So much has been said about the decision of the Nigerian government to remove the subsidy on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), otherwise known as petrol.So much anger and angst were expressed by a majority of Nigerians during the general strike declared by the Nigeria Labour Congress and the Trade Union Congress to protest the removal of subsidy by the Nigerian government (by Nigerian government it is taken to mean the Federal Government and the governments of the 36 states of the federation) and, expectedly so, the opposition cashed in on the agitations over the removal of fuel subsidy, exploited the situation and indeed almost succeeded in twisting it out of control for its own undue advantage. The opposition, especially some of its representative governors, saw an opportunity in the engendering reactions to the issue of fuel subsidy removal and craftily extricated itself from a collective decision that was thought would free the country from serious, future economic shock. But why did a decision jointly taken by the National Economic Council whose membership comprises the 36 state governors of the federation and other prominent members of the government suddenly become the lonesome burden of the Federal Government, nay President Goodluck Jonathan' Why did some of the governors who initiated the idea and indeed agreed that continuing carrying the burden of subsidy by the government would lead to eventual dislocation in the nation's economic vertebrate suddenly make a volte-face and were rumoured to be behind most of the uprisings especially in the South-West states' Indeed why would President Goodluck Jonathan, popularly-elected on the goodwill of the generality of Nigerians to carry their mandate, choose such an unpopular path like the road to fuel subsidy removal, knowing full well that that such a path would lead to the erosion of his popularity' Would the president have risked his public goodwill, if he did not believe the decision would lead ultimately to public good and economic well-being of the nation'I have troubled myself with these questions just as I know that other well-meaning Nigerians must have done in their sober moments. But the answers to these posers clearly reveal to me the extent and depth of human preference for self-preservation. For instance, out of the 36 governors who took the decision to remove fuel subsidy on the basis that it would free some revenues for the development of critical sectors of the economy and assist indigent state governors to pay the new minimum wage, only the Niger State governor, Dr Mu'azu Babangida Aliyu, Adamawa State governor, Murtala Nyako, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole of Edo State, Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State, incidentally the leader of the Nigerian Governors' Forum and a few others came out strongly to defend the policy decision. These governors at every opportunity explained to the public why government decided it would be good for the economy for subsidy on fuel to go, listing the accruing benefits to their states and the nation at large.Perhaps there would not have been any need for the one week mayhem and the needless, tragic loss of lives during the nationwide strike called by the organized labour had other governors forsaken their duplicitous roles and come out clean on the matter. It was expected that these governors should have explained to their people why they backed the decision on fuel subsidy removaland the life-changing, people-oriented projects they would implement with their shares of the proceeds. That, of course, would have lessened the burden on the Federal Government and even assisted the Jonathan administration to rethink the policy. But some of these governors, especially those in opposition parties, saw an opportunity to play dirty politics with the lives of Nigerians and the life-blood of the nation. It was even alleged that some of them went to the extent of hiring protesters to condemn the policy in the bid to cover their own tracks. Curiously, none of these governors has come out till today to deny being part of those who took the decision on fuel subsidy removal after the Minister of Finance, Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, publicly uncovered their identities. What is more, none of them has come out to say his state would have rejected its share of the subsidy proceeds because he the governor was not part of the decision. The logic here is that the hypocritical silence of these governors, mostly in the South-West controlled states of Lagos, Ogun Oyo, Osun and Ekiti, whose party, the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN)publicly pooh-poohed the policy, amounts to sheer chicanery. The state-induced protest rallies to score cheap political points underscored the shallow-mindedness of many of the so-called progressives and hollowness of politics in Nigeria. Interestingly, all these political trickery was not lost on labour which saw through the actions of some individuals to capitalise on the impasse and immediately called off the strike after reaching a truce with the government. Importantly, also, the public was able to discern that it was being used by some political buccaneers who had eroded their genuine call for restitution by a government they entrusted with their mandate. President Jonathan and members of his cabinet and some very sincere governors like Dr Aliyu, Comrade Oshiomhole, Amaechi, Nyako and some others had taken the pains to explain the politics of oil subsidy, how a few individuals were sharing the commonwealth. They explained that the fuel that was supposed to be sold at N65 per litre in Lagos and other places in Nigeria, because the government had paid to ensure that it was sold at that price,was not being bought by Nigerians at approved price. While Fashola, Fayemi, Aregbesola and co, for instance, were buying the fuel at N65 per litre in Lagos, Ekiti, Osun respectively, Nyako, Aliyu, Uduaghan, Sylva and others were asked to cough up over N100 for the same litre of fuel in Adamawa, Niger, Delta and Bayelsa states. Should the man in Bayelsa or Adamawa or Kano not feel short-changed that it was his compatriots in Lagos that were enjoying the subsidy while he was not' But what if the money being paid toimporters of fuel was channelled intocritical sectors like power and energy, oil, transportation and road, health, among others, will every Nigerian not benefit' Would such critical interventions not enhance the economic well-being of the average Nigerian' These, I believe, were the altruistic considerations that prompted President Jonathan and he made his intentions known. He explained the dynamics of fuelling the pockets of some fat cats with the common man subsidy, which would continue to leave the critical infrastructure in a dire state. He outlined the projects he would use the money saved from subsidy to execute for the overall comfort of Nigerians. He came out clean. He acknowledged that it was a hard decision, one that would bring temporary hardship but which would provide permanent relief to the generality of Nigerians eventually. President Jonathan believed strongly that he took the decision in the best interest of Nigeria and Nigerians. This clearly is the path any true leader would have taken. And except for Governor Oshiomhole and these few other governors (who stood firmly on the side of truth), who reeled off the projects they would undertake with their own shares of the subsidy money, no othergovernor said anything. They were waiting for the fuel drama to play itself out after which they would collect their own share of the money and fritterit anyhow. After all, there was no commitment on their part, nothing to bind them to their people. The unfortunatebut curious situation about the Nigerian situation is that some crafty politicians will continue to exploit the sensibilities of Nigerians by playing the hero in a very tragic drama. For the politicians in this category, there is hardly any consideration whatsoever for the nation's economic health and its stability. What concerns them largely is how they can manipulate and hoodwink the people by playing uptheir opponents' disadvantaged position to gain political leverage. The public, which is taken in by the camaraderie, would then be brutally and effectivelyused as is the case with the fuel subsidy rallies in Lagos. Or how do you define a situationwhere the same people who saw nothing wrong in the action of a state government which hiked the fees paid in its university from N30 to N250,000 or where a toll-gate was erected on a road against the will of the public or where a state government ran its administration for about seven months without appointing cabinet members, suddenly woke up from their induced slumber to mouth obscenities in protest against fuel subsidy' The public should be wary of uncanny politicians who will always want to exploit them. The fuel subsidy has really exposed the true characters of many a politician. Those who are looking down onPresident Jonathan as the villain in the unfortunate fuel subsidy drama should look elsewhere. The real villains are those who took a decision on behalf of their people in secret and denied doing so publicly. Such people are not worthy of being called leaders.
Click here to read full news..
