or spiritual. The quality of life of caregivers improves as well”.  Thus, palliative is a medical term. However, in the context in which Nigerian Government is using the word, it means some form of relief materials meant to cushion harsh effect of some government policies and programmes. Each time the Federal Government tries to remove fuel subsidy or allows for increase in the pump price of petroleum products, savings from such exercises are purportedly channelled to provide relief materials and improve social amenities. The Petroleum Trust Fund was initiated by the General Sani Abacha regime, as an intervention development agency to bring succour to the people between 1994 and 1999.

The Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme known as ‘SURE-P, is a scheme established by the Federal Government of Nigeria during the Jonathan Administration, to reinvest the Federal Government’s savings from fuel subsidy removal on critical infrastructure projects, and social safety net programmes with direct impact on the citizens of Nigeria. It was established in January 2012 when the Federal Government of Nigeria announced the removal of subsidy on petrol. The immediate past President of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari established the National Social Investments Programmes in 2016, to tackle poverty and hunger across the country. Under it, there is the N-Power programme; Conditional Cash Transfer; Homegrown School Feeding Programme and the Government Enterprise and Empowerment Programme. As a relief from the harsh effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, some palliative measures were also taken. 

Federal and State Government Proposed Palliatives 

Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides that, the security and welfare of citizens are the primary purpose of government. In order to mitigate and ameliorate the sufferings of the Nigerian masses, both the Federal and State Governments are putting forward some relief measures being referred to as palliatives, in order to cushion the harsh effects of the recent subsidy removal. One of such measures taken already, was the Federal Government legislative approval for the disbursement of the $800 million World Bank loan meant to be shared initially at N8,000 for 12 million households for six months. Another measure taken was the Federal Government legislative approval for virement of N500 billion from the N819 billion supplementary budget of 2022, which was initially passed in December 2022 by the 9th National Assembly. Earlier this month, the two chambers of National Assembly approved both the $800 million and the N500 billion expeditiously. However, what is causing ruckus now is the sharing formula, and the proposed specific palliatives.

For the purpose of clarity, the President of the Senate Godswill Akpabio said N500 billion was for palliatives and other capital expenditure, to cushion the effect of the recent subsidy removal. He also said N185,236,937,815 had been approved for the Ministry of Works and Housing, to alleviate the effect of the severe flooding experienced in the country in 2022 on road infrastructure across the six geopolitical zones. Akpabio said N19,200,000,000 had been approved for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture to ameliorate the massive destruction to farmlands across the country, during the severe flooding experienced last year.  The sum of N35 billion was allocated to National Judicial Council, while N10 billion was allocated to the Federal Capital Territory Administration for critical projects The National Assembly also got N70 billion, to support the working conditions of new members. 

There has been public outcry over the N70 billion earmarked for the National Assembly, in the approved Supplementary Appropriation Bill 2022. Not only that, The Sun of July 17, 2023 reported thus: “Twenty-four hours after The Sun exclusively reported plans by the two chambers of the National Assembly – the Senate and the House of Representatives to spend N40 billion on Sports Utility Vehicles for members, new facts have emerged. The Sun, in the report, had revealed plans to purchase 107 Toyota Land Cruiser (2023 model) for Senators and 2023 model Toyota Prado for Members of the House of Representatives. The planned purchase, it was further reported, would be different from the official vehicles expected to be procured for the four presiding officers of the National Assembly, namely Senate President, Godswill Akpabio; Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abass and Deputy Senate President, Jibrin Barau; and Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu”. 

Senator Yemi Adaramodu, spokesperson of the Senate, has come out to clarify what the N70 billion is meant for. In a press statement issued on July 16, 2023, he said no member of the National Assembly will receive any money from the N70 billion budgeted to “support their working conditions”. He said the fund is for purchase of furniture, and to carry out repairs in lawmakers’ offices. 

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of House of Representatives, Mr Tajudeen Abbas “to drop the scandalous plan to spend N40 billion on 465 exotic and bulletproof cars for members and principal officers, and N70 billion as ‘palliatives’ for new members”. SERAP urged them to “repeal the 2022 Supplementary Appropriation Act to reduce the budget for the National Assembly by N110 billion, reflect the current economic realities in the country, and address the impact of the removal of fuel subsidy on the over 137 million poor Nigerians. The proposed spending of N110 billion by Members of the National Assembly, is apparently on top of the N281 billion already provided for the lawmakers in the 2023 National Assembly budget. The proposed spending is also different from the N30.17 billion budgeted for the ‘inauguration expenses’ for new members”. “SERAP is concerned that the budget for the National Assembly may further be increased, as Members are reportedly demanding an upward review of their salaries and allowances, purportedly to offset the impact of the removal of fuel subsidy.”

My Take on the Issues

I have analysed these issues on several media platforms, both electronic and print. One of them was on Politics Nationwide on Radio Nigeria network last Thursday, July 20, 2023. First and foremost, I commend the Federal and State Governments, for thinking out the imperatives of relief materials for the Nigerian suffering masses. However, I feel there are better ways to cushion the negative effect of the fuel subsidy removal. I am patently against the conditional cash transfer of N8,000 for 12 million households, over a six month period. I am not unaware, that President Tinubu has called for the upward review of the amount payable to each of the selected households. However, as rightly pointed out by the National Economic Council at their meeting last Thursday, July 20, the social register has integrity issues.

I have suggested that rather than singling out 12 million households for cash transfers which can be subjected to abuse, let each of the 768 Local Governments and Six Area Councils of the FCT be given one million dollars each from the $800 million World Bank loan. Each of the LGAs should have a Needs Assessment and Implementation Committee, that will organise town hall meetings to collate priority areas in the LGAs that need to be taken care of. It could be repair of schools, roads, Primary Health Centres, or provision of borehole water for the various communities in the LGA. The Committee is to be made up of credible individuals such as traditional leaders, Local Government administrators, religious leaders, town unions and the media. It is my considered view that the ripple effect of this, if there is faithful implementation, will be felt by all and sundry in the LGAs. 

While it may not be out of place to carry out repairs on the National Assembly, however, half of the N70 billion earmarked for that should be enough to carry out the exercise. N40 billion meant for the purchase of exotic cars is rather insensitive, given that there is already monetisation policy in the country. Even if there isn’t, no member of the National Assembly can be said to be poor, considering what they spend on their elections. Given the austere times we are in and the huge debt portfolio of the country, there should be no provision for the purchase of any official car at this point in time. The time we are in, calls for sacrifice on the part of our political leaders. Significant reduction in the cost of governance is imperative at this point, and leaders must lay a good example, if they do not want to incur the peoples revolt. 

Jide Ojo, Development Consultant, Columnist, Author and Public Affairs Analyst

N110 billion Loan: Don’t Borrow to Pay for Luxuries 

John Aikpokpo-Martins

The decision by the FG to give N110 billion to the National Assembly, for the purpose of buying state of the art luxury cars and furniture, is as callous as it is insensitive. The decision is more worrisome, bearing in mind that the said loan was sought for, to be deployed to provide palliatives to the most vulnerable, to cushion the expected suffering that the removal of fuel subsidy will occasioned. 

The FG, which the National Assembly is a constituent part of, had harshly, and without due notice, removed the fuel subsidy by fiat on 29th of May, 2023. This singular act, drove the cost of living astronomically higher than the income of majority of Nigerians. The people grudgingly decided to bear the consequential hardship occasioned by the removal of fuel subsidy with equanimity, believing and hoping that everyone is sacrificing for a better Nigeria. In the midst of grappling with the reality of a now joyless existence, the cost of a litre of fuel unexpectedly rose to the N700 within a space of two weeks. Nigerians are groaning, despondent, and forlorn. Then, in the midst of all these uncertainties and pains inflicted on Nigerians, the FG brazenly came to announce the virement of about N110 billion, for the procurement of the state-of-the-art cars, furniture etc for members of the National Assembly. This decision is very wicked, reminiscent of the deceptive and despotic rule of the pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. The brazenness of the insensitive decision is utterly shocking, devoid of empathy and sincerity. The Tinubu administration is being provocative, and taking Nigerians for granted. This decision, unfortunately, is indicative of what to expect from the Tinubu administration, if it is not reined in by vigilant Nigerians. 

I must say that, I am very disappointed in the President. There is absolutely no reason to be ostentatious, in the midst of abject penury now prevalent in the country. I am totally against the virement of N110 billion to the National Assembly, to buy luxury cars from monies obtained to provide palliatives for a traumatised citizenry. This is pure thievery by the ruling class, and nothing more. The mere thought of the scam is obscene. How do you obtain a loan to satisfy a lifestyle of luxury, and then turn around to increase the cost of fuel to N700? Does it make any sense?

John Aikpokpo-Martins, Chairman, NBA Section on Public Interest and Development Law (SPIDEL)