The nation is, no doubt, smarting from a six-day (January 9-13 and16) shut-down by the organised labour and civil society organisations due to the sudden removal of fuel subsidy which was announced by the Federal Government on January 1, this year, through the instrumentality of the Petroleum Products Pricing and Regulatory Agency (PPPRA).Over N720 billion, according to government sources and watchers/analysts of the nation's economy, was lost by both the public and private sectors in the period that the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) called out workers on the street for a combination of strike, peaceful protest, which was hijacked by miscreants and other politically partisan interests, and the sit-at-home of January 16. The irony of the situation was that public and private sector revenue was lost in the action that was supposedly embarked upon to challenge corruption in the downstream petroleum sector, stop leakages and free money-a humongous sum at that, on which a cabal in the sector was said to be feeding fat in the name of fuel subsidy-for the building of massive infrastructure nationwide.The Federal Government had validated its action on the fact that the subsidy bill was too huge for it to continue to fund and that it was a euphemism for corruption, which must be confronted head-on. The question which was thrown up in the public domain to prick the conscience of Nigerians was the propriety or otherwise of the continued funding of corruption.Apparently, no right thinking person would want the regime of corruption to continue. If it was true that the Federal Government subsidised a cabal that held the downstream petroleum sector by the jugular to the tune of N1.3 trillion in 2011 alone (including payment of some arrears on kerosene subsidy for 2010 and 2011 as was later clarified by the Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke before the House Ad-Hoc Committee on Subsidy), then it makes sense to withdraw the subsidy and spend it on building infrastructure that will impact positively directly on the people.If the idea is to judiciously redirect the subsidy money in the years to come on building roads, refineries, health and power facilities, among other people-oriented projects, then the withdrawal of the subsidy should be seen by Nigerians as a demonstration of political will by a sincere leadership to actualize a development programme that will reinforce its transformation agenda.In fact, the idea of freeing the subsidy fund is Federal Government's Unique Selling Point (USP) in subsidy removal. Although a compromise had been reached by the reduction of the pump price from N140 per litre (when the subsidy was completely removed) to N97 per litre (in the present circumstance of a compromise to resort in the interim to a phased deregulation which presages a full deregulation latest April, this year), the entire gamut of government should have, by this incident, learnt some lessons. I expect that government at all levels should now shift attention to the non-oil sector of the economy, especially where they have comparative advantages, to maximise exploration, production, consumption (if necessary) and export. I also expect Ministries, Agencies and Departments of government to explore ways of generating revenue to bolster government's revenue profile.The Customs Department is doing well in this area even though one may say that its focus has been on conventionally defined areas of imposing and collecting duties. The Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) is doing well in the collection of taxes and generating revenue for government. There are others. But the current financial situation of the Federal Government has shown that the funding level is still very insufficient to drive rapid development.I believe government has not reached its elastic limits in revenue generation drives. There are still ways by which government can effortlessly raise revenue in multibillions of naira without first investing huge sums into the process. In the thick of the anti-subsidy removal strike that paralysed the nation, my mind was adverted to the National Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) which has been saddled with the responsibility of regulating the food and drug manufacturing subsector of the economy and the huge revenue it can generate from its regulatory activities only if it could be creative.This time calls for creative ideas about how to generate revenue. I believe that the leadership of NAFDAC under the charge of Dr Paul Orhii has the capacity to creatively generate revenue that will not only free it from annual budgetary allocations by the Federal Government but also make it possible for the agency to assist government in funding allied departments and agencies that cannot, by their composition and mandate, generate revenue.I do not see anything wrong in the NAFDAC collaborating with the National Assembly to push through a legislation that will entitle the agency to collect five per cent as regulatory allowance on every luxury good or product (whether domiciled or imported) that is consumed in the country. Billions of naira can be generated by the agency as regulatory allowance annually.This is done in many developed countries. The legislation will fine-tune all necessary details, especially concerning the mode of collecting the regulatory allowance and the range of products the allowance would cover. This will solve the problem of funding that NAFDAC is facing. The truth is, there is need to adequately fund NAFDAC as one of the top 18 medicine regulatory agencies in the world if it is to continue to incrementally apply itself to its responsibility. If NAFDAC can be legally enabled to collect regulatory allowance, it would go a long way to help it break the barriers of current funding, which is like a drop in the ocean. A comparative analysis of NAFDAC's funding, for example, with the US, China and Australia shows negative implications for personnel administration. For instance, the staff strength of the US Food and Drug Administration for a population of about 300 million is 12,000 employees.The Chinese, for their own population of about 1.2 billion, have about 70,000 employees while the Australian Agency (the TGA), for a population of 20 million Australians, has 16,000 employees. My investigations showed that Nigeria, with a population of 167 million people, has 1, 498 employees in NAFDAC. To deliver on its mandate of effective regulation and monitoring, NAFDAC has to be adequately manned. The personnel figure has to increase. But that is not possible in the absence of adequate funding. Whereas NAFDAC should not have problem funding its activities especially building and equipping of laboratories and other operations in the states of the federation; it should also be able to pay good salaries as and when due. There is no doubt that regulatory allowance collectible by NAFDAC by law will be an elixir to the problem of paucity of funds that it faces. Can't we replicate what is obtainable in some developed countries here where the regulatory agency is allowed to collect regulatory levy on such luxury items like tobacco products, energy drinks, alcoholic beverages which most people do not need' Only those people who have excesses and procure these items out of luxury and/or ostentation will be affected by the levy. It is not compulsory that they buy them, but if they must buy the products, then it becomes a matter of luxury and not necessity. Have you, for instance, ever bothered to think of the motivation behind someone buying a bottle of Don Perion for N30, 000' If it is a class thing, then five per cent regulatory allowance put on top of that price will be considered insignificant. But there is an advantage that consumers stand to benefit: he or she will be sure of the genuineness of the product (Don Perion, Hennessey or Saint Remy) he or she is consuming. I believe the regulatory allowance will come in handy for NAFDAC. The agency will have enough money to take care of its operations and will be able to give some back to the Federal Government to be budgeted for other agencies that do not have the capacity to raise or generate funds. I foresee a situation where NAFDAC will be able to give some to the Pharmaceutical Intervention Fund, which is the fund for NAFDAC regulated products, to help them upgrade their facilities.A good chunk of the revenue raked in through the allowance can also be given to the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) so the scheme will have money to buy and subsidise medicines for people who cannot afford them. Some of the money could even be given to institutions like National Institute of Pharmaceutical Development which capacity to develop new medicines (and this has been shown in the development of anti-sickle cell medicine already) is under-utilised. With NAFDAC generously earmarking part of the regulatory allowance to the institute, it (institute) will be able to fund the procurement of modern equipment to do better research.There are many medicinal herbs that could be researched into and more medicines could come from this effort, including access of the Nigerian population to these medicines. I call on NAFDAC leadership to explore this possibility and present an appropriate bill to the Federal Legislature for its consideration and passage. The National Assembly should be ready to embrace the proposal, if the agency considers it apposite in the current circumstance whereby the Federal Government is looking for ways and means to generate funds for massive infrastructure development.The more the number of departments and agencies that are able to come up with ways of generating funds with a view to achieving funding independence and de-linkage from annual budgetary provisions, the better for the efficacy of public finance profile.Ojeifo is an Abuja-based journalist and publisher.
Click here to read full news..
