Matter of the moment

The deregulating measures as submitted by the Nigerian masses include pegging the salary of Mr. President at an amount that would sound reasonable and acceptable to common sense, because there is no reason for the Nigerian President to earn more than the American President; disposing aircrafts in the presidential fleet so that the Nigerian President, […]

The deregulating measures as submitted by the Nigerian masses include pegging the salary of Mr. President at an amount that would sound reasonable and acceptable to common sense, because there is no reason for the Nigerian President to earn more than the American President; disposing aircrafts in the presidential fleet so that the Nigerian President, like the Prime Minister of Britain, which is a much bigger economy would travel by commercial flights; and abolishing foreign medical treatment for all government officials and political office holders (appointed or elected) .

Other measures include downward review of allowances of federal and state legislators so that none shall earn more than a permanent secretary which is the highest rank in the civil service; scrapping of the “Office of the First Lady” at federal, state and local government levels because it is unconstitutional; removing immunity clause from the country’s constitution; and enacting laws that will make the stealing of public funds punishable by death sentence.

Nigerian people have reasons to cast doubts over the motives declared by government for the removal of oil subsidy. First, former President Olusegun Obasanjo who claimed (then) to be removing what was left of oil subsidy increased the pump price of petrol from N65 to N75 barely 24 hours before leaving office after 8 years of civil rule. But late President Umaru Musa Yar’adua on assumption of office reversed the pump price to N65 per liter. Yet, late President Yar’adua under whose short-lived administration petrol sold at N65 per liter did much more in infrastructural development than President Jonathan claims to be doing.

Second, Nigerians are finding it difficult to trust a president who failed to use proceeds from the sale of oil at N65 per liter to execute projects similar to those of his immediate predecessor who awarded multi-billion naira contracts for the construction of additional lanes on the Zuba-Abuja and Abuja-Airport express ways in addition to the dredging of river Niger from Baro to Onitsha. Instead, President Jonathan removed N19 billion from the contract sum meant for the Baro section of the dredging to carry out infrastructural development in Niger Delta. What a sectional President indeed! Third, how can Nigerians trust this administration when President Jonathan (very unlike Yar’adua) refused to make public declaration of their assets as required by the constitution?

The same President who could not show concrete evidence of what he used the returns from the sale of petrol at N65 per liter in three years wants to sell the product at N141 (or more recently at N97) per liter. The same President who expects Nigerians to endure the pains of subsidy removal is budgeting N1 billion for feeding and N1.7 billion for fueling vehicles in the presidency. We wonder why proponents of oil subsidy removal are desperate each time they appear on television screens or radio programmes to tell Nigerians about how much petrol is sold in neighboring countries but shy away from talking about the minimum wage of workers in other petroleum exporting countries.

For instance, the minimum wage in Libya where the product sells for N26 per liter is N23, 813.00. It is N95, 639.00 in Venezuela where the pump price of petrol is N5 per liter; N99, 237.00 in Saudi Arabia where petrol sells for N25 per liter; and N161.461 in Kuwait where petrol sells at N34 per liter. In Nigeria where it sold (before now) at N65 and now at N97 per liter, the minimum wage is controversially N18, 000.00.

If anything, the premature removal of oil subsidy has made some latent facts become public knowledge. President Jonathan who unwisely took Nigerians for granted must have learnt from the nationwide strike action and protests that executive powers does not mean taking unilateral decisions especially when such are inimical to the wellbeing of citizens. He must have also realized that power, in practical terms, belongs to the people whose indispensable position is at the centre of the definition of democracy. The public condemnation which President Jonathan and supporters of oil subsidy removal suffered during the protests has made them lose the hitherto frail goodwill of most Nigerians. If the position of the president were like others in the civil service, President Jonathan fulfills all requirements after the subsidy protests for a re-posting to another station or even to a different ministry (if he were a pool staff).

For once, oil subsidy brought Nigerians together without regard to religion, tribe, occupation or age. The only religion that united Nigerians on one platform (a situation the country had longed for) as witnessed in the recent protests against oil subsidy removal is “the desire for justice, fairness and good governance”. It thus became conceivable to Nigerians that no animosity exists between them but that they have a common enemy called “bad leadership”. How amazing was it that Christians guarded mosques when Muslims were praying and Muslims reciprocally protected Christians when they worshipped in churches!

The oil subsidy episode has also made Nigerians to discern between few leaders who are true servants of citizens without necessarily being “chief” and many others who are masters over their people. While Governor Raji Fashola of Lagos took time to empathize with peaceful protesters at a rally, Governor Muazu Babangida Aliyu of Niger state chose to address Nigerlites through a TV broadcast to support subsidy removal. Some people cannot understand why he even chose to use AIT in addition to NTA Minna for the broadcast; expending the state’s scarce resources. More so, workers in the 25 LGs are being owed two months salaries. Using a TV with nationwide coverage would be understood if he were the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. If the broadcast was meant to popularize the governor’s position on oil subsidy, it actually failed to do so. Rather, it irritated the sensibilities of the public against government.

While we condemn the wanton destruction of properties by violent protesters in Minna and other places, it is worthwhile each time leaders desire to address citizens that they should be selective of words and people’s mood. We are enjoined by Qur’an 16: 125 to speak with soothing expressions even in the spread of God’s word. But driven perhaps by subsidy euphoria, Governor Aliyu forgot this basic principle of mass communication when he went on air to preach the “Gospel of St. Jonathan”. Leaders should know that there are actually times when silence is golden.

This column condemns the killing of peaceful protesters as it equally disowns Nigerians who went violent in the protest. May Allah (SWT) accept the prayer of all oppressed people around the world, amin.