The proposed removal of fuel subsidy by the Federal Government had, in the past months, generated heated debates from various stakeholders. The Federal Government has, consistently, been calling for support in its bid to remove the fuel subsidy. In its argument, the FG claimed that if it continued to subsidise fuel, this would hurt the economy.President Goodluck Jonathan had, while unveiling his government's plan to phase out fuel subsidy, said 'a major component of the policy of fiscal consolidation is government's intent to phase out the fuel subsidy, beginning from the 2012 fiscal year. This will provide about N1.2 trillion in savings, part of which can be deployed into providing safety nets for poor segments of the society to ameliorate the effects of the subsidy removal.'What is instructive is that the National Assembly has the sole powers to appropriate money for the Federal Government, so it has to give its backing to the government's proposal. However, from the feelers from the House of Representatives, the majority of the lawmakers seem to be against the plan to phase out fuel subsidy.The House had, before embarking on its Christmas and New Year break, described the proposal as premature and urged the presidency to explore alternative funding of budget deficit. The House took this stand while adopting the recommendations of its joint committees on Finance, Appropriations, Legislative Budget and Research and National Planning and Economic Development mandated to review the 2012-2015 Medium Term Fiscal Framework (MTFF) presented to the National Assembly by President Jonathan.In the committees' recommendation, the House had concurred that, 'the proposal on fuel subsidy removal as contained in the revised Fiscal Strategy paper is premature. Sources other than relying on savings from proposed subsidy removal, as part of financing items for expected deficit should be explored.'From all indications, the House is still claiming that it had not take its position on the fuel subsidy removal issue. This indication emerged through a statement issued by its spokesman, Honourable Zakari Mohammed, declaring that the House had not endorsed the proposal.Mohammed equally maintained that the issue of fuel subsidy removal had not been discussed by the House let alone endorsed. This move was sequel to a statement credited to President Jonathan during a media chat, where the president was reportedly quoted as saying that the National Assembly would endorse the fuel subsidy removal.With this, the House spokesman quickly issued a statement which read in part, 'my attention has been drawn to Mr President's media chat where he was credited to have said that the National Assembly would endorse fuel subsidy removal. For the avoidance of doubt, we, in the seventh assembly, have not endorsed subsidy removal because it has not yet been debated in the lower chamber.'Hopefully, the House of Representatives will commence the debate when we begin to take on the 2012 budget after the Christmas and New Year break. Mr President's view on the National Assembly's stand on fuel subsidy removal should be seen for all intents and purposes as his desire since our processes on the burning national issue has not been concluded.'We assure Nigerians that, as their true representatives, we shall continue to be on the same page with them on their dream of a better Nigeria. Similarly, we wish our constituents happy Christmas celebration and a crime and violence free new year', the statement had declared.As the waiting game continued, a member of the House of Representatives, Honourable Toby Okechukwu, who represents Aninri/Agwu/Oji-Uzo Federal Constituency in Enugu State , however said that 'whatever decision the House is going to take on the issue (fuel subsidy removal), it will be in the best interest of Nigerians.''Okechukwu, who once served as Special Adviser on Economy to the Deputy President of the Senate, while speaking on the fuel subsidy removal plan, said 'My own take is that you don't subsidise consumption; if you check the preponderance of people who are benefiting from subsidy, they are just a small fraction of the country, but the important thing is that the executive arm should be very clear and market the issue to Nigerians.'There are areas where other countries subsidise; if you are talking about subsidy, you are talking about subsidising the agricultural sector because that is the area that employs about 70 per cent of Nigerians.'So, subsidy in essence is not bad, but you must be subsidising for the right purposes; you don't subsidise consumption. If you are talking about fuel subsidy, who are you subsidising' How many people are using 10 cars' The majority of people who are living in the rural areas, are they getting the benefits of the fuel subsidy' How many of them enter commercial vehicles in a year''In Europe, they subsidise agriculture, in America they subsidise agriculture; you must subsidise those things that will drive the momentum of the economy. It is not an emotional issue; we should place it on the table, analyse it and come to a clear understanding of where we want to be. So, I do not believe that agreeing or disagreeing on fuel subsidy removal is that simplistic.'The question is, what do you subsidise' If it is the research, if it is production, you do that to ensure that you don't have an invasion of your economy by other countries or you subsidise an area that that will be of benefit to vast majority of Nigerians. As far as I am concerned, we still have a long way to go, but the executive arm and various government agencies that are directly involved should market the idea. If they want fuel subsidy to go, they should tell us why. Personal opinion or no personal opinion does not really matter; what is important is the interest of Nigerians', he said.As the arguments for and against the fuel subsidy removal continue, all eyes are on the National Assembly, as its decision will definitely give direction to the vexatious issue. But the question still remains: on whose part will the National Assembly stand
Click here to read full news..
