It is not the best of times for Nigerian leaders. As expected, May’s impulsive removal of the government’s subsidy on petrol has generated a multiplier effect that has made the already compounded livelihood of Nigerians even more complex.
There is just no letting off.
Penultimate Tuesday, Nigerians woke up to find petrol, which sold for N557 before they went to bed, had risen by N60 to N617! For sure, an anticipated corollary of subjecting an international product to the vagaries of market forces, it, however, shocked the people.
The chief reason for the difficulty in dealing with the subsidy removal is that Nigerians are so used to cheap petrol that President Bola Tinubu’s pronouncement at his swearing-in 58 days ago ruptured the people’s reality. It is like weaning a five-year-old off his mother’s breast. The mother will ultimately achieve her mission, but she must prepare to tend to the child’s tantrums, and for no fault of his, if we were honest. A country is responsible for the total well-being of its people.
But Nigerians’ relationship with petrol is even more serious. The country and its people literally live on this product. The government argues, understandably, that the subsidy removal is now inevitable, yet petrol is central to the people’s livelihood that adding one kobo to the pump price reverberates all over. With the legendary erratic electricity supply, nearly all small and medium scale businesses depend on petrol to run. So, expensive petrol means expensive business and, invariably, exorbitant products or services. And when a government pulls the plug in the off-the-cuff manner of May 29, there can only be chaos, economic and otherwise.
This is what Nigeria is dealing with currently. Last week, inflation was at 22.79 per cent. That manifests in the prices of goods and services. Educational institutions, including government-owned unity schools, are increasing fees, which is another clear source of anxiety for parents.
The Monetary Policy Committee of the Central Bank of Nigeria has increased the benchmark interest rate to 18.75 per cent to control inflation. Time will reveal the effectiveness of this step, but things are difficult for people.
It is also not easy on the government. The debt-to-revenue ratio is 97 per cent and all Nigerians have legitimate expectations. On Wednesday, the National Association of Resident Doctors called for an indefinite strike. The Trade Union Congress also gave the government two weeks to conclude negotiations or face strike. That differs from the infrastructure deficit, insecurity, and other challenges the government must face. It is a challenging time to be in government.
But real leaders are made for tough times like this! And even though such times are usually shorter and fewer than the moments of glamour and bragging that leaders encounter, they historically determine the legacies of leaders who ride the storm creditably.
How did Franklin Roosevelt become a reference point in the democratic history of the United States of America? The only man elected for a record fourth term in the history of the US, he was responsible for taking the country through the Great Depression and the Second World War with commendable gusto. The valiant display of leaders in moments like this allows them to prove their mettle and leave indelible footprints.
The problem is that many of Nigeria’s leaders are not prepared for the rigour required of the offices they asked for.
For most of our politicians, leadership is a celebratory calling; they expect unlimited access to public resources, the privilege to wear flowing robes, attend parties, and lord it over other Nigerians with their motorcades and barrage of security detail. This is a significant problem the country faces.
Nigerians have come to terms with the removal of fuel subsidies. However, the failure of the government to introduce significantly creative interventions to cushion the effect is the most concerning.
Some state governments have introduced palliatives along the consensus reached at last week’s National Economic Council meeting, but how far-reaching are these? How much do they ultimately address the grinding poverty that ails the country?
Before discussing cash transfers targeted at the mass of Nigerians, we should recognise that state governments are doing a lot to reduce the pressure on civil servants. Some states cut down working days, while others have announced cash palliatives or peculiar allowances (whatever that means) for civil servants. But the focus on civil servants raises two issues.
What is the percentage of civil servants in the states, and how much will the injection of these allowances ease the burden on the general population? The second and most crucial point is that these vague allowances present opportunities for the misappropriation of millions of naira by state officials, who do not even have an idea of the number of people in their employ! We hear stories about ghost workers daily, so how do these state governments ensure the judicious use of funds?
We can extend the argument about prudence to cash transfers, which state governments gladly accepted.
As tokenistic as it was, the fact that the Federal Government gave an idea of how it planned to disburse the cash transfers was seemingly transparent. We could question the authenticity of the 12 million families and the fact that the 60 million people targeted constitute barely half of the estimated extremely poor people in the country. Still, it at least gives an idea of the plan. We cannot say the same about the state governors, who will most certainly turn the project into a cesspit of corruption, nepotism, and oppression of the people.
Conceding that state governments can use their registers for cash transfers may allow government officials to retain parts of the funds, favour members of the ruling political party in the state, and taunt opposition members.
Identifying the vulnerable in a country with a poor data culture like Nigeria, which is not even sure of its population, is even more confounding.
And in saying that, you wonder how many people are not vulnerable in a country where the minimum wage is a paltry N30,000. It is worse when you remember that private sector players play by their own rules. Now, imagine a civil servant earning the minimum wage having to send one child to a Federal Government College, where fees were recently increased to N100,000. What does it take for that worker to become “vulnerable?”
Unless we are saying people should no longer send themselves to school, Nigeria is a poor country with a vast population of poor people. We shouldn’t even joke about this; we are all poor! Hence, the question: who is not vulnerable? Why is the Federal Ministry of Education even increasing fees now? Why do we have such a disconnect?
This is why far more rigour must go into saving Nigeria from poverty and confusion. The country is losing its youths to desperate migration and sometimes crime.
Why is the government not considering an aggressive microcredit programme through cooperative societies? In 2021, the country had 300,000 such groups with over 31 million members, contributing N1.2tn yearly to Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product. These groups spread across several areas of endeavour, including agriculture. Microcredit can also spread through community groups where people have a sense of ownership, which assures fidelity. The government can accompany by training where necessary.
It is good that the government is planning to make food available to Nigerians. But the public funds could go into boosting education, health, transportation, and skills acquisition. Here we are sure the services will get to the end users rather than some depraved, self-serving middleman government official.
The distribution of money to poor people will never end their poverty; it will only perpetuate it. In fighting poverty, whether in the interim or long term, the government must remember that poverty is not only measured by a lack of money in the pocket but also by a lack of choices, opportunities, and restrictions on being heard.
More importantly, those who lead Nigeria must lead by example. We cannot expect sacrifices from Nigerians when the legislature will defend a N70bn expenditure for the convenience of its members.
These leaders must realise that regardless of their high-sounding economic rationale, Nigerians do not know the meaning of subsidy beyond the unmerited luxury that the political elite, whose jobs are unknown but flamboyant lifestyles are recognised worldwide. The challenge before President Tinubu is to galvanise actions that put the people at the top of the leaders’ minds at all levels.
