effect of the attendant high cost of fuel which immediately shot up from N65 per liter to a staggering N141 per liter official rate in major cities but floated up to N200 in various parts of the country.
The attendant automatic hike in transport fares and costs of commodity goods and services gave impetus to the anger and fueled the protests that crippled economic and social life in the country.
Many factors aggravated the crisis and pitched the people against the government. These factors included internal and external forces that benefited or intended to benefit economically or politically from the crisis or the fallout.
Protesters surged out in the streets of major cities including those in Lagos, Kano, Kwara, Edo, Kaduna, Bauchi, Kogi, Katsina, Oyo, Osun, Ogun, Abuja and other states to press demands for reversal. Government on its part has resorted to using anti riot squads to beat the citizens back.
While the nation boiled, the international community, especially the West, watched almost with apparent glee as some interests projected a movement akin to the Arab Spring especially against their predictions that the nation would disintegrate in 2015. Most interests in the West monitored every bit of the protest as they saw it as a prelude to the fulfillment of the disintegration predictions.
That did not happen. The Nigerian public appeared to come to know exactly what they want as the citizens closed ranks against the policy irrespective of religious, ethnic or political persuasions.
They wanted a reversal to the complete deregulation and after a weeklong agitation, the government buckled. Though it did not announce complete reversal, it went down to N97 per liter resulting to the return of normalcy which many see as a victory for the nation, though it came with very high costs especially as it led to the death of many innocent citizens some of who fell to the bullets of anti-riot security agencies.
While fear of hardship occasioned the fury with which Nigerians opposed the policy, several reasons and speculations have been adduced for the intensity with which government resisted the people. In between the two were unscrupulous forces including petroleum marketers, anti government forces and social deviants who cashed into the prevalent situation to further their own interests.
The immediate outburst of anger came when owners of petrol stations who already had old and subsidised stock adjusted pump prices immediately the removal of subsidy was announced and started making outrageous profits from bewildered and hapless Nigerians.
Also, marketers, who have yet to distribute products at the jetties and other whole sale points joined in the bazaar that continued to drain the pockets of the people and got them set for the showdown.
The current move was not the first time government muted the idea of tampering with the subsidy regime. However, many linked the stiff resistance to the timing, lack of palliatives and general lack of trust against governments which goes beyond the current Goodluck Jonathan’s administration.
Tempers rose when government cut short New Year Celebration by announcing the sudden removal of subsidy despite its initial assurances that the subvention stays until April after the Presidency would have concluded consultations on the idea.
Beyond the subsidy issue, Nigerians largely raised questions of accountability by government especially against the backdrop of revelations of shady deals in the oil and gas sector including the management of the subsidy scheme with government itself positing that cartels had duped the nation huge sums soaring to more than N1.5 trillion.
Actually, Nigerians were not completely averse to the removal of fuel subsidy. They rather did not trust the Federal Government on its promises to deploy the savings from the removal of subsidy for the provision of infrastructures and other developmental projects as such promises by past administrations were not fulfilled.
They were quick to point out that the Babangida administration in 1986 jerked up fuel price to 50k and to 70k in 1991. The Chief Ernest Shonekan Interim National Government jerked it up to N5 per liter when Babangida left but it was reduced to N3.25 per liter by the Abacha administration.
Abacha later increased the cost to N11.00 per liter in October 1994, to free the subsidy for development. The Abdusalami administration increased it to N25 but reduced it to N20 following outcry by Nigerians.
The real hike came with the Obasanjo administration which took the price to N30 in 1999 and reduced it to N22 following outcry by Nigerians. However, in 2002, he jerked it up to N26 and then to N40 in 2003 and finally to N75 in 2007. Late Umaru Yar’adua reduced it to N65 in 2007 and there are moves by the Jonathan administration to put the price on the float.
On their part,organised labour had insisted that the nation’s economy is too weak and might not withstand the removal of subsidy.
They believe that there is nothing wrong with the scheme but its operation in the country, as it is functional and beneficiary to the people in other oil producing countries such as Venezuela where a litre of petrol goes for just 4µ , which is about N5. In Saudi Arabia, it is 15µ (N19); Kuwait 30µ (N40); 29µ in Egypt; Libya, 16µ (N20); 24µ in Qatar, and 13µ in Iran.
On the whole, Nigerians are demanding for more accountability in the handling of resources and the prosecution of those who abused the system. The quest appears to be paying off. Suddenly there is a new awareness. Nigerians have over the night become self appointed public auditors and accountants and many are not keeping records and asking pertinent question about the handling of national resources.
The impact is the series of probes and inquest in the oil and gas sector which hitherto is shrouded in secrecy.
Currently, there are startling revelations of fraud in the management of the oil and gas sector especially from the inquests mounted by the two chambers of the National Assembly. During the public hearings, top government officials including the Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, that of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison- Madueke and top officials of the Nigerians National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), could not give account of how the resources of the nation from the sector were being handled.
The officials could not give account of who authorised the overshooting of subsidy and the extra-budgetary spending running into trillion of naira by the NNPC which have not been accounted for, nor captured in the records of government.
Late last year, the Senator Magnus Abe Senate Committee on Petroleum (Upstream) investigating the management of the subsidy listed beneficiaries and the alleged underhand deals including companies owned by highly influential persons in the country.
They include; Oando Nigeria Plc, owned by Mr. Wale Tinubu (N228.506 bn); MRS, owned by Sayyu Dantata (N224.818 bn); Enak Oil and Gas (N19.684 bn); Conoil, owned by Dr. Mike Adenuga (Jnr), (N37.960 bn); Bovas and Co. Nigeria Limited ,(N5.685 bn); Obat Oil, owned by the Olugbo of Ugboland, Ondo state, Oba Eniti Obateru Akinruntan (N85 bn).
Others are, Integrated Oil and Gas Ltd, owned by former Minister of Interior, retired Capt. Emmanuel Iheanacho (N30.777 bn); IPMAN (Independent Petroleum Marketers Association) Investment Limited, (N10.9 bn), A.A. Rano (N1.14 bn); A-Z Petroleum (N18.61 bn); A.S.B (N3.16 bn); Arcon Plc (N24.116 bn); African Petroleum, (N104.58 bn); Forte Oil, owned by Femi Otedola (N8.582 bn); Aminu Resources, (N2.3 bn); Capital Oil, (N22.4 bn); Avante Guard, (N1.14 bn); Avido (N3.64 bn); Boffas and Company, (N3.67 bn); Brilla Energy (N960.3 million) De Jones Petroleum (N14.86 bn); and DownStream Energy, (N789.648 million).
Also, named by the committee include, Dosil Oil and Gas, (N3.375 bn). Inco Ray, (N1.988 bn); Eternal, (N5.574 bn); Folawiyo Energy, (N113.32 bn); Frado International, (N2.63 bn); First Deepwater Oil, (N257.396 million); Heden Petrol, (N693 million); Honeywell Petrol, (N12.2 bn); Integrated oil, (N30.777bn); AMP (N11.417 bn); Ascon, (N5.271 bn) and Channel Oil, (N1.308 bn).
While Nigerians wants all the named dealt with, the Economic Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has commenced investigation into the matter. Also the Senate has via a resolution on Thursday barred the executive from spending any money without recourse to the National Assembly.
However, instead of removing subsidy because of the presence of a cartel, labour unions are insisting that government should have used its paraphernalia of power to dislodge the cabal and work out a transparent method of operating the subsidy scheme.
On the other hand, several reasons and speculations have been adduced for the stiff resistance by government and its determination to remove subsidy on fuel.
In presenting his reasons, President Jonathan continued to harp on the abuses of the subsidy scheme by a cartel. The President had insisted that it was in the best interest of the nation to end the subsidy scheme and redirect the resources to capital development in the country. The Federal Government and the state governments insisted that the subsidy regime was rather benefiting the rich rather than the poor for which it was originally meant and as such, maintained that it was better it was removed and applied to issues that have direct bearing on the welfare of the people.
However, there are other schools of thoughts on the real reason the Federal Government was bent on subsidy removal even in the face of imminent uprising by the people.
While there are insinuations that the government was broke and does not have enough fund to finance its activities, there are others thinking that the policy was a script written by the international community to weaken the nation’s economy.
Though President Jonathan had severally assured that the nation was doing fine and that his austere measures were to guide against rainy days, this theory had refuse to go.
The thinking started when the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) raised an alarm that some states were broke and could not implement the new N18,000 minimum wage unless they get external help.
The issue came to the fore when the Senate last year passed a motion seeking for the increase in the allocation for states from the Federation Account.
This was against the backdrop of reports that about 30 out of the 36 states in the federation were economically distressed and might not be able to sustain themselves in the coming years unless a drastic step is taken to address their productivity rate and viability level.
A chart tabled before the Senate which prompted it to pass the motion indicated that six states were distressed, 15 states were classified as being in critical conditions, while six were unhealthy. Only five were in tolerable conditions.
States under distressed condition include Kano, Sokoto, Niger, Zamfara, Katsina and Osun. Those in critical conditions are Ekiti, Plateau, Benue, Edo, Borno, Adamawa, Cross River, Enugu, Taraba, Ogun, Kogi, Yobe, Ebonyi, Ondo and Kaduna. Those classified as unhealthy include Oyo, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Nasarawa, Gombe, Rivers, Imo, Kwara, Lagos, Kebbi, Delta, Abia, Anambra and Jigawa. Akwa-Ibom was rated as healthy.
Though some governors had come out to reject the figures, there are facts that many of the states cannot meet their obligations to the people especially the implementation of the N18,000 national minimum wage.
To keep afloat, many of the states were said to have been rushing to the Capital market to raise long term bonds to finance their projects but expressed worries that such could spell doom for the future of the states especially in the face of lack of appropriate legislative framework to check possible abuses of the funds.
The chart before the Senate showed that some state governments have been taking the capital market alternative since 2002. The chart shows that between 2002 and 2011 Lagos state have taken N122.5 billion, Ogun (N50 billion), Bayelsa (N50 billion), Imo (N18.5 billion), Kwara (N17 billion), Ebonyi (N16.5 billion), Kaduna (N8.5 billion), Delta (N5 billion), Kebbi (N3.5 billion) and Yobe (N2.5 billion).
It was gathered that the quest for more fund led the governors to back the removal of subsidy as it would lead to more allocations from the Federation Account.
However, as Nigerians under the auspices of the labour unions and organised civil society engaged in genuine protest in line with their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, there came reports from government quarters that certain fifth columnists with extraneous interests had infiltrated the ranks of genuine protesters.
While there were allegations that the embattled fuel cartel was fueling the demand for the return of the scheme for their selfish interests, there were also allegations that certain anti- government elements had also sought to cash in on the situation to destabilise the system by calling for a change of regime.
This was in addition to the infiltration by common criminals who were said to have used the protest period to engage in criminal activities especially robbery and looting.
Currently, some individuals including Lagos Christian Preacher, Tunde Bakare are being held by the government for calling for a change of regime which has been seen as a treasonable act.
In the face of the developments, labour and well meaning Nigerians including the Save Nigerian Group (SGN) which Bakare belongs to, disowned the call for change of regime saying the protest was strictly on the subsidy scheme and the need for more accountability in the system.
On the whole, the protests have led to serious national awareness on the part of the people and adjustments on the part of government as the handling of the oil and gas sector would never be business as usual.
Largely, new social media played and is playing key roles in the evolution of the accountability era. Nigerians could post and read issues on social media which has become a veritable tool for serious national dialogue and cross fertilisation of ideas on national issues. During the protests, Nigerians made great use of the social media for mobilisation and the shaping of national opinion and consensus which determined the nature of the protests and demands by labour unions during negotiations with government.
However, there were apprehensions that the processes would have been hijacked to deal the nation a deadly blow but for the timely intervention by Senate President David Mark who brokered talks between labour and government at the time the two parties refused to discuss as each held to its position.
While labour insisted that price must be reverted to original N65 per liter before any negotiation, Government insisted that there was no going back on the new policy. The deadlock that ensured crippled the nation and almost gave it over to deviant forces.
However, with the meditative role played by the Senate, government and labour reached a compromise on N97 per liter with agreement on phased movement to complete deregulation by April after palliatives and clear cut vision on the investment of the subsidy savings are made.
However, there are fears that it might not be an ‘uhuru’ yet as more scathing revelations of massive fraud in the subsidy scheme continue to emerge. However on the whole, it appears that a subtle revolution has already taken place in the country as Nigerians have now become the real watchdogs of the handling of the nation’s affairs.
