AS a measure to douse the hardship envisaged from the surreptitious removal of fuel subsidy in the country, the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE-P) was presumably well intended. Unfortunately, the SURE programme has both a miserable identity as well as a burden of credibility. The programme was hurriedly advertised with no indication that this is a direct palliative to the commencement of subsidy removal on January 1st, 2012, which was ill-advisedly imposed on the Nigerian people. To buttress that unfair motive, advertisements ran in the public media without an identification of its ownership; there was no debating of its priorities known to the people and this caused further consternation just as the authorship was oblique. The anomalous sponsored propaganda was surely not the best format to secure the buy-in of so strategic an initiative.The furore generated over the petroleum subsidy matter remains a sore point in President Goodluck Jonathan's administration. Its imposition on the country led to an unprecedented civil revolt. Efforts to resolve the imbroglio included government empanelling of an untidy number of committees pursuing strands of the same duty and public policy. Supposedly, SURE is a presidential initiative anchored on the assertion that Nigerians have to see what general good their forbearance on petroleum price will contribute. There was substantial assurance that this was a contract with the people. In consequence of the faith to be exhibited by government, especially at the federal level, the proposed SURE expenditure in social services, public works, Niger Delta, interstate carriageways, mass transit and railways, hydropower and even Information Technology would end cynicism and skepticism for all time.The credibility of the programme is certainly in doubt, despite government's attempt to buoy its implementation with some respected Nigerians. It is meant to be a series of intervention projects, which are ordinarily, long overdue in the normal work of governments. They should therefore not be presented in a different light or as a favour to Nigerians! But the conceptual framework of SURE portrays a lack of rigour. For instance, why is it difficult to simulate scenarios on the varied percentages of petroleum subsidy removal and avoid the programme managers' panicky response in the aftermath of the strike' Is the planning so inchoate to assume an irrevocable 100 per cent removal willy-nilly down the throats of Nigerians'Another leg of the disavowal is the arithmetic of the programme. The difference between N97 and the proposed N141 per litre underlines the Government's claim that the action provides a paltry sum of N426 billion available to the three tiers of government as against N1.13 trillion earlier expected, made up of the Federal Government's expected share of N478.5 billion, states ' N411.03 billion and N203.23 billion to the 774 local councils while the rest go to special funds. These figures are clearly in doubt if only counterpoised with the unanswered questions and telling revelations of the House of Representatives hearing on the petroleum subsidy regimen. These include the actual cost of imported products, actual cost of our locally refined products, the accuracy or otherwise of the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulating Agency (PPPRA) pricing template, among other variables. Until uncontroverted answers to these questions emerge, the figures being brandished will be hollow to Nigerians. Government's analysis of subsidy per litre has been faulted from several angles; and continuous usage of the arithmetic drips with denial and dishonesty.However, it is pertinent that N180 billion has been appropriated for the programme in the 2012 budget and programme managers are back to the drawing board. Programmes highlighted in the SURE document fall under various Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) who conceived them; and in the fight for turf with the Dr. Christopher Kolade Committee, value for money will be the first casualty. The approved N180 billion for the programme should be targeted at projects that will have direct impact on the citizens and allocate them to the respectively rejuvenated MDAs for implementation. There is then need to redefine the committee's assignment or disband it. The President should pick up this gauntlet and put auditors to work with the programme managers while the laws on procurement and corrupt practices are enforced.The apparent failure of the Kolade Committee to take firm charge raises doubt about its capacity in the current characterisation of the programme, which is fast becoming a triviality. Every minister and ruling party hack is speaking of his own vision and timetable of the same SURE. The President should move to end the weak conceptual framework and doublespeak about SURE. The programme is merely a laundry list of intentions, more a knee-jerk effort than a profound articulation of the needs and resources available or projected. The SURE programme is wobbly. It is neither on the manifesto of President Goodluck Jonathan's political party, nor on the yet-to-be published draft of his Transformation Agenda. To make his date with the history over subsidy removal, President Jonathan should entreat that serious work on the palliatives start in his government, and avoid a mammoth and unconscionable duplication of offices and overheads.
Click here to read full news..
