Ṣé o máa mú ìrànwọ́ owó-ẹ̀kọ́ padà bọ̀, ṣé o máa tẹ̀síwájú pẹ̀lú NELFUND, tàbí ṣé o máa ṣe méjèèjì?

The latest revelations circulating through credible media outlets regarding the federal government's covert continuation of the subsidy on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) represent another chapter in the opaque governance under President Bola Tinubu’s administration. This development starkly contrasts with the President's firm assertions in a national broadcast, which followed closely on the heels of public protests decrying poor governance, where he declared the subsidy regime concluded. However, disclosures prior to his announcement have consistently indicated a resurgence of subsidy payments, albeit through less transparent means. This dissonance between the President’s words and his actions not only undermines the moral fabric of his leadership but also significantly erodes the credibility of his administration. At a time when the nation grapples with severe fuel scarcity and escalating energy costs, the continued delays in the re-operation of the Port Harcourt refinery stand as a national disgrace — a failure that rests firmly on the shoulders of President Tinubu, who also holds the office of the Minister of Petroleum Resources.

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.

On the question of subsidy, my position has not changed and will not change: I will restore it! A nation as blessed as ours has no business abandoning its citizens to hardship. Nigeria is rich enough to look after her own. I believe the wealth of a nation is not measured by how much government collects, but by how much the money in the pockets of its people can buy. I want wages to have value again. I want farmers to move produce without transport swallowing their profits. I want families to fill their baskets without emptying their pockets. I want businesses to produce, employ and prosper. That is why I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians. When fuel rises, transport rises. When transport rises, food rises. When food rises, families suffer. I will break that wretched chain that has defined our national life in the nearly four years of Tinubu’s presidency.

It is fundamentally different from allowing living costs to explode, watching Nigerians struggle with hunger and unaffordable healthcare, and then arriving close to an election with another round of emergency handouts. And, Bola, your attempt to use NELFUND as a shield against Atiku’s cost-of-living proposal is even more dishonest. You now want Nigerians to believe that making fuel cheaper will somehow threaten student loans, workers’ salaries and the minimum wage. That is fearmongering dressed up as economics. Celebrating NELFUND as proof that education has become affordable under your government is like setting school fees on fire and then boasting that you lent students a bucket of water. What exactly is the wisdom in presiding over dramatic increases in school fees in some institutions, only to turn around and celebrate loans as the solution? You make education more expensive, lend students money to survive the increase, and then demand applause for the rescue. That is not affordability. It is witchcraft economics: create the burden with one hand, offer debt with the other, and demand applause for the intervention.

The good news for Nigerian students is that Atiku has reviewed the current student-loan policy and believes education should not begin with a mountain of debt hanging over a young Nigerian’s future. His approach will reduce the underlying cost of education and, after review, provide forgiveness for qualifying student debts so that young Nigerians can graduate with hope rather than repayment burdens. Education should open doors, not mortgage the future. A student loan is not a scholarship. It is a liability. The proper test of an education policy is whether ordinary families can educate their children without being pushed into debt merely to keep them in school. When students increasingly require loans because the underlying cost of education has become prohibitive, government should not parade the loan itself as evidence that the system is working. And your attempt to frighten students and workers by claiming that Atiku’s targeted and capped production support will somehow destroy NELFUND, reduce salaries or reverse the minimum wage is a fallacious claim without a ledger behind it. If your government has the arithmetic, Bola, publish it. Show Nigerians, line by line, how a transparently budgeted subsidy tied to Nigerian crude and domestic refining suddenly empties NELFUND or workers’ pay packets.

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.