THE controversy on the plan by the Federal Government to remove fuel subsidy raged on at the weekend with former Head of State, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, Edo State Governor Adams Oshiomhole, and other top Nigerians offering varied insights into the issue.For Gowon, the Federal Government may decide to implement the policy after fully reactivating the nation's refineries. The former leader who spoke in Umuahia, Abia State, said that doing this would reduce the resulting hardship on the citizenry.According to Gowon, it is the responsibility of the government to take any actions, including fuel subsidy removal, it considers capable of addressing problems in the country. But he noted that such actions ought to be humane so that the people meant to benefit from them would not be overstretched.He said: 'If you remove subsidy, there will be increase in prices. The increase will cause inflation in transport, food prices will increase, there will be other problems. I hope government is considering and foreseeing this and I pray that the subsidy will be removed painlessly and that the government provides adequate palliatives that will ameliorate the hardship.'Gowon was in Abia State, according to him, on behalf of the Carter Centre, United States (U.S.) to seek the assistance of the state government to distribute mosquito nets for fighting malaria and filariasis.According to Gowon, the Carter Centre has successfully fought guinea worm in the country such that for three years, there was no report of guinea worm in any part of the country.In a document released by Initiative for Peace and Industrial Harmony (IPIH) to the media in Abuja, the group urged all the negotiators, especially the government and the other unions involved in the fuel subsidy removal to note that the subsidy issue must be negotiated to avoid what it called 'post-deregulation crisis that may ensue unless there are constructive engagements to stem the crisis.'The organisation noted that 'subsidising fuel has high cost. Moreover, universal price subsidies almost always benefit high-income households more than the poor, because richer households consume more energy. Other adverse consequences include rampant abuses in fuel markets and an inefficient downstream sector.'According to the document signed by the executive director of IPIH, Dr. Timiebi Kiropamo-Agary, retired federal permanent secretary, instead of the rigid stance of government, it should include incentives in its discussion with the people in the manner that led to the formation of the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF).It said: 'Our experiences tell us that we should be considering a different approach. We should be engaged in a post-deregulation initiative which should include the introduction of fuel fund for infrastructural development; provision of urban mass transit systems; expansion of the federal highways; rural road development; creation of a modern railway network development and the establishment of Deregulation Impact Mitigation Fund.'Oshiomhole and a former member of the Senate Committee on Petroleum Downstream, Nimi Bariagh-Amange disagreed over the processes initiated by the Federal Government toward the proposed removal of the fuel subsidy.Oshiomhole, through the state Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr. Osagie Obayuwana, said though huge resources were being expended by the Federal Government to convince Nigerians on the need for fuel subsidy removal, the proposed plan may remain provocative to the people if a more logical argument on the removal of the subsidy and increase in petroleum prices were not presented by the administration.Senator Bariagh-Amange insisted that the position of the Federal Government on the removal of the subsidy was right and a clear revolution against the few involved in sponsoring a protest against the proposed policy that would improve the economy and allow the revamping of the existing refineries in the country.Oshiomhole and Bariagh-Amange made their separate positions known yesterday in Yenagoa during the second annual public lecture organised by the Federated Correspondents' Chapel of the Bayelsa Council of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ).Oshiomhole said that the Federal Government's request that the people pay more for petroleum products would not address the economic problems at the grassroots level.Bariagh-Amange said that the protest against the removal of the fuel subsidy was being sponsored by some few persons involved in the importation of the refined petroleum products and insisted that such removal would be the needed revolution desired for growth and development in the economy.On his part, the Speaker, Kwara State House of Assembly, Alhaji Abdulrazaq Atunwa, urged the Federal Government to conduct a referendum on the proposed withdrawal of fuel subsidy as a means of obtaining the true opinion of the people on the issue. Atunwa spoke at a meeting with reporters in Ilorin, the state capital.Also, Atunwa insisted on the provision of financial autonomy for state Houses of Assembly, warning that any state executives that deprived their legislatures such independence would be seen to be oppressing the assemblies.Atunwa said that there was the need for a referendum because the removal of subsidy was not one of the campaign promises of the incumbent administration while seeking the votes of the people.Amid the fuel subsidy debate, indications have emerged that all the countries that have removed subsidy now buy fuel at a higher rate than Nigeria.A recent publication in national dailies by a civil society group, had noted several countries that had removed fuel subsidy successfully, but investigations showed that many of those countries still buy fuel higher than what is obtainable in Nigeria.A report published by the World Bank and obtained by The Guardian showed that none of these countries has a lesser pump price than Nigeria.
Click here to read full news..
