Ladipo Oye-Somefun

The scoring system I am using will be around four areas:

1. Does the piece educate the reader: ie inform with evidence (Score: 3/10)
2.  How knowledgeable about the topic is the writer and does he share that knowledge (Score:2/10)
3. What are the key points (Score: 4/10)
4. Is there any follow through on points raised or does the writer use the scatter gun approach (Score: 1/10)

Total Score on an average calculation: 2.5/10 

Does the piece educate the reader: ie inform with evidence

Mr Kolawole moves in and has access to the most elite parts of Nigerian society.  These include people at the height of business, politics and media. Therefore when I picked up the piece to read it I was looking forward to being educated by someone knowledgeable and also to know the key points about the whole fuel subsidy issue.

I understand that journalism has to be populist in order to be commercial, however I think a duty to educate remains.

The piece is fairly comprehensive and touches on a broad range of topical issues affecting Nigeria. However I am disappointed that I have not learnt anything new.  The article is riddled with anecdotal comments about 1) private jets on a terminal; 2) over-invoicing; 3) fuel subsidy as an incentive for rent seekers.

I would have expected to be “schooled” on these issues with comments backed by evidence.  Nigeria has experienced tremendous economic growth over the last decade and therefore it is quite possible for people at the top of multi-billion naira enterprises to lease jets.  The comment about over-invoicing is left dangling without any further explanation.  People who have not run businesses or sat in a business studies class may not understand what over-invoicing actually means.  In addition Mr Kolawole accepts the fuel subsidy as incentive for rent seekers without discussing the intricacies involved nor using examples from other Nigerian administrations or overseas.

I feel rather than be educated, this piece may infuriate the casual reader who may be angry at the GEJ regime without actually knowing the reasons why he should be angry.  If we must debate fuel subsidy then it would be better to have a more knowledgeable readership.

Score: 3/10

How knowledgeable about the topic is the writer and does he share that knowledge

The piece does not appear to display or demonstrate the writer’s knowledge on the issues at hand nor does it show whether any comprehensive research was conducted or carried out.  The use of the royal “we” and lack of mentioning or describing specific sources further weakens any claims to knowledge. There is a plethora of populist terms which further alienates the reader: “government” ; “buccaneers”; and “fuel importers” amongst others.  Specifics would have strengthened the case being made.

Score: 2/10

What are the key points

The piece is strong with regards to the key points.  It quickly identifies these within the first two paragraphs.  I believe these to be 1) social contract between the ruled and the rulers; and 2) behavioural economics.

These two key points are highlighted and interrelated.  The ruled as sovereign provide the rulers with space and resources to carry out their duties, while the rulers have a duty to create an environment where the welfare of the ruled can be improved upon.  Whether this means the rulers allocating resources on the behalf of the ruled or providing a framework for the ruled to provide these for themselves.

The rulers having campaigned and won elections have made a case of their credibility and credentials to the ruled.  They have claimed competence and understanding of the social contract.

In respect to behavioural economics, the piece touches upon this when it mentions the opportunistic pricing behaviour of transporters as well as the ability of rent seekers to put pressure on the social contract through allegedly corrupt practices.

The piece does lose marks though because it does not explicitly set these key points out.

Score: 4/10

Is there any follow through on points raised or does the writer use the scatter gun approach

At this point it is instructive to recall the title of the piece was : “How not to remove fuel subsidy”; the piece could have been much improved if it focused on one or two points and followed through.  I do not believe there was consistent follow through.

The reader is left to run a gauntlet of different threads.  These threads vary from a feeling of being cheated by political elites, comments about the inefficiency of the fuel subsidy regime all the way to government officials reportedly flying first class.  Once the reader’s mind has settled down he is then met with four narrations which are provided as a conclusion.  These narrations on their own could stand and form four separate articles, each with sub-topics.

The lack of any serious follow through on the various points raised has, in my opinion, weakened what could have been a good article.

Score: 1/10

Ladipo is a qualified accountant and MBA holder. He works in Corporate Finance in London.

——

Abimbola Agboluaje

Total Score: 1/10

Mr. Kolawole is guiltier of obfuscation than economic illiteracy. One was very glad about a year ago, when Mr. Kolawole, who used to be fully in support of the fuel subsidy, changed his mind and turned against it. In this article, he is guiltier of obfuscation than economic illiteracy. He has succumbed to what Lucy Kellaway of FT once described as WET – Weak Excuse Syndrome. Let’s go through the detours and diversions in Simon Kolawole’s article:

1. Mr. Kolawole writes “….I am pro-subsidy (it may be fuel or something else).” He justifies this on the grounds that 90 % of Nigerians live on less than $2 a day and because we “would be courting trouble to declare that every single thing should be left to market forces”. He adds, even in “extremely capitalist countries”, they don’t leave everything to market forces, they provide a “bundle of safety nets for the vulnerable”.

Almost every word is misleading or untrue in some way. Many people live on $2 per day not because they need more subsidies but because resources, which could be spent on stuff that will “tempt” businesses to invest and create productive employment, are being frittered on subsidies. Likewise, Nigeria is so poor because the state meddles in everything (steel mills, paper mills, palm oil mills, banking, aviation, telecommunications, lands, construction etc), sucking up and wasting resources. Nigeria didn’t become poor because things were abandoned to “market forces”. In “extremely capitalist countries”, they target subsidies towards the poorest e.g. people riding to work in decent comfortable buses rather than those riding in personal cars, consuming fuel which could be sold abroad for higher prices and used to obtain foreign exchange and develop infrastructure.

So when Mr. Kolawole writes “The closest thing to social security that people enjoy here is the fuel subsidy”, it makes one wonder what sort of “social security” is consumed by the better-off (probably less than 10 % of Nigerians living in a few cities consume 85 % of the fuel subsidy.)

2. Mr. Kolawole writes “In Nigeria, there is virtually nothing for the people. The rich and the powerful gather like vultures and tear into the national treasury at will, leaving the people high and dry. They ride all the cars, own all the houses and eat all the food. At our expense, of course! ”

Again, the implication here is that market forces are to blame. When people become extremely rich without creating jobs, they are not “exploiting” the masses in the classical sense, i.e. extracting labour in factories or plantations and keeping too much of the surplus value created. They are simply stealing and this plunder is much better facilitated by opaque policies that place billions of dollars in the drawers of bureaucrats and politicians.

3. Mr. Kolawola also has a problem with those who argue that the best way to eliminate the corruption associated with the administration of the subsidy is to remove the incentive for it i.e. the subsidy. In his thinking, the “removing the incentive for corruption” argument is invalid because, amongst other reasons, “…if we have to follow it through, we may soon privatise our rotten police force”. This is the best of Nigerian “economic journalism” which feeds public thinking about policy i.e. “arguments” that are perplexing because they are superficially logical but which you know to be complete baloney immediately they leave someone’s mouth or pen. To extend Mr. Kolawole’s logic, a big and/or over-extended state with deep and diverse economic powers is not a problem conceptually or in reality – all its managers need to do is suddenly summon the reserves of discipline they have kept unused since 1960. For him, whittling down the economic roles of the state is a cowardly and unworthy shortcut.

4. And it gets worse. In his January 22 piece, Mr. Kolawole takes issue with Sanusi Lamido Sanusi’s distinction between subsidizing consumption versus production subsidy. He argues that when he rides his car to work, he is involved in “production”, so he is entitled to the fuel subsidy just as the barber and pepper grinder. This is just something you expect pepper grinders to say in their own defence. Why on earth should the Government subsidise The Editor of ThisDay to get to work to “produce” this sort of article! Well, here’s the injustice of it: 30 people (artisans, market women, unemployed etc) on a bus to Apapa = 3 litres of subsidized fuel. I person (well-paid Editor blowing air conditioner) riding in his car to Apapa = 2.5 litres of subsidized fuel. And those pepper grinders? These are just human shields used by well-off Nigerians to defend the fuel subsidy-the poor have the most to gain when the funds (even if 50% of it is stolen) are redeployed to schools, hospitals, mass transit schemes which middle classes will not use.

5. Then Mr. Kolawole throws the final howler “Agriculture is heavily subsidized in Europe. Every farmer gets financial incentives to keep farming…When agriculture is subsidized, the produce is cheaper. Everybody who goes to the market to buy carrots or milk enjoys the same low prices”. What agriculture subsidies does for everyone in Europe is raise prices by paying a guaranteed income to farmers, that is why cheaper imports have to be kept out through high tariffs. And this is sustained by politics, with the the farm lobby pocketing politicians to do their bidding (nearly half of the European Union’s budget is spent on the Common Agriculture Policy through which farm subsidies are administered). What the state does is to help the poor buy the food through subsidies, food stamps, tax credits etc. And better-off citizens who are hit with income tax of between 30-40 % pay both for the farm subsidy and welfare (Nigerian equivalent pay only tithes). There is always someone somewhere paying for a free lunch!

6. Simon Kolawole is a very fine and insightful writer when he writes about what he knows very well – politics and history. His view on the fuel subsidy has reverted to the populist fare of Nigerian journalism. His second piece contained the usual critique of the imperial remuneration of Nigerian politicians, yet he states in the same article that he is “thoroughly impressed” by David Mark, the Senate President who is rumoured to enjoy a remuneration package of about N600 million per annum, because he “acted as a good mediator and seasoned crisis manager…” in retaining the fuel subsidy (though at a reduced level). Shouldn’t the number 3 citizen of the country have a view on his party’s critical economic policies? Mr. Kolawole can celebrate the messy and appalling end to the fuel subsidy saga because he has no clear view of the cost to the Nigerian economy, or the role subsidies and other forms of economic interventions play in promoting corruption.

Never rely on a WET!

Abimbola writes from Lagos, Nigeria.

Occupy Nigeria Logo designed by Zakari Ahmadu

“Occupy Nigeria was a test-run to a revolution”

-          Kayode Ogundamisi. Citizen journalist

So it was that in the wee hours of Monday 16th January 2012, the series of strikes and mass protests called Occupy Nigeria for the most part came to a grinding and anticlimactic end. Just when the mass protests were reaching an unprecedented crescendo, the Labour Unions (NLC/TUC), which formed only a sub-set of the #OccupyNigeria movement entered into an agreement behind closed doors with government… and the rest as they say is history. While this was incredibly disappointing to to those who had high hopes for its potential as it signalled a growing democratic deficit, others are of the opinion that some gains have been made in terms of political participation and mobilization for our nascent democracy.

An obvious gain is the rise of youth movements both online and offline, their influence and their strength. #OccupyNigeria movement, a loose coalition of various individuals and civil society groups was a spontaneous movement that began on the 1^st of January 2012 in response to the arbitrary fuel price increase by the executive arm of the Nigerian government. For the most part #OccupyNigeria started online, with Facebook, Twitter and other social media used as outlets for people to express their outrage and as platforms for organizing and mobilizing people for street protests. It was individuals and coalition of youth groups such as the Enough is Enough (EIE) from all over Nigeria: from Lagos to Abuja, Kano to Kwara, Kaduna to Ibadan and in the Diaspora who discussed, mobilized, organized protests, shared information with one another mostly online and offline as well. This served as an opportunity for youths (who constitute over 70% of the population) who had hitherto been alienated and marginalized from political discourse, discussion and participation in the Nigerian public sphere to register their relevance and make their voices heard.

Furthermore, the spontaneity of the Occupy Movement as an embodiment of collective outrage felt by Nigerians meant it was representative of the feelings of ordinary Nigerian youths at home and in the diaspora. The movement cut across the country’s mainstream divisions and fault lines: Muslims and Christians; Northerners and Southerners; Hausa, Yorubas and Igbos; Nigerians at home and abroad; Men and women; students, graduates and workers etc. By collectively expressing our outrage, Nigerian youths realized that the labels we have been tagged with are superficial as we all have the same needs; we are all demanding better governance and transparency from our leaders and are all troubled by the rising insecurity in the country. By far the most symbolic and powerful personification of this unified collective outrage lies in the unbelievable images of Christians protecting Muslim faithful whilst they prayed in the cities of Kano and Kaduna, the covenant of peace entered by Muslim and Christian faithful and the solidarity visit to churches in Kano by Muslim faithful. These served to shatter the long-held myth of the irreconcilable differences amongst Nigerians. It also served to rekindle a sense of nationalism, patriotism and belief in the viability of Nigeria amongst many who were fast losing hope in the Nigerian project.

This is about where the gains end.

As much as ordinary Nigerians were for the first time able to make their voices heard, those unified voices were apparently not loud enough as the government did not yield to any of the movement’s immediate demands (and that of the lower chamber of the Legislature, the House of Representatives) of reverting fuel price back to N65 per litre and drastically cutting government’s bloated recurrent expenditure. The labour unions who joined the mass protests spearheaded by the OccupyNigeria movement after it had gone on for a week are now regarded with suspicion and resentment for what many perceive to be their hijacking of the movement and acting arbitrarily, negotiating with and reaching an agreement with government to peg fuel price at N97 without consultation with the rest of the Occupy movement. While government has since then, at least the the House of Representatives has commenced committee hearings and unearthed a ton of fraud and opaqueness in the oil sector and the operations of agencies like the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA) and the state-owned oil coy Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), the basic demands of the movement were not met and the deal brokered was not in tandem with the basic demands of #OccupyNigeria.

Directly related to the above is that the perceived lack of disregard for the voice of the ordinary Nigerian by those in government. This has fed a growing lack of trust, disillusionment and cynicism  on the activities of government officials who are widely regarded to be alienated from the public. The decision to “remove” fuel subsidy and increase petrol pump price was taken unilaterally by the executive while consultations with the public and civil society were supposed to be ongoing; the unified front presented by government officials in vehemently defending the policy and the non-resignation or breaking of ranks by even one government official adds fuel to this distrust and disillusionment by Nigerians. The strikes may have been called off, the movement might have lost its vigour but the distrust in government has only persisted and perhaps even worsened. A recent gallup poll conducted revealed that 94% of Nigerians do not trust the government.

Lastly the brutal repression of peaceful protesters by security forces at the behest of government portends the greatest danger to our democracy. Over 20 protesters were reported to have been shot and killed by police in Lagos, Kano, Ilorin and other cities while many more sustained injuries. A very disturbing aspect of it all is the deployment of the army to Lagos and to a lesser extent in Kaduna allegedly to quell protests. There were reports of use of tear gas  and other acts of repression on those who had continued with the protesters beyond 9^th January when strikes were called off by Labour Unions.This was perceived by many civil society groups and activists as a breach of fundamental rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Thus, despite the very modest gains of the OccupyNigeria movement, the underlying issues and contradictions that brought about the movement in the first place have not been addressed. Fuel prices are still high, soaring inflation still persists, and the disconnect between government and ordinary Nigerians has only increased. In addition, there is seething resentment amongst Nigerians for government officials over the way the movement was hijacked, stifled, suffocated and rendered irrelevant by labour unions and the government. There is obviously a need to address these issues; bridges of political communication need to be rapidly built in order to restore trust and confidence in the government. Otherwise, this seeming democratic deficit has the risk of boiling over one day, perhaps in the not too distant future.

Occupy Nigeria

In the past 2 weeks, all that has filled our airwaves, media and social networks has been the raging issue of fuel subsidy withdrawal. The debates for and against are ever on-going, with those against unarguably being the larger numbers. Personally, I started by being vehemently against its removal as indicated in this October blog post of mine. After reading endless articles and engaging in debates about it, offline and online, I somewhat shifted ground a bit in my next article about it.  I gradually shifted to being somewhat for it, but this article by Sanusi Lamido finally got me convinced about supporting the withdrawal. The article answered for me all my questions and reservations.

My main bone of contention is the timing of the withdrawal, as January is the worst month to do so. Families are coming from Christmas spending, and thinking about paying for school fees, and now, they have to face price hikes almost across board. The earlier agreed date of April 1 would have been much better. This is not to say that April 1 removal would not have brought about such opposition, because any tampering with fuel price is always unpopular. The concerns of those against it are very legitimate: widespread poverty, endemic corruption in the system, it being the only welfare Nigerians receive from their wealth. This is also because NLC as a body is opposed to any price hike from an ideological perspective.

Fast forward to today, and after endless negotiations, the Federal Government has shifted ground and has pegged the price at N97/litre. Not only that, the Ministry of Petroleum has also announced moves to probe the importations and allegations of corruption, as well as pressure the National Assembly to pass the long-awaited Petroleum Industry Bill. Also, the President and cabinet are now making cuts in their pay, starting from a 25% cut in salaries. Though tiny, considering that allowances are the bulk of the pay, it is a start nonetheless.

For me, this represents a victory of sorts. From day one, I realized that N65/litre as an official price is gone forever. Not only that, it takes someone who is either very sure of what he is doing or totally devoid of wisdom and leadership skills to look at the strong opposition to such policy move and still go on with it. I would like to give the President the benefit of the doubt that he belongs to the latter group, and that he is someone who knows the catastrophic effect this would have on Nigeria should this fail.

For those who remain hard and solid on the view that the former price must be reverted to because of the hardships that would be felt and until the time is right for the removal seem to be missing the big picture to me. We could go back to the former price and be satisfied with the crumbs from the table falling to us in the form of subsidy, while the corruption in the system, not just the petroleum sector, and the fat pay politicians receive continue. On the other hand, we could take this agreed price and continue to apply pressure to bring accountability and transparency in government, a reduction in size and expenditure and for them to deliver on their promises.

Like I mentioned in a previous article of mine, fuel subsidy removal has galvanised the people to begin to speak up louder on issues beyond just fuel subsidy, but on the larger, surrounding issues. Receiving dividends of governance in fuel subsidies is a low-hanging fruit, and while we concentrate on that one, we could end up missing the higher, juicier fruits.

In the scenario where government reverses itself completely and we go back to N65/litre, the strike ends, the protests stop and we all go back to life, happy to have scored a victory, albeit a pyrrhic one. However, the pressure the government has been feeling to reform itself would be gone, and it will be back to business as usual for them. But with this scenario, the anger if properly channelled would go a long way to making government open up and reform, as we can see that already happening with the small starts they have made.

Rather than maintaining a demand for the price of N65/litre, we should shift the focus to a demand for good and accountable governance. This is because under the current situation, even N30/litre is too expensive with this level of bad governance.

Change, especially the sustainable, positive one, does not come instantaneously. We should applaud every small progress, without taking our eyes off the desired destination. Any attempt to veer off track must be resisted.

This change works for me, as far as the big picture vision is concerned.

Courtesy www.farafinabooks.wordpress.com

Saturday 14^th January, 2012 Nigerians kept vigil, like the Christendom waiting on the conclave in Rome to announce a new pope. Indeed there was a conclave the cardinals this time being leadership of the Labour Unions and Civil society in Nigeria, the leadership of our bicameral legislature and members of the federal government which was meeting not in Rome but Inside the Presidential Villa to take a decision that is so critical to the personal wellbeing of Nigerians and the well being of their economy.

The conclave was supposed to find a compromise between government and labour to end what has been a week of total shut down of Nigeria. Since the shocking announcement of removal of subsidy on fuel on New Year day which saw the pump price of fuel jump from N65 to N140, the whole country has be locked in a total strike marked with public protests which sometimes tend towards civil disobedience in a few states with the people demanding for a reversal of the pump price.

Government has argued repeatedly on the reason behind the policy and the reason why it is determined to see it through. Governments arguments has found solid grounds in the need to fully deregulate the downstream sector of the oil industry and begin to reap all the attendant benefits, the need to stop the corruption in the fuel subsidy regime which has seen few individuals reap heavily from the nation, with the amount running into over a trillion naira in 2011, the need to open up the industry and make it attractive to investors and its desire to use the saved amounts in badly needed infrastructural development.

As laudable as governments intensions are, the immediate hike in prices of commodity and services especially given that this is January, a month that is always slow and difficult for most people who having spent a lot over the yuletide barely have enough to help them kick start the years ‘hustle’ has made it a very bitter pill for Nigerians to swallow. Governments assurance that the pains will be temporary, that it was introducing viable palliatives and that the Federal Government was going to invest the save amount in a special program tagged “SURE:P” has really not calmed nerves as decades of failed government promises has seen Nigerians lose any faith whatsoever in their leaders who they hold in perpetual suspicion.

Using social media channels and their smart phones, Nigerians have been able to mobilize and carry out the most massive protest the country has known. While this is positive in the sense of the people finding their voice, it has also come with its own negatives with all shades of false information, propaganda, twisting of facts some of them accompanied with even figures has come flooding through these channels leading to an information overload and severe disinformation of a large section of the gullible people.

Expectedly, emotions have over taken reasoning. People have taken sides and any contrary view is dismissed no matter its merit. When everybody is talking, no one is listening and no one really is making sense. The issue is hardly touched. Ego is the greatest impediment to solving problems between two parties and in sincerely believe that on this matter, there is yet left a lot of field for us all to meet if only we would seek compromise.

Personally, I support deregulation (of which subsidy removal is a component) for all the right reasons and its attendant long term benefits. Whether it’s done now, two months down the line or even next year, the subsidy on fuel has to go one day and when it does, there would certainly be some pains. But I think the government made a big mess of a good case with the way it went about the implementation; the suddenness of the removal, a callousness of doing it on a New Year day, the poor communication and people management and of course the failure to provide the safety nets or palliatives which would have reduced the pains the people will feel.

I also hold that while government makes demands of the people to take some hardship for the ‘greater good’, government must also take cuts. The cost of running government in Nigeria is unimaginable. With an over bloated civil service, a large political structure with layers of redundant aides and career government people,  a culture of budget padding and wastage, huge amounts annually goes to servicing these structures, enjoyed by a few and leaving the greater majority of the people living below the poverty line. It is time also for government to cut cost.

Asking government to cut cost is an easy statement to make, indeed it’s been up on placards all week. But coming up with specific cuts and channeling demands to the responsible body viz either the National Assembly for budgetary issues, the head of the civil service for issues of the size of our work force and the Revenue Mobilization Allocation And Fiscal Commission for issues of salaries and allowances of political office holders is something not many are yet doing.

After a tiring week of street protests that was no good for any one; not for the economy, not for businesses, not for personal pockets, everyone looked forward with high expectation to the meeting between labour and government hoping that at least a truce will be reached so that we can all get back to our lives. Alas at almost midnight, the conclave ended but it was dark smoke rising from the chimney. No agreement had been reached.

So we move into another week of protests with both sides sticking to their guns. As we had began to observe last week, there is an increasing tendency for the protest to be hijacked by miscreants and opportunists whose intensions are at variance with those of the people. With this will come more collateral damages. One would have hoped that there would have been some shifting of ground on both sides to save the economy another painful week but I suspect the ego on both sides was too big. Whatever the lingering points of disagreement is, I would have hoped that President Goodluck Jonathan who had stated during the election that no one should die on his behalf would in the same vein put a plug on this and saves us all this trouble. It wouldn’t be a defeat. It will only show him a true leader. I think it is time to pause, retreat, re-strategize and lunch again. Nigerians wait.

Occupy Nigeria

I have waited quite a while to write this. Perhaps I was waiting to see how the first day of the strike would turn out. The initial protest march to Gani Fawehinmi Park took place on the 3rd of January, as an immediate reaction to the removal of subsidy. The turn out that day surpassed even the most optimistic expectations, as some left work to join the march.

If that was surprising, the turn out for the first day of the NLC strike was unprecedented. Gani Fawehinmi Park has become the headquarters for the Lagos arm of ‘Occupy Nigeria’, and as I deliberately got ahead of the crowd and looked behind me, I realized I had never seen so many people on the streets at the same time.

By lifting the lid on petrol prices, the lid has been lifted on the anger of Nigeria’s youth. This is an anger that has been simmering for a while. It would be interesting to know what other democratically elected leader in recent times, having ridden to power on the wave of immense goodwill, has lost so much popularity in so short a time. It seems as if the vote in April was a last chance saloon of sorts.

It was a last chance to allow government run the country without a sharp push back from the people. By making the masses pay at the pump for the omissions and commissions of government was frankly, too much to take. It has led to an awakening among members of the country’s formerly docile citizens. There is nothing like a good old fashioned petrol tax to make people interested in how their resources are spent.

With a majority of Nigerians under the age of 30, many have never seen the country of their birth work. They have been reduced to hearing stories about the ‘good old days’ told by their parents and grandparents. The strain of having to prosper in spite of their environment has become too much with the government putting its hands directly into their pockets once more. Talk of budget cuts and ‘palliatives’ seems hollow, and an afterthought. I would like to know who suggested that the President put the cart before the horse by removing petrol subsidy first. In fact, there is neither a cart nor a horse. The Petroleum Industry Bill, which is supposed to be the basis for deregulation, is buried under politics and bureaucracy. Market forces, rather than political will, is supposed to deal with the corruption in the oil sector. Without refineries that can cater for local demand, any sudden hike in oil prices leaves Nigeria vulnerable.

All this is not including the fact that the money that is supposed to accrue to the SURE programme has already been shared among the three tiers of government, with just N478 billion going to the Federal Government. It has become clear that it is the 36 governors, desperate for cash after election expenditure and with a new minimum wage to pay, who are the real drivers of this process, therefore leaving the vast majority to struggle with the consequences. Prudence be damned.

Having reposed such hope in the man without shoes, Nigerians feel the ultimate disillusionment at being abandoned to the twin forces of greed and a difficult economic climate. They do not necessarily mind extra inconvenience, but they do mind having less while a select few continue to amass wealth by occupying public office, and they do object to having to swallow bitter medicine when those who lead them do not show example. The law of unintended consequences has now kicked in. What started out as a demand to return to the old price of N65 looks set to expand into a relentless clamour for systemic change and greater accountability, a phenomenon amplified by social media which has made it easier than ever to organise. All of a sudden, Nigerians are scrutinizing the budget.

Finally, there is a chance to disrupt the corrupt ruling class that has held Nigeria hostage for so long, but it is going to be a long haul. To make maximum use of this opportunity, the temptation to trade the future for a few pieces of silver must be avoided. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

President Goodluck Jonathan

I have been one of those in favour of the removal of fuel subsidies. However for most Nigerians the problem is not that they don’t understand the logic of spending wisely. The problem is they don’t trust the government to do so. The government has used these tricks in the past and there really is no reason to believe they are serious about investing now. As popular as the protests are, and I support them, the only tangible plan I’ve seen involves returning to N65 per liter, reducing the  cost of governance, plugging holes in oil sector and provide power. The N65 is popular however the rest are all pretty vague. Almost as vague as the government SURE plan.

I have therefore decided to try to contribute by coming up with a plan that doesn’t require people trusting the government. This is a plan to replace the governments proposed subsidy reinvestment and empowerment program. It is based on three principles: ringfencing the savings from the subsidy removal; enforcing pre agreed conditions on projects with the federal, state and local government; and providing a tool for ordinary Nigerians to monitors projects. This plan is not supposed to replace other demands by protesters. Demands such as reducing the allowances of members of the national assembly.

This plan is still in the early stages of development and all suggestions are welcome. Please email suggestions to me at thesubsidyplan@gmail.com.

ThePlan(Download)

ANNOUNCING A CALLOUS POLICY WITH IMPUNITY

A liberalization move by the government to deregulate the downstream sector of the oil industy by removing subsidy on petrol was announced on Sunday 1^st January, New Year’s Day just when Nigerians were reeling from the shock of deadly bomb attacks on Christmas day and a spate of sectarian killings in Ebonyi state, the South-East of Nigeria. This unilateral decision by the Executive arm of government took Nigerians by surprise as it was meant to take immediate effect, and as government was supposed to be conducting “wide consultations” with stakeholders on the controversial and highly unpopular policy decision, and even as the National Assembly was yet conclude deliberations on the issue.

NIGERIANS TAKE TO THE INTERNET… AND TO THE STREETS

Despite our renowned resilience and almost legendary perseverance in any situation, the removal of subsidy seems to have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. We took to the internet, especially Facebook and Twitter to express our vehement disapproval of this insensitive policy and its callous and untimely implementation on New Year’s Day. That same afternoon, people started mobilizing on social media for mass protests the next day in Abuja, Lagos, Kaduna and other cities across the country. Even the leading opposition parties and professional associations like the Nigerian Bar Association and the Nigerian Medical Association issued strongly worded statements condemning this move in its entirety and threatening mass action.

Most Nigerians are particularly incensed because this policy is not only highly unpopular, but also because the government has had little consultation with the public. After the last (public) meeting it had with the media and some stakeholders in Lagos in December where people expressed their extreme disapproval, government promised to continue consultations before fuel subsidy would be removed from either January 20^th 2012 or April 2012. The government’s unilateral decision on New Year’s Day which appears to be a stealthily well-planned siege on Nigerians has further heightened Nigerians’ extreme distrust for the government and vindicated our view of government officials as highly duplicitous. Most importantly, Nigerians are infuriated by the immediate effect of this policy which has resulted in inflation in transport fares, food stuff and basic commodities by as much as 200% as fuel prices have increased from N65 ($0.48) to over N140 (almost $1) per litre. In some places like Calabar, fuel is reportedly sold for over N200 per litre.

In Lagos the commercial capital, mass protests began on Monday which were largely peaceful:

In Abuja the capital city, scores of youths led by a former Federal Legislator, Dino Melaye on Monday marched to Eagle square carrying placards and signed a protest register. The police tried to foil the protest and to confiscate the protest register but they later returned it. Several protesters including Melaye were arrested by the police and taken to the Anti-robbery Squad but were later released.

In Kaduna on Monday, scores of protesters gathered at Murtala Square to peacefully sign a protest register but were later dispersed by anti-riot policemen.

In Kano, the turn out, just like in Lagos was huge. Hundreds of protesters turned out en masse on Wednesday 4^th January and even spent the night at Silver Jubilee round about which was christened Kano “Liberation” Square.

In several other cities across the country, scores and even hundreds of protesters have been pouring out onto the streets as the pictures below show: from Kebbi, Katsina and Bauchi in the North, to Ibadan, Akure and Benin in the South. Nigerians are angry and are not hiding it.

The two images above are from the Northern city of Katsina.

These two images above are from Benin city, the capital of Edo state, one of the states in the President’s home region, the Niger-Delta.

The image above is a picture taken of Ijaw youths (from the President’s ethnic group) protesting the removal of Subsidy on Wednesday 4th January.

Protesters in Bauchi in the North East, at the Emir’s palace. Unconfirmed reports later stated that the Emir joined the protesters in marching through the city.

Abeokuta, Ogun state.

Ibadan, Oyo state.

WHAT ARE THE DEMANDS?

The demands of Nigerians basically centre on the reversal of this decision: mainly restoring fuel subsidy, cutting government waste, tackling corruption, provision of infrastructure, repairing the ailing refineries and building new ones. While many protesters have been calling for the President’s resignation and indeed the popular use of the term #OccupyNigeria by protesters could mistakenly give that impression, there are really no explicit political goals from protesters. The protests are simply an expression of indignation at a policy which will and is already bringing untold hardship on Nigerians. The labour unions – the Nigerian Labour Conress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) have given the government an ultimatum to reverse the decision by Monday 9^th January or face nation-wide protests which would shut banks, schools, offices, oil installations, airports etc and effectively cripple the economy.

This video below sufficiently captures and encapsulates the demands of many Nigerians:

TECH-SAVVY YOUTH MOBILIZE… AND BROADCAST TO THE WORLD

With a population well over 150 million people, Nigeria is reported to have over 43 million Nigerians (educated middle to upper class) on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter and connected to the internet. Nigerian youths have mobilized to take to the streets and challenge the government’s unpopular decision. In the face of scant media coverage and even blackout towards the protests by government owned television and radio stations like the Nigeria Television Authority (NTA) and some government friendly newspapers, it is social media savvy youth who have broadcasted images and updates to both local and international media. Citizen reporters on ground tweet pictures, videos and live updates of events and use Facebook, Youtube and blogs. These updates are sent to local and international media like Channels TV, BBC Africa, CCN i-report, Al-Jazeera stream and others using the hashtags #FuelSubsidy and #OccupyNigeria. Notable citizen journalists and activists include Sahara Reporters, Japeth Omojuwa, Kayode Ogundamisi, Gbenga Sesan and scores of others.

In an ironic, but not surprising twist of fate, President Jonathan’s Facebook page which he and his advisers have severally used to brag about his social media savvy-ness and popularity has been bombarded with tens of thousands of highly critical messages by his Facebook fans expressing raw fury and emotion, with some comments bordering on downright insults and curses. President Jonathan seems to have set the record as the “most cursed person on Facebook”

THE GOVERNMENT’S OBSTINACY, HALF-TRUTHS AND MANIPULATION 

Knowing the Nigerian government’s antecedents of its brazen disregard for the feelings of ordinary Nigerians, its actions, statements and responses to the mass opposition and protests against its deregulation policy since New Year’s Day did not disappoint in the least bit. It only served to vindicate Nigerians’ massive distrust and growing disdain for government officials. Here are some instances:

The Minister of Labour, Chief Chukwuemeka Wogu in his reaction, on Channels TV, to the threat by Labour Unions to embark on massive strikes said: “As a government, you don’t succumb to threats or pandering… from the people you rule…” You can watch the video clip HERE.

Ahmed Ali Gulak, a Special Adviser to the President on Political Affairs, in an interview with the BBC World Have Your Say programme on Wednesday 4^th January claimed that “majority of Nigerians are in support of the removal of subsidy” to which a Nigerian, Nicolas Adikwe, present at the BBC studio countered and said it was an “insult” to Nigerians out on the streets, and that it was misleading.

The Central Bank Governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minster of the Economy Dr. Ngozi Okonjo Iweala (believed to be the arrowhead of this allegedly IMF-backed policy) have rehashed the same well worn-out economic arguments to justify subsidy removal, albeit with complete detachment from the reality of the Nigerian socio-political environment.

The government in an emergency cabinet meeting on Wednesday has stated that it remains firm and resolute on this decision and will not reverse it.

GOVERNMENT BRUTALITY AND REPRESSION

While protests have been largely peaceful, the government has in some cases used violence to brutally repress peaceful protests.

In Lagos, this video shows a protester being beaten and brutalized by the police:

In Ilorin, witnesses say an unarmed protester; Muyideen Mustafa was brutally shot by the Police on Tuesday, while Police Officials claim he was stabbed by protesters. He was the first casualty of the protest and his remains have been laid to rest.

In Kano, though the police behaved well on Wednesday towards the protesters, they waited until the early hours of Thursday from around 02.00am local time to lay a cowardly late night ambush on protesters, beating them and firing tear gas cannisters. It was a hair-raising moment for social media users keeping tabs on the events in Kano as most liaisons and citizen reporters giving live updates from the Silver Jubilee roundabout (Liberation Square) in Kano were unreachable for several minutes. An estimated 40 people were reported to have been injured.

In Ibadan, protesters, mostly students were tear-gassed by security forces.

UNITY IN DIVERSITY: A SERENDIPITY

One of the most remarkable serendipity of sorts to have occurred so far is a growing sense of unity amongst Nigerians hitherto known to be deeply divided along ethno-religious lines. Perhaps the shared sense of frustration, anger and oppression by a ruling class cutting across most ethnic and religious groups is finally uniting Nigerians and achieving what political scientists, sociologists, historians, religious leaders, donor agencies, countless government committees and integration policies have failed to achieve.

This bond and unity was most evident in the city of Kano, hitherto a hotbed of inter-religious squabble, where Christians on Wednesday 4^th January stood guard to protect Muslims as they prayed. A mutual agreement for peace was said to have been reached between Muslims and Christians where Muslim would protect all non-Muslims and escort them to their places of worship and vice-versa. They vowed to resist any attempt to use religion to divide them with a register opened to that effect.

Similarly in Kaduna, an agreement is reported to have been reached between Christians and Muslims today (Thursday 5th January). The photo below shows Christians surrounding and protecting Muslims as they pray.

It is too early to tell whether this bond would grow stronger and whether it would be replicated in other parts of the country, but it certainly is a welcome development

“EMINENT” AND “RESPECTED” RELIGIOUS LEADERS: MUM IS THE WORD

As some Nigerians are gradually uniting over their shared sense of frustration, virtually nothing has been heard from most of the prominent Islamic and Christian leaders, neither on the fuel subsidy removal, nor the mass protests enveloping the entire country. With the exception of local imams, pastors and some catholic bishops, “eminent” leaders such as the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) President Ayo Ortisejafor, the Sultan of Sokoto, the Jama’atul Nasril Islam (JNI) and others who are usually very vocal towards many national and political issues have surprisingly maintained a deafening silence on this. You tend to wonder…

A SENSE OF HUMOUR, AGAINST ALL ODDS

Trust us Nigerians. Our resilience always unleashes bursts of creativity and even humour, as these pictures and video show:

“Praying”  that water turns to  fuel?

FINALLY, A NIGERIAN “ARAB SPRING”?

So is this the start of a Nigerian “Arab Spring”? There are certainly a number of similarities with the uprisings in the Arab world: a shared sense of anger and frustration; a growing unity amongst hitherto divided people; protests mobilized by an educated, sophisticated and tech-savvy youth; wide use of social networking and growing support for the protests and so on. However, as mentioned earlier, there are no overt political goals yet as most Nigerians simply want a reversal of this policy. Therefore, the labour unions could reach a compromise with the government as is usually the case with unpopular government policies. What seems to be different this time around though, is the widespread anger and disenchantment by the public and also that Nigerians poured out onto the streets without waiting for the go ahead from the NLC/TUC. Nigerian youths also for the first time in a long time feel as if they are really part of something, by expressing their displeasure and protesting. It remains to be seen how things pan out in the next few days.

Courtesy Vanguard Nigeria

The history of Nigeria has for too long been like a bad Nollywood movie. Nigeria is that battered housewife who has taken her beatings quietly, allowed her earnings to be squandered by her wasteful, alcoholic, extravagant, unworthy husband.

Even when we choose our leaders, it seems we choose to stay on our most destructive trend. Our political leaders and our religious leaders often look the same. We flock to pastors who call our children witches, imams who sleep with our daughters, empty suits who take our tithes to buy exotic cars and gallivant around the world, then return to us to preach humility and simplicity. These beatings, these abuses, these insults to our intelligence, we have taken silently.

For decades, nothing has happened. But 2011 has taught us, from Egypt to Tunisia, right down to the most intractable situation in Libya, that in a moment, decades can happen.

Pres. Goodluck Jonathan has decided, upon meeting with faceless stakeholders who apparently do not represent the people who will be most affected, that the most beneficial thing that can be done for the people of this country is for a fuel subsidy to be removed without any cushioning effect.

It is not clear what is most infuriating to Nigerians about this fuel subsidy removal. In the fuel subsidy townhall organized in response to questions of why the government will not wait to improve the capacity of the already-existing refineries with an eye to bolstering the production and reducing the need for the subsidy before removing it, Central Bank Gov. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and Petroleum Min. Diezani Alison-Madueke insist that the government cannot be trusted on such infrastructure spending, because of failures in the past. According to the Minister of information Labaran Maku, the fuel subsidy is to be removed for the government to find money to invest N1.12 trillion in, yes, infrastructure spending.

But we have irrevocable evidence of why we cannot trust them. We have seen this story before. And they told us themselves.

This government has done nothing to earn our trust. Boko Haram has been striking at will for the past year, and Jonathan’s statements concerning the strikes have been all but encouraging. The economy has continued its lackluster performance. The country’s most pertinent problems — from education to public health, from transportation to infrastructure – have stayed with us, persistent and, we fear, permanent.

Or perhaps what is more infuriating is the fact that Nigerians now face the specter of rising costs on everything. Majority of Nigerians are low-income minimum wage-earners, and they will now find the cost of transportation to and from work take an even larger bite into their monthly salary. The cost of food will increase. The cost of production of goods and services, already high from lack of constant electricity will also rise. Children who rely on school buses to go to school will find some schools discontinuing that service, or increasing the school fees to cover the price hike.

Jonathan and his band of policymakers seemed not to have taken this into account. Yes, there will be some discomfort, allowed Min. Allison-Madueke and Min. Okonjo-Iweala, but Nigerians must accept these difficulties for the greater good. Nigerians must sacrifice.

Perhaps Nigerians’ annoyance is their irony-free usage of the word ‘sacrifice’. When Boko Haram struck on Christmas day, Pres. Jonathan’s statement on the most recent bombings says we must learn to live with the strikes. When the government makes our lives harder, we must also grin and bear it. He and Vice-Pres. Sambo would spend U.S.$15m on personal expenses and billions on food for the Aso Rock kitchen. Never mind, of course, the amount of money that the Nigerian government pays its lawmakers. Wastefulness is to our ‘leaders’, as ‘sacrifice’ is to us.
Nigerians are spoilt for reasons to be angry. And our anger is long overdue.

It is time we demanded from this our leaders. This fuel subsidy will have a radical effect on the cost of living of all Nigerians. If we do not force change on matters most essential to us, then we will never force change.

At first blush, the budget numbers look good. The exchange rate on which the budget is based is a clear concession to the Central Bank’s new mid-point for maintaining the naira: US$1/N155. An admission, essentially, of the demand pressure on the national currency in the year to end-December 2011, which has seen it concede value to the dollar and assisted in the erosion of the nation’s external reserves. At US$70 per barrel, the oil price benchmark is slightly more realistic than the US$75 per barrel which the government had pushed for in its amended budget for 2011. However, any of several current trends in the global economy could push oil prices (currently at about US$90 per barrel) below the oil price benchmark. Truth be told, the risks over the next twelve months are largely to the downside. Both GDP (7.2%) and inflation (9.5%) estimates are dubious but within reach.

However, the conclusion after a second reading of the budget depends on whether one agrees with the budget’s claim that “government has made significant progress in putting the finances of the nation on a sound footing and laying the foundation for rapid and sustainable economic growth”. At N2.472 trillion, government makes much of the fact that the recurrent (i.e. non-debt) component of its appropriation bill is 72% of the 2012 budget (down by 240 basis points on the 74.4% that the recurrent bit accounted for in last year’s budget numbers). Still, because recurrent spending in 2012 is 72% of a (9%) larger figure, in absolute terms, recurrent spending next year will be larger than it was last year. If extra government spending was a major contributor to domestic price pressures last year, next year’s bigger number will further straighten domestic conditions.

The problem in this regards is not just with inflation. Although, like I’d earlier said, the inflation numbers on their own do not make much sense. How does a government plan to keep inflation at 9.5% and headed towards mid- to low single digit numbers when the avowed intent is to remove fuel subsidies early next year? Expansive fiscal policy also has obvious implications for the naira’s exchange rate, and (as we saw this year, with the CBN struggling to make sense of its monetary policy stance) for the domestic cost of money.

That said, it is especially useful that the budget appreciates the role of domestic incentives in bringing about favourable market responses. Still, the planned “review of the 2008-2012 Customs and Excise Tariffs to correct identified anomalies and introduce policies that will help in the promotion of industrialisation in the country” is only as strong as the administration’s capacity to pushback against its principals’ waiver requests going forward. Ultimately, the biggest difficulty with stemming the fiscal and policy slippages/leakages associated with the waiver regime revolves round the challenge of squaring the circle created by the assertion that “beginning from the 2012 fiscal year, (the administration) will where necessary, only grant concessions or waivers on a sectoral basis” and the budget’s earlier assertion that “no waivers or concessions will be entertained for rice and wheat importation”. Granted that these two commodities are no “sectors” in the common acceptation of this latter noun, we ought to be concerned about how much of a wedge this is.

And the deficit? 2.77% of GDP in 2012. 2.96% in 2011. 2.69% as indicative benchmark in the 2012-2015 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) (published in October). All of these against the ceiling of 3% stipulated by the Fiscal Responsibility Act. What do these numbers tell us? NOTHING! Especially when, in the recent past, they’ve been observed in the breach. Existing estimates of the budget deficit for the 12 months to end December 2011 stand as high as 6%. So the budget numbers might turn out as useful to this economy over the next 12 months, as the euro’s conversion criteria have been for the euro zone.

Of course, we will be no better for that!

Courtesy Vanguard Nigeria

Ever since the Nigerian government officially announced a few months ago its plans of removing the subsidy on petroleum or premium motor spirit (PMS) by January 2012 , the debate for or against this policy has raged on and is only increasing in intensity by the day. Those for the policy, mostly from the camp of the Executive arm of government argue that fuel subsidy hardly benefits majority of Nigerians, that it only serves to benefit an exclusive class or “cabal” of petroleum importers; and that in the face of dwindling revenues in this tumultuous global economic climate, the close to N1.3 trillion spent annually on subsidizing fuel is unsustainable when it could be channelled towards development projects and provision of infrastructure. Those against the policy argue that removal of subsidy, which is one of the only way most Nigerians get their “share” of massive oil revenues, will lead to an over 100% increase in the price of fuel with a rippling effect on the entire economy and thereby bring untold hardship on the common man.

In all this intense debate, certain questions have remained unanswered  particularly from the camp of the government, not just on whether subsidy should be removed or not, but on what exactly this policy entails and its consequences,. The government has been exceedingly secretive, vague and ambiguous over its exact plan of action to this end that is how such funds/proceeds would be utilized in realizing all the lofty promises of infrastructure provision and investment in capital projects, how the government would address the inevitable inflationary pressures that would occur and what palliative measures would be put in place to minimize and cushion the harsh effects of these inflationary pressures on the  populace and on the economy.

Even the most nonchalant and blasé observer of events in Nigeria would agree that the government has done a very poor job in political communication and engaging stakeholders and common Nigerians on this subsidy issue. Nigerians became acquainted with government’s plans to remove fuel subsidy from rumours a few weeks after the inauguration of President Goodluck Jonathan, which the government denied several times, before the bombshell was dropped in the National Assembly. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the government to date has neither made any concerted effort to properly engage Civil Society, academics and the general public nor does it have a coherent policy document or blue print with a clear break down of the amount of PMS consumed daily/monthly/annually; the quantity of PMS refined and produced domestically vis-a-vis the amount imported; the exact amount of subsidy that covers what percentage of PMS; the exact manner in which the “cabal” is fraudulently benefiting from fuel subsidy at the expense of Nigerians; measures to be taken to combat this fraud and bring these perpetrators to book; a projected timeline of how subsidy would be removed and how the funds would be utilized; the short, long-term and medium-term effects it would have on the economy; a timeline of rehabilitation of existing refineries and how many new ones would be built over what period of time and how the supply structure of fuel would be overhauled. In the absence of this policy statement, most of what many informed people have learnt about the fraud and opaqueness revolving around petroleum subsidy has emanated not from the government, but from the efforts of academics and journalists such as Farooq Kperogi, young activists such as Kunle Durojaiye,  former head of state General Muhammadu Buhari,  a Former Federal Director of Budget Chief Omowale Kuye (OFR), all of whom have shed light on the issue.

While the government has repeatedly stated that subsidy only benefits a few middle class to upper class Nigerians at the expense of common Nigerians, it remains very sketchy how government intends to utilize these funds to the benefit of common Nigerians. We have learnt that the proceeds from the removal of this subsidy would be used in building infrastructure, schools, hospitals, roads and refineries. The Vice President Namadi Sambo on Friday 13th December while engaging some members of Civil Society said a subsidy savings management programme would be unveiled with which Nigerians can monitor the judicious management of these funds. As this was only announced after the subsidy-removal debate had raged on for months with barely a month to the implementation of the policy proper, one could rightly assume that this came as an afterthought to the government in a ploy to assuage angry Nigerians as the plan is bereft of detailed explanation. Given the notorious inefficiency, leakages, corruption, waste, mismanagement and excessive bureaucracy that characterize the management of public funds, what assurances do Nigerians have that the management of subsidy proceeds would be any different from the norm?

Most importantly, it remains unclear what palliative measures would be put in place to cushion the inflationary pressures on Nigerians, that would inevitably abound from this policy. As the Minister of finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo Iweala announced, the price of PMS per litre would go up from the current official rate of N65 to more than N120 and upto N150 ($1). In the absence of a coherent, logical and clear-cut policy document, government has not made projections on how long this price increase would last before market forces kick-in and bring down the price, what projected impacts the increase would have on the lives of Nigerians and on the economy, what precise inflationary pressures would be the consequence and whether this inflation would be short-term, medium-term or long-term and how government will ensure that such inflation would not have a deleterious on Nigerians and on the economy. Though the Honourable Minister said “palliative measures” would include the launch of the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE) , maternal and child services, youth employment programmes, urban mass transit, “infrastructure” projects etc, these proposed programmes remain vague and disjointed because they would simply be a duplication of functions of already existing ministries and parastatals. It is difficult to envision how “maternal and child services” would for instance curb inflation.

Given that the entire Nigerian economy is an oil-based enclave economy in which every sector literally depends on petroleum while the  perennial problem of power supply has ensured that industries, banks, schools, hospitals, factories and households, are all powered by generating sets fuelled by diesel or petroleum, it doesn’t require a super macro-economist to extrapolate and deduce that an increase in petroleum prices by 100% would lead to a corresponding increase in all goods and services by same percentage: foodstuff and consumer goods, school, hospital and banking services, transportation fares and everything else. This inflation is inevitable, yet the government has kept mute over how exactly it will cushion these anticipated impacts. Are there going to be special social benefits to be handed out to Nigerians? If so what form would it take and how would it be disbursed?

This unnecessary tension in the polity and controversy surrounding the planned subsidy removal could have been largely avoided if only the government had been more adept and tactful in its political communication with stakeholders and with Nigerians. That there is monumental fraud and inconsistency surrounding fuel subsidy is undisputed, anyone who has keenly followed the debate in the past few weeks would attest to that. However the manner the government has approached the issue with secrecy and lack of consultation at the onset, only now engaging some members of civil society not to engage them critically, but just to win them over even so without a clear policy statement is fuelling the fire of this controversy and making the real motives of government suspect. It remains to be seen how things will pan out in the next few weeks and how long government will continue with this futile and maladroit approach in trying to win over Nigerians to buy this highly unpopular, ill-thought out and controversial policy decision.