Follow Us on Google
From Ndubuisi Orji, Abuja
Since the inception of President Bola Tinubu’s administration, issues surrounding the removal of fuel subsidy, have been a subject of discussion across the country. In the House of Representatives, it has also been a major talking point.
President Tinubu, in his inaugural speech, on May 29, had announced the end of the fuel subsidy regime, saying it is not longer sustainable. The President noted that the increasing cost of fuel subsidy is no longer justifiable in the face of dwindling economic resources.
According to him, “On fuel subsidy, unfortunately, the budget before I assumed office is that no provision is there for fuel subsidy. So fuel subsidy is gone. Subsidy can no longer justify its ever-increasing costs in the wake of drying resources.
“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.”
The fuel subsidy regime, which began in the 1970s have been a thorny issue in the politics of the country. Nevertheless, efforts to end it in the past has been thwarted by politics. In 2012, then President Goodluck Jonathan had announced an end to fuel subsidy. However, the announcement generated an uproar, as civil society groups and key opposition figures, including President Tinubu rose in condemnation. After nationwide protest that paralysed economic activities in the country, the government suspended the subsidy removal.
Eleven years after, there is a near consensus among the political elite in the country that fuel subsidy should be removed. Critics of fuel subsidy had repeatedly argued that it has been a drain on the purse of he country.
Regardless, there is no agreement on how it should be phased out and what measures should be in place to cushion the effects of the subsidy removal on the people.
In the aftermath of its removal, the pump price of fuel immediately increased from N197 to N537 and later N617. However, the House, in a motion, on July 14, a day after its inauguration demanded for palliatives from the government to cushion the effects of the fuel subsidy removal.
The sponsor of the motion, Aliyu Madaki, had stated that “since the removal of the subsidy, several protests had been recorded as citizens accuse the government of being insensitive to their needs.”
Consequently, Madaki argued that there was “need to put in place measures to protect the rights of citizens and prioritize the provision of palliatives to mitigate the challenges that have arisen from the fuel subsidy removal and ensure a more sustainable and inclusive economic framework for the benefit of Nigerians.”
Incidentally, the ninth House, had in June, called on the Federal Government to provide palliatives to cushion the effects of the fuel subsidy removal on the citizens. The House had adopted the report of its Ad-hoc Committee on Petroleum Subsidy regime from 2017 to 2021, which recommended the “provision and procurement of Compressed Natural Gas buses as an alternative transport system with cheaper fuel consumption,”
The parliament also called for the introduction of “intermodal, regional and national transport systems to ease mass movement of people across the country.”
President Tinubu, a fortnight ago, requested for an amendment to the 2022 Appropriation Act to provide for N500 billion for palliatives to cushion the effects of the fuel subsidy removal.
The House leader, Professor Julius Ihonvbere, who led debate on the bill lauded the efforts of the Executive and urged the House to approve the request promptly.
According to him, “in a situation where policies are taken, leading to expected and unexpected consequences, government has to find means to address the challenges brought by the policy. With the president’s request for funds, Nigerians are waiting to hear from the parliament with so much expectations”.
The minority leader, Kingsley Chinda concurred. Chinda, while expressing support for the government proposal, said the concern of Nigerians is the implementation of the palliatives.
“We are also aware as Nigerians that when we talk of palliatives, sometimes we see handouts being given to Nigerians. We commend Mr. President for being responsive to the resolutions of this House by promptly requesting for this money for palliatives for Nigerians.
“Indeed this money has already been budgeted in the appropriation. Therefore, it’s nothing new but the concerns of Nigerians will always be the implementation of these palliatives. We want positive effect on Nigerians.
“We have bills that are skyrocketing, we want palliatives that we give, not minimum wage but living wage to Nigerians, a palliative that will allow us breathe and not to suffocate the ordinary man as Mr President said. NEPA bill is very high, we want to see a reduction, school fees is high”, he stated.
Expectedly, the House approved the President’s request to amend the 2022 Supplementary Appropriation Act, to provide N500 billion palliatives for Nigerians.
Analysts, however, say beyond approval, the parliament has failed to ask the critical questions on the fuel subsidy palliatives, especially on the would be beneficiaries and how they would be selected.
A member of the House, Beni Lar, in her contribution to the debate on the N500 billion palliatives fund had raised pertinent questions regarding how the N500 billion palliatives will benefit the people.
Lar had queried: “What is going to be the nature of the palliatives. Nigeria middle class is almost non existent due to the high cost of living in the country; how is the N500billion palliatives going to support businesses owned by private individuals.
“How is the government going to identify the most pressing needs of individuals/families who are more vulnerable, would it be transportation, health care, feeding or increase in wages and salaries of civil servants.
“There are many Nigerians in the informal sector who are not employed by government, how are they going to benefit from the palliatives?” Nevertheless, the posers still remain unanswered.
In the past, government palliatives had failed to serve the intended purpose. Critics are quick to point to the hoarding of the palliatives, during the COVID-19 crises in 2020, as well as the management of the conditional cash transfer of the immediate past administration.
Like the COVID-19 palliatives, the conditional transfer was a subject of controversy, as critics say it never got to the intended beneficiaries. Regardless, the House failed to exercise its oversight function over both programmes.
Consequently, analysts say the most critical issue, as far as the fuel subsidy palliatives is concerned, is ensuring that it gets to the right people. Ahmed Jaha, an All Progressives Congress ( APC) member representing Chibok Federal Constituency of Borno State, think so too.
Jaha, while contributing to the debate on the N500 billion had noted “it is good to provide funds in order to provide palliatives to Nigerians who are hard hit by the effect of fuel subsidy removal. “The funds provided should be used for the purpose intended not as it has been the practice before when monies appropriated for a purpose are diverted to other areas or outrightly stolen.”
Therefore, pundits say beyond the excitement of approving the N500 billion palliatives, the onus is on the House to ensure that it serves the intended purpose. Will the parliament rise to the occasion? Time shall tell.
