By Lamid Azeez
On May 29, the newly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in his inaugural speech, declared unequivocally that fuel subsidy is gone.
According to him, the rationale behind the decision was the rising cost of fuel subsidy of over $800 million a month on the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation’s account, which was plausible to equal $ 10 billion in 2022 alone. The unsustainable subsidy expenditure doubled the monetary budget for education and health in the same year.
It should be recalled that, subsidy was introduced in 1977, under Olusegun Obansanjo’s military rule, with the objective of cushioning the effect of rising global oil prices. He brought up the ‘Price Control Act’ to regulate the national economy, most especially the fuel. Since then, fuel subsidy has become part of the Nigerian yearly budget.
Thus, with the removal of petroleum subsidy by the current administration, many controversial opinions and submissions have been made by a considerable number of Nigerians. While some agreed and lent their support to the step, others had presented dissenting views on the decision. The ground of the latter group was the adverse effects the subsidy removal would have on the poor masses, who constitute the bulk of the Nigerian populace.
Nonetheless, the removal of the petroleum subsidy has in the long run become a settled norm among Nigerians because of its underlying
effects.
This owes to the fact that the results of the subsidy policy were just mere parentheses that had led to an increase in a plethora of detriments to the development of the national economy. Hence, the reason why the President, in his speech, declared an end to the fuel subsidy. He said “ Subsidy is gone. We shall instead re-channel the funds into better investment in public infrastructure, education, health care, and jobs that will materially improve the lives of millions.”
Consequently, after this announcement, the fuel pump price sporadically jumped above more than 100 percent; from #250 to #570. This inflation in the fuel price has, no doubt, affected the living conditions of the people; the high price of market goods, and the transport fares have made living unbearable to the commoners. People are now living in pain, because the economic situation has turned many businesses down, broken many homes, and turned the strong into weak.
Taking a considerable insight on the current living condition of the people, the adverse effects of the subsidy removal cannot be overemphasized. Therefore, a deep consideration needs to be made on the policy, with a view to alleviating the miserable condition common people have been driven into. Robert Greene’s 48 Law of Power, chapter 45 provides that “preach the need for change but never reform too much at once. We understand the fact that the fuel subsidy is bleeding the country but to change the rule, there should be a provisional regularity that would cushion the hypothetical circumstances that the new rule may cause.
The government, in my view, does not cater for what will be the condition of the people but was only after the goals. Greene, when figuring out the consequences laced with change, stresses that “if you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things if a change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement from the past.”
On a final note therefore, the current administration needs to look outwardly rather than being concerned immoderately about its own priorities and objectives. There’s a need for the government to make available provisions that will ameliorate and alleviate the sharp adverse effects of the subsidy removal policy. Palliatives are not the solution! The problem is the root, not the stem nor the surface.