What would make you decide that the subsidy is no longer necessary?

President Bola Tinubu, at his inauguration on May 29, 2023, announced the abolishment of the subsidy on PMS, popularly known as fuel. Ever since, it has been a bragging right of Tinubu and officials of his administration. I had in my statement reviewing the one year of the Bola Tinubu administration urged the government to come clean on the actual position of the subsidy policy. These were my exact words: "...provide clarity on the fuel subsidy regime, including the fiscal commitments and benefits from the fuel subsidy reform and the impact of this on the Federation Accounts. It is curious that since April 2024, fuel queues have mounted at many filling stations across Nigeria, and the infamous ‘black market’ has sprouted in several states. How much PMS is being imported and distributed, and at what cost? What is the implicit subsidy?" If the subsidy regime had been characterised by opaqueness, what would we say of a situation where the subsidy is still being paid under the cover without Nigerians in the know?

President Bola Tinubu, at his inauguration on May 29, 2023, announced the abolishment of the subsidy on PMS, popularly known as fuel. Ever since, it has been a bragging right of Tinubu and officials of his administration. I had in my statement reviewing the one year of the Bola Tinubu administration urged the government to come clean on the actual position of the subsidy policy. These were my exact words: "...provide clarity on the fuel subsidy regime, including the fiscal commitments and benefits from the fuel subsidy reform and the impact of this on the Federation Accounts. It is curious that since April 2024, fuel queues have mounted at many filling stations across Nigeria, and the infamous ‘black market’ has sprouted in several states. How much PMS is being imported and distributed, and at what cost? What is the implicit subsidy?" If the subsidy regime had been characterised by opaqueness, what would we say of a situation where the subsidy is still being paid under the cover without Nigerians in the know?

SUBSIDY REMOVAL Yes, I have always advocated for the removal of subsidy on PMS because its administration has been mildly put, opaque with so much scope for arbitrariness and corruption. Mind boggling rent profit from oil subsidy accrued to the cabals in public institutions and the private sector. I would have prioritized the following: First, tackling corruption. Fighting corruption should have commenced with the repositioning of the NNPCL, which is a huge beneficiary of the status quo. Its commitment to reform and capacity to implement and enforce reforms is suspect. The subsidy regime has provided an avenue for rent seeking, and the NNPCL and its guardians will be threatened by reforms. Second, paying particular attention to Nigeria’s poor refining infrastructure. We are by far the most inefficient OPEC member country in terms of both the percentage of installed refining capacity that works and the percentage of crude refined. We would’ve commenced the privatization of all state-owned refineries and ensure that Nigeria starts to refine at least 50% of its current crude oil output. Nigeria should aspire to export 50% of that capacity to ECOWAS member states.

Third, adopt a gradualist approach in the implementation of the subsidy reforms. Subsidies would not have been removed suddenly and completely. It is instructive that when I was Vice President, we adopted a gradualist approach and had completed phases 1 and 2 of the reform before our tenure ended. The incoming administration in 2007 abandoned the reforms, unfortunately. The majority of the countries that review or rationalize subsidy payments adopt a gradualist approach by phasing price increases or shifting from universal to targeted approach (Malaysia, 2022 and Indonesia, 2022 -2023). In many EU economies, complete withdrawal often takes 5 years to effect. The gradualist approach allows for adjustments, adaptation and minimizes disruptions and vulnerability. Fourth, implement a robust social protection programme that will support the poor in navigating the cost-of-living challenges arising largely from reform implementation. We would’ve invested the savings from subsidy withdrawal to strengthen the productive base of the economy through infrastructure maintenance and development; to improve outcomes in education and healthcare delivery; to improve rural infrastructure and support livelihood expansion in agriculture; and develop the skills and entrepreneurial capacity of our youth in order to enhance their access to better economic opportunities.

The Nigerian worker, the teacher, the nurse, the factory hand, the civil servant, the artisan, has been the primary victim of an administration that, by all observable evidence, is far more interested in increasing the revenue at its disposal than in improving the lives of the citizens it governs. Trillions Saved, But Nothing Felt. The fuel subsidy removal was a necessary step, recklessly executed. Let me be clear: the removal of the fuel subsidy was, in principle, a policy that many, including myself, had long advocated. The subsidy had become a fiscal haemorrhage that enriched cabal middlemen while denying the government of the resources needed for development. Its removal was necessary and overdue. But the manner in which the Tinubu administration executed this policy was irresponsible and callous. On the day of inauguration, with no preparation, no safety nets, no cushioning mechanisms, and no transition plan for ordinary Nigerians, the President announced the end of the subsidy. The price of fuel skyrocketed. Transportation costs doubled and tripled overnight. The cost of food and basic goods hit the roof. The Nigerian worker, who was already struggling to survive on a salary eroded by years of inflation, was suddenly confronted with a cost of living that made mere survival feel like a luxury.

My dear Francis, thank you for taking the time to truly understand what I am proposing. That means a great deal to me. I am not restoring subsidy so that Nigeria can keep paying for imported petrol. I am restoring subsidy so that Nigerians can produce more at home, pay less for fuel, and keep more money in their pockets. That is the difference between import subsidy and production subsidy. Think about shoes. If government wants Nigerians to buy shoes more cheaply, it can spend public money making imported shoes cheaper, or it can support shoemakers in Aba to reduce their production costs so they can make more shoes here, employ more Nigerians and sell at more affordable prices. I choose the Aba shoemaker. I will do the same with fuel. We will support crude refined in Nigeria so our refineries can produce at a lower cost and you can pay less. But for me, this is bigger than fuel. I want the bus fare you pay every morning to come down. I want the cost of taking food from the farm to the market to come down. I want the trader to spend less. I want the barber, tailor, welder and small business owner to spend less on energy.