Fallouts of Subsidy Crisis

President Jonathan was in a weak strategic position when the fuel subsidy removal was announced on January 1, 2012. He also underestimated public resentment of the policy. Nigeria’s politicians and ruling class were also yet to understand the implications of telecommunications industry changes on the ability of citizens and civil society to organise themselves! NCC data indicates over 127.2million connected; and 95.3million active lines; plus 172.4million installed capacity in Nigeria as at November 2011. Internet penetration has also improved, and a significant number of youths and middle class Nigerians have blackberries and are on facebook. These demographics in effect have altered the balance of power between government and citizens, in favour of the citizenry! It was this dynamic (also at play in the “Arab Spring”, “Tea Party” and “Occupy Wall Street” protests) that left government surprised at the popular reaction during the oil subsidy strike. The strike illustrated the power and possible abuses of the internet and social media! Information and (a lot of) disinformation is enabled by the internet. Ranged against government in the subsidy protests were several disparate groups-labour exercising its legitimate duty of protecting its constituency’s interests, as it perceived it; youths and middle class Nigerians who sought to prevent what they considered an adverse policy, which would take away their “right” to cheap oil; social and civil society activists, who were fulfilling their self-assigned roles in society; Life-long “comrades” and socialists (such as Dr Fashina, former ASUU president who chaired the Joint Action Committee) who interpret deregulation as a capitalist philosophy which would take Nigeria away from their socialist utopia; the broad political opposition, especially ACN and ANPP, which felt they had no reason to help a PDP government sell an unpopular policy; and CPC politicians led by Nasir El-Rufai, Tunde Bakare, Yinka Odumakin and Kayode Ogundamisi (supported by Femi Fani-Kayode and Dino Melaye) whose agenda progressively appeared to be an unconstitutional take-over of power! This last group had many active collaborators and supporters (and probably a few silent ones too!) whose advocacy for regime change would ultimately help government re-define the protests as a security threat and attempted treason, which put labour in an untenable position and led to the suspension of the strike! Nigerians exhibited great passion during the period; even though the space for reasoned debate of the deregulation of downstream petroleum sector (or oil subsidy removal) policy was often severely constrained and the discussion reduced many times to vulgar abuse, demonization and demagoguery! Many found pleasure in abusing Jonathan, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and Atedo Peterside, the only government officials (later joined by Shamsudeen Usman and Bolaji Abdullahi) who had the courage to speak in defence of government policy. In the media, only Ijeoma Nwogwugwu of THISDAY and this columnist expressed pro-deregulation viewpoints. Which brings me to one of the less-savoury fallouts of the crisis-the ethnicization of the issue, which THISDAY’s Segun Adeniyi discussed in his article, “Their Son, Our President” of January 19, 2012. While it may or may not have been legitimate for Segun to disclose his earlier aggravation by respected banker Atedo Peteside during the transition from Yar’adua to Jonathan and pro-Jonathan sentiments by Niger-Delta leaders, I was shocked by the completely unnecessary and unjustifiable attack on well-respected President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor who the columnist referred to as “otherwise respected”! Contrary to Segun’s assertion, Pastor Oritsejafor, an Itsekiri (they are not known to be best friends to Ijaws and Urhobos, two of the dominant groups in the Niger-Delta) has never made any pro-Niger-Delta comments since President Jonathan’s assumption of office. Instead his two concerns appear to be Islamic Banking, and “Boko Haram” terrorism/killings of Christians in Northern Nigeria. I would imagine that these are legitimate concerns of a leader of the country’s Christians. I have warned earlier in this column that there seems to be intense anger in some quarters (an anger that apparently led Professor Jubril Aminu to call for the banning of CAN!) at Oritsejafor’s support for Northern Christians and his audacity in seeking to protect his congregation. I have also heard that some non-Christians are so upset that they seek to sponsor an alternate leadership for CAN that is more amenable to their interests! Hopefully everyone has learnt something from this crisis. Government now knows that it can’t take the people for granted. It must communicate and engage with the populace on policies before implementing them, and our democracy is probably stronger. Government can no longer neglect the imperative of fighting corruption, and enthroning transparency and accountability in government business. On the other hand, most Nigerians now concede the necessity for downstream deregulation, and the crisis has indeed taken the nation closer to a deregulated oil sector. There is now consensus around the need to investigate and punish all abuses of the subsidy scheme. I would recommend that government should return the scheme exclusively to oil majors and scrupulously implement the reduced SURE programme so that benefits can be visible to all. Government must resume consultations towards correcting industry lapses, enacting the petroleum industry bill, and commence consultations towards setting a date for full industry deregulation. I would urge government to consider issuing full investment guarantees to all prospective investors to commence action in the expectation that the sector would be deregulated by the time construction is complete.