SUBSIDY REMOVAL CHALLENGES
I want to discuss the removal of subsidies and the subsequent protests. When there were subsidies on petroleum products, it was a mess and an avenue for massive fraud and theft. People stole our crude oil and exported it. Some even had large ships and modular refineries in international waters. They would load our crude oil into these vessels, refine it, and then bring the petroleum products back to Nigeria. They would sell these products to us, and the government would end up paying them for stolen crude oil. This was a blatant scam—people would invoice for things they didn’t even import.
Thus, removing the subsidy was necessary. However, the issue lies in the manner and timing of the removal. President Tinubu made his inaugural address, and just like that, the subsidy was gone forever. Such decisions should not be made abruptly. He was surrounded by sycophants and parasites, including members of the Lagos mob, who failed to offer proper advice, or he might not have taken their advice because they are all his parasites.
What should have been done differently? First, the Dangote refinery was coming online, even though it was hyped and hastily commissioned by Buhari. Many things went wrong, so we should have waited, consulted, and known when the Dangote refinery would be operational. We should have ensured at least one of our refineries was functioning, if not all of them, and then started phasing out the subsidy gradually.
In Europe, subsidies are not inherently evil. For example, the average cow receives $2.50 a day in subsidies, totalling about $70 to $80 a month. These subsidies support the production of milk, which helps in developing strong muscles and intellect in children. This nutritional support is crucial for their overall development. If you look at the medal table in the Olympics, it is related to economic and technological development. Only a few countries, like Kenya, rely on natural talent based on their geographical location and training conditions. Technological and nutritional support play significant roles.
We should have gradually removed the subsidy. The money spent on buying petrol, converting cars to gas, managing protests, and distributing funds to states would be sufficient to reactivate our refineries. This would reduce our dependence on imported petroleum products and help stabilize our currency.
The World Bank and IMF often influence policies without understanding local conditions. We should have pursued a gradual removal of the subsidy rather than an abrupt announcement. The alternative, as suggested by some, was the NNPC, which incurs billions in expenses without producing refined products. Their mismanagement was a burden on our economy. When AR proposed selling the refineries, people protested. I understand their concerns—they feared the refineries would end up in the hands of cronies. However, if we had sold some shares in the refineries and had a stake in them, we could have created a win-win situation. Selling crude oil in naira and refined products in foreign currency would have been beneficial.
Our petroleum products are often smuggled due to the lack of official export channels and competitive pricing. If we provided accessible, competitively priced products, there would be less incentive for smuggling.
In conclusion, my disagreement with some protesters is not about the subsidy itself but the manner of its removal and the lack of productive capacity in the country. Our current leaders seem to govern based on personal gain, tribalism, religion, or foreign influence, rather than addressing the country’s needs. The recent events in Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mali, where French influence is being challenged, show a shift against those who have historically oppressed Africa. This is a significant development.
That’s my perspective. I welcome your opinion as part of our democratic rights.
I’m Dr. Charles Apoki. God bless you.
