Atiku Abubakar, Public Discourse And The Controversy About Petroleum Subsidy Removal -By Hajia Hadiza Mohammed

The recent statement from one of the Atiku Abubakar’s media aides that the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential flag bearer in the forthcoming presidential election would restore subsidy of petroleum product if elected into power has generated public debate. Coming from the erstwhile vice-president of the country and with the election year around the corner, it is not surprising that every utterance and every act from political actors will spark off controversy. That is beside the fact that the former number two citizen of the country has been very active in contributing to public discourse over the years. Like in the past when Atiku led the call and the debate for the restructuring of the nation, there are debates and opposition for his purported plan to restore fuel subsidy if elected, with those opposing the plan coming mainly from the Tinubu camp, their blind supporters and “the hear-say” analysts as one of my colleagues would put it.

More than any politician in the history of this country, Atiku has stirred up and made enormous contribution to public discourse more than his compeers. He has carved out a niche for himself as a sincere politician who is not afraid to bare his mind on national issues. He was never afraid to tell truth to power even at his own hurt. He did that in the previous regimes. The issue of the sudden, abrupt and total removal of subsidy by the APC regime has sent devastating shock waves on the economy necessitating the urgent need to revisit it.

Indeed, the debate for subsidy removal has lasted for over 4 decades since 1986 when the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) was introduced by the IBB regime. And there have been opposition to its total removal. The plan was for phased removal until the nation will be more able to refine and meet its own petroleum product need. In 2012, Tinubu who is now in power led his Lagos crowd to resist the planned phased removal of the subsidy when the price of the petroleum product was slightly adjusted by the Goodluck Ebele Jonathan’s regime. But today, the same Tinubu has totally removed the said petroleum subsidy without caution, with his propagandists and paid analyst telling us that that rash decision was a bold and a strategic one. And the effect is what we are witnessing in the economy currently, with economy turned upside down. So why should anyone raise eyebrows when someone says he would restore subsidy if elected to lead the nation? Has the total removal of the subsidy benefitted anyone apart from those in charge of the importation of the products?

To Tinubu and his team and their yes-men, there is no substitute for the removal of the subsidy because they are the only beneficiaries of the removal of the subsidy. And to me that is the height of hypocrisy. The removal of the petroleum subsidy by Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu without caution and without fixing the nation’s refineries was a reckless, selfish and suicidal decision. And by opposing anyone who is planning to bring back the subsidy, they want to sustain their lies and hypocrisy in claiming that the subsidy removal was a good decision whereas it is one of the worst economic decisions ever made by any Nigerian government in recent times.

And for those who would want to crucify Atiku and his team over the planned restoration of the petroleum subsidy, my questions for them are: how has the removal of subsidy under Tinubu benefitted the Nigerian masses? Is the removal of subsidy an end itself or a means to an end? What exactly is the purpose of removing subsidy on petroleum product?

Clearly, the removal of subsidy on petroleum products by the Tinubu government has not benefitted the country in any verifiable way. This was because there was no plan to cushion its side effects. Economic planning and decision making involves anticipating the side effects of economic policies and putting measures in place to mitigate them. But Tinubu and his so-called economic team seem not to take into consideration the possible effects of the abrupt decision to yank off the subsidy on the petroleum product. And so if any one who is elected into government decides to restore the subsidy until measures are put in place for its full implementation, there is nothing wrong with it. And if any one decides to allow the removal to be sustained but invest the saved funds from the subsidy removal (something Tinubu refused to do) into a more profitable investments and social welfare, there is also nothing wrong with that.

There is no gainsaying that the removal of the subsidy by the current regime was hasty, self-serving and ill-advised. And worse still, the proceeds or supposed saved funds from the subsidy removal was never ploughed back into the economy but looted. That is why despite the so-called accruals from saved subsidy funds, the nation is still borrowing to finance its budget. So, those opposing anyone who has plan to restore the subsidy is either ignorant or hypocritical.

Hajia Hadiza Mohammed
hajiahadizamohammed@gmail.com
An actress, social activist, politician
London, UK