At a time millions of Nigerians needed hope and assurance that the leadership of the country knows a little of the misery it has imposed, President Bola Tinubu’s media chat last week failed to minister succour.
Apart from the usual “we feel your pains” platitude, there was no evidence that the conversation was conceived to deliver truth and retrieve trust from citizens. It was bereft of genuine empathy. The President rather sounded boastful and brutal, scoring himself high for policies that are patently oppressive. It must be stated that the welfare of citizens is the number one reason a government is elected or appointed, as supported by the 1999 Constitution.
But President Tinubu postured more in the manner of an unelected leader who is not answerable to the people. He impressed it that he had no regrets for enthroning anti-people policies and was not obligated to listen to a second opinion. That can’t be democracy.
Sadly, the President failed to redeem the trust deficit this government has in surplus. It is true that only eight million plus votes accounted for his election in 2023, but that is no reason he should not seek a broader legitimacy by just a tweak of his persona.
The things President Tinubu said and what he stood for before he became president are different from the policies he now pursues with gusto. Many Nigerians are not too comfortable with the different versions of the man.
On the sudden removal of petrol subsidy, Tinubu said he couldn’t wait to put in place a contingency plan to soften the pain on the people. He was in a hurry to use petrol money to develop the country and there was no time to waste. Tinubu should have been reminded that way back in 2012, he vehemently opposed removing fuel subsidy under former President Goodluck Jonathan.
At that time, Tinubu, the most formidable opposition leader laid in wait for Jonathan. He sponsored elements outside government, the gamut of human right community and the clergy to frustrate that policy. A thought-provoking follow-up to the president’s no-regrets stance on subsidy removal today, would have been to remind him of that documented evidence, where he stated that petrol subsidy removal was anti-people and a tool for poverty inducement.
That same policy he opposed in 2012, is today the game-changer and central policy of his government. What has changed today, Mr. President; is it not that you’re simply slippery and opportunistic like the average politician? That’s a follow-up question the panelists missed. Were they too cosy? Maybe it’s the presidential ambience.
For context, Jonathan didn’t just remove that earth-shaking petrol subsidy without consultations. His government embarked on townhalls, where members of the government tried to educate the people on the long-term advantages of subsidy removal as well as likely implications. That’s democracy.
Lest we forget, Tinubu promised the crowd at Abeokuta during the 2023 campaigns, that his government will bring down petrol price. If today’s economic realities demand a change in former positions, leadership obligates quality explanation, not arrogant display of power.
One of the reasons Kamala Harris didn’t go far in the November presidential elections of the United States, was because she vacillated between her former and current positions. The U.S. voters needed a leader they could trust on vital subjects. Hopefully, voters here will begin to demand that politicians stay truthful and honest.
“We cannot spend our future generations’ investment upfront…cut your coat strictly to your size. Manage, management is the issue and we have no choice…,” these are the words of the President when he needed to emphasise that petrol subsidy amounted to wasting future resources.
If Tinubu truly believes that subsidising petrol for Nigerians amounted to spending the fortunes of the next generations as sermonised, imagine what could have been saved since 2012, but that was not his conviction at the time.
If the President actually believes in cutting the coat according to size, why did he not see anything wrong with his bloated and unwieldy cabinet, the largest so far in the history of the country? He tried to justify that with efficiency. The size of a cabinet does not determine efficiency and service delivery.
Ministers depend on budgets to deliver service to the people. The budget depends on availability of funds and fiscal discipline on the part of government, to actualise budgetary proposals. The budgets of 2023, 2024, including supplementary appropriations, didn’t do well on capital votes. More of fiscal lawlessness.
In some ministries, projects that should have commenced in 2024 have to wait, hopefully, for the next six months despite increased revenues. So, it’s not about size but resource management and setting the right priorities. What the President didn’t explain about his grotesque cabinet is that some ministers were hired for their political relevance during the 2023 elections and are being retained in the hope they could play strategic roles towards 2027.
Some may have been rewarded for their support in funding the campaigns, a metaphor for actual purchase of cabinet seats. That’s why those who ought to have been sacked during the minor shake-up were not, not that they have anything extra-ordinary to offer.
The Steve Oronsaye report that was designed to reduce cost of governance has been in the works since the time of Jonathan in 2012, but no president has shown courage to implement it. It was thought that President Tinubu, as a management guru would see the essence of the report and operationalise it swiftly, in the manner he attended to petrol subsidy.
An eight-man committee (another bureaucracy) was given 12 weeks in February 2024, to work out the legislative amendments and administrative restructuring needed to implement the report. Between then and now, more ministries and commissions have been created. And here was the President justifying the largeness of government.
One of the reasons Nigerians voted for the All Progressives Congress (APC) in 2015, was because they promised to fight corruption. They warned Nigerians that if they were not allowed to fight corruption, corruption will kill the country. The arrowhead of their anti-corruption mantra was at the time a lean former head of state, Muhammadu Buhari, whose austere visage was mistaken for abstinence from official luxury. Nigerians fell for their antics.
Buhari made a mess of the anti-corruption template he inherited and ruined the prospects of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which under Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, had begun to win accolades across the globe on behalf of Nigeria. In his usual clannish style, Buhari refused to subject the appointment of Ibrahim Magu, former EFCC acting chairman, to the scrutiny of the Senate as required by the Constitution.
That left the EFCC in the hands of Buhari and his Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, to micromanage. Later, Magu fell out with Malami and was also not answerable to the lawmakers, until he was sacked in July 2020. Details of the Justice Ayo Salami-panel that investigated Magu’s mismanagement of EFCC are still hidden. Magu was rewarded with promotion in the police.
Abdulrasheed Bawa, who succeeded Magu couldn’t do much. Sources said he was hired by Malami to allow his office put a leash on the EFCC. After the Tinubu administration was inaugurated, Bawa was to be detained by the Department of State Service (DSS) for four months. Nigerians were not told what his sins were. The only matter citizens remembered was that Bawa and former governor of Zamfara State, Bello Matawalle, now minister of Defence (state), were enmeshed in a $2 million bribe scandal.
Nigerians expected that PBAT, as a specialist in auditing was going to subject that matter to serious scrutiny, to establish his no-nonsense stance for corruption. That didn’t happen. Instead, Bawa was sacked and Matawalle rewarded with a cabinet position. In the last 10 years, the APC is yet to unveil an original anti-corruption strategy. Instead, they have stunted the capacity of EFCC through state capture.
When President Tinubu was asked to explain his anti-corruption blueprint last Monday, his response was winding and escapist. He said he was able to raise the minimum wage from N35,000 to N70,000, and that was his solution to tackling corruption. He said it was necessary to give people more money to take care of their basic needs, so that they won’t nurse the appetite to steal government money.
In the President’s reductionist political ideology, N70,000 (less than the price of a bag of rice) in today’s economy can solve housing, feeding and transportation needs of lowly citizens. He should be reminded that in the same Nigerian economy, children and wives of politically exposed persons are flying aircraft and making huge donations from coffers that are not secured in parliamentary appropriations.
The President should be reminded that the appointment of the current EFCC Chairman, Olanipekun Olukoyede, did not enjoy robust parliamentary debate after Nigerians raised issues with his nomination. The process was rushed, creating doubts.
There were cases of corruption involving former governors who are now hegemons in the Senate. Nigerians are interested in what happened to the files. What about the report on the Beta Edu scandal, which the President kept under the minister of Finance and Co-ordinating minister of the Economy, Wale Edun for investigation?
There was a trail of how monies in the Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Ministry under Edu were allegedly shared illegally through private accounts. Nigerians saw Edu and former minister, Sadiya Umar Farouq and others in orchestrated summons by the EFCC in January 2024. Farouk was asked by the Court to account for how N729 billion was shared to 24.3 million poor Nigerians in six months. She hasn’t. It appears like only Godwin Emefiele stole all the money under Buhari.
It’s not enough to use plea bargain to sweep financial crimes under the carpet. It’s also a joke to say that the current minimum wage is an anti-corruption tool. There are better ways to fight corruption, Mr. President. Nigerians aren’t dumb!
END
Be the first to comment