2015 General Election: The Die Is Cast

By Chukwudi OHIRI

Gradually, years have turned to months, months to weeks, weeks to days and now, in a matter of hours, the long awaited general elections stare us right in the face. The gladiators having supposedly crossed their ‘Ts’ and dotted their ‘Is’, the press has been awash with permutations from pundits and bookmakers—some, in favour of the incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and others, in favour of the of the main opposition figure, General Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Party (APC).

One thing unique about this year’s election is that locally and internationally, all seem to agree with the notion that Nigeria is going to the polls for the first time in its chequered history on a level playing ground for both the incumbent and the major contender. For the first time, the presidential election is going to be keenly contested in a most gruesome atmosphere shrouded in uncertainties as to the outcome. The whole world has its eyes attentively glued towards Nigeria.

 Penultimate week, Israel held its presidential election. That election did not draw attention of the world as much as the one Nigeria is about to conduct despite the fact that the stability or otherwise of Israel in the Middle East has grave consequences for the world at large. Yet, it did not generate as much frenzy as the one in the offing in Nigeria. In fact, not many people knew that Israel was about to hold a major election at the time. It came like a flash of lightening and before one knew it, it was gone. The hullabaloo associated with Nigeria’s election is a pointer that its success or flop will have far reaching implications beyond Nigeria’s shores.

How ready is INEC?

Whether the umpire—the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is ready or not is inconsequential at this point at least until after the polls. One undeniable fact is that had the elections held on February 14 as earlier scheduled, it would have been an unmitigated disaster as unfolding events have clearly shown that apart from the security issue which was amplified by INEC as main reason for the postponement, INEC was anything but ready. Nigerians must remain grateful to those who furtively or openly canvassed for the initial postponement from 14^th February to March 28. Except if there was a deliberate ploy by default to get it wrong from the outset. Inadvertently, has admitted that all was not well with its readiness asides from security.   

The question about INEC’s present readiness is a very dicey one. As usual, Prof. Jega has repeatedly told Nigerians that its commission is sufficiently prepared for the polls. In s[pit of these assurances, there are palpable fears in many quarters that the March 28 polls will never be hitch-free in terms of logistics. This has become like stock-in-trade of INEC. Of course, it will be a tall order to expect that INEC has to be one hundred per cent before the elections can be held. However, analysts appear divided over INEC’s claim of being substantially ready. The confusion still trailing the distribution of Voter Cards is one area that may puncture INEC’s claims. With only a few hours to the elections, INEC has not refuted the allegations that some PVCs are yet to be printed. News of large chunk of cards being erroneously sent to wrong locations still trickle in without clear solutions in sight. PVC distributions in Ogun State and Lagos are still shrouded in controversies without INEC coming clean on how it intends to resolve the impasse. Reports have it that thousands of residents in these states hit brick walls late last week in the last minute rush to collect the cards. In many cases, INEC officials were either not found or they arrived very late into the afternoons with one tale or the other as to why the cards were not handy. In most of the distribution centres, the frustrated voters left in anger. The import of all these hick-cuffs is that millions of Nigerians who are ready and willing to exercise their civic responsibilities will be disenfranchised for no fault of theirs. The silence and complacency of the opposition party—APC in the face of these discrepancies is suspect. This is unlike the APC we know. Perhaps, the unequivocal vote of confidence passed on Jega and INEC by the APC is perhaps, the reason why the PDP seems to be crying foul, alleging a grand conspiracy and complicity by INEC and the opposition party. One thing is sure. Many Nigerians will be disenfranchised even when the PVCs are distributed on the election day proper.

The Nagging Controversy over the use of Military

The yet unresolved issue or rather, the lack of consensus on whether then military will be deployed during the election or not is quite worrisome. Understandably, unfolding events have given credence to the agitation of the opposition for sticking to their guns on non-use of the military during the election. The integrity and non-partisanship of the military has been put to question in recent past. The undeniable truth is that it will be more beneficial than detrimental to use the military during the polls. Most analysts who initially opposed the plan to deploy the military are beginning to see reasons with those that insist. As a matter of fact, not a few electorate have vowed that they will have nothing to do with the elections if there was no adequate security on ground to guarantee safety of lives and property during and after the polls. The absence of the military will aggravate the already worsening spate of voter apathy that is prevalent. The rigid position of the opposition is quite apprehensive.

The constitution clearly holds that the military have no business with elections. Strengthening this provision is the recent judgement by a competent court of jurisdiction that the military must not be involved in elections. However, the midpoint of this impasse will be that while the police act as first line security during the polls, the military and other paramilitary groups can be strategically and conspicuously placed on standby to forestall any breakdown of law and order. Moreover, the services of the Naval and Air force will be highly indispensable in the logistics of INEC. If the federal government decides to officially withdraw the military and the paramilitary at the eleventh hour in obedience to the court judgement and the bidding of the opposition, this will be a sure recipe for disaster. Caution must therefore be exercised while clear rules of engagement must be spelt out.

What the Opinion Polls say

As usual and as expected, opinion polls and surveys from independent and national have been inundating the polity though not without confliction propositions. The common denominator in the submissions is that out of a total of 14 candidates vying for the presidency, only two are considered real contenders.

For the National Think Tank Group, victory would go to the candidate of the APC, General Muhammadu Bu­hari.  A two-page analysis of the survey, tagged: “Straw Predic­tion of 2015 Presidential Election”, made available to Journalists by Dr. Peter Orji, predicted that Buhari/APC will carry the day with an estimated votes of 15.4 million while President Goodluck Jonathan/PDP would garner about 11 million. To arrive at this conclusion, the group stated that it based its forecast on “a careful study of the demographics of Nigeria voting patterns, based on an unbiased analysis of how voters shall cast their votes.”

The group submitted that Buhari would lead in the North-East, North- West, North-Central and South-West, while Jonathan would win in the South-South and South-East. It also explained that unlike in 2011, Buhari “will secure substantial votes in the North-Central and greatly improve his showing in the South-East.” In its summary, the group put the distribu­tion of the votes across the zones in the following order: “North-Central, PDP, 1.73million, APC, 1.86million. North-East, PDP, 1.3million, APC, 2.55million. North- West, PDP 2.15million, APC, 5.65mil­lion. South-East, PDP 1.65million, APC, 650,000. South-South, PDP, 2,.2million APC, 1.7million. South- West, PDP, 2million, APC, 2.9million. FCT, PDP, 150,000, APC, 200,000.

Conversely, an independent national opinion poll carried out around the country by a United Kingdom-based firm Kevin, Charlyn and Kimberly claimed that President Goodluck Jonathan would coast home with victory ahead of General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd), with a margin of 13 per cent. The survey, according to the group revealed that 77per cent of the respondents went for Dr. Jonathan while Buhari scored 27 percent from over 30,000 respondents interviewed in the survey.

Unveiling the result of the survey to a cross section of journalists in Abuja, Vice President of the firm Mr. Vince Onyekwelu, said the results were collated from a survey monkey sample of 28,000 respondents, 2000 respondents from Facebook and Twitter, and another 300 respondents from face-to-face contacts and telephone interviews.

Elsewhere, political research group, Eurasia, presented its analysis of the 2015 presidential election. According to the assessment, Eurasia tipped President Goodluck Jonathan for a narrow victory over Muhammadu Buhari. The survey lowered the probability of President Jonathan’s re-election to 55% as an energized Buhari campaign gains momentum in swing regions. It argued that the issues of weak security and corruption will play to Buhari’s advantage, yet, machine politics and access to money are likely to decide Nigeria’s election, leaving Jonathan and the PDP with the edge.

Landmines ahead of the elections

There is clearly an uneasy calm in the polity. Thanks to the postponement of the polls earlier scheduled for February 14. This ‘divine’ postponement calmed a lot of nerves and literarily changed the tensed atmosphere. However, pundits strongly believe that whoever emerges winner at the polls, there will be skirmishes of violence followed by accusations and counter accusations of systematic rigging. It is however believed that the security agencies will rally to the rescue to abate the potency of the danger.

The issue of PVC distribution will surely resonate prior to and after the polls. The fear is that some parties will hide under this anomaly to question the integrity of the polls. Already, allegations of a deliberate lopsided distribution are in the air and it is most likely to be amplified when eventually a loser emerges.

The use of card reader for the polls is like a beautiful bride with leprosy. Many analysts see it as a disaster-in-waiting. Unfortunately, there seem to be no going back on its usage as any attempt to do so will truncate the entire process. The test run organised by INEC a few weeks ago revealed significant flaws which INEC downplayed for whatever reasons.

In the first instance, the main essence of the card reader is to authenticate not just the card, but the card holder through the unique features of fingerprints. The arrangement is that once the card reader is unable to read the fingerprints, an incidence form will be issued to the voter to enable him vote. This defeats the whole essence of the card reader given the magnanimity of allegations levelled against INEC. The implication of this is that if truly, as alleged by the PDP, INEC connived with APC to compromise the process as its complacency suggests, then INEC could possibly have issued millions of card which will surely pass through the card readers but cannot authenticate fingerprints. This can give room for multiple voting especially in those areas where there is a general consensus to malign a particular candidate. In 2011, reports had it that supposed party agents sold out their principal to favour particular candidates on both sides. The decider therefore depended on who outrigs the other. In theory, INEC has reportedly provided safeguards against this scenario but mischief makers on both parties must be lurking around to abuse the incidence form.

Beyond the fears about rigging, a situation where the card reader was only able to authenticate the fingerprints of 54% of voters (as reported in some of the test stations) during the test run that witnessed very low turnout should be a source of worry. The fear here is that when more people turn up for accreditation, the margin of error might likewise more than triple. The inherent frustration that will naturally come from voters, especially when they will have to queue  for hours unending due to slow accreditations process occasioned by malfunctioning card readers may trigger unrest.

Finally, the issue of Buihari’s certificate may have been subdued, there is this apprehension that the courts might give a verdict that may not be palatable to all in the aftermath of the election. The apprehension may even be more within the APC as internal wrangling may lead to disgruntled party members trying to explore that loophole if victory comes to the party. The implication might be that the real winner may have to yield the victory to runners up coveting that position.

The War on Boko Haram

Emerging reports from the theatre of war—the North East, are that nearly all the territories captured by the insurgents have been retaken by the Nigerian forces.  The President and Commander-in-Chief, President Goodluck Jonathan has reassured Nigerians that all the captured territories will be liberated before the polls. This sounds like a promise kept, however, the internally Displaced Persons, IDPs have yet to return to their bases. Non indigenes who fled from those areas may not be in a hurry to go back and this may have some negative consequences on the overall rating of the elections.

As Nigerians March out on March 28 and April 11, all eyes are on the country to see how fair or foul the elections may turn out to be. One thing is certain. The 2015 election will likely be a watershed in the history of Nigeria.     

INEC POSTPONES FEBRUARY 2015 ELECTIONS

Chukwudi Ohiri

News just reaching us now is that the proposed general elections scheduled for February 14, and 28 2015 has been rescheduled. The elections will now hold on March 28 and April 11 respectively.

Briefing Journalists at the end of a marathon meeting with stakeholders, Professor Attahiru Jega, the INEC boss cited unpreparedness of the security agencies to guarantee security of lives and property of citizens especially in the troubled spots of the North-East as the main reason for the postponement insisting that INEC was prepared for the elections but had to reschedule the election on the advice of the National security team.

He ruled out the possibility of resigning his appointment based on calls by some groups for his resignation on grounds of ineptitude and allegations of complicity with the opposition party APC to tilt the elections in its favour. Jega threatened that he would have sued those accusing him of complicity for damages were it not for his busy schedule of ensuring a credible, free and fair election. However, Prof. Jega said he would willingly resign if anybody could come up with a proof  that he erred in any way in the conduct of his duty as INEC Chairman.   

Prof. Jega reiterated that distribution of PVCs cannot and is not the reason for rescheduling the elections but that the Commission would take the advantage of the postponement to perfect its preparations where they were hitherto lagging behind. He ruled out categorically that nobody has forced the Commission to take its decision on the elections as it was thoroughly reviewed before arriving at the final decision to shift the polls. 

Obanikoro Returns As Minister

Obanikoro Returns As Minister

By Chukwudi Ohiri

In what appears to be a promise promptly kept, President Goodluck Jonathan has forwarded the names of seven new ministers to the Senate for confirmation including a former Minister of State for Defence, Musiliu Obanikoro and six other.

Also nominated were Kenneth Kobani, a former National Treasurer of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria [ACN], who recently defected to the Peoples Democratic Party, and a former Senator, Patricia Akwashiki.

Mr. Obanikoro, one of the aspirants who contested for the governorship ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Lagos State almost caused a major crisis in the party when he rejected the outcome of the primaries where Jimi Agbaje was declared the winner. Obanikoro popularly called Koro by his teeming supporters had resigned his ministerial position on October 15 to vie for the party’s ticket in Lagos for the 2015 election.

In the after math, Koro lost to Jimi Agbaje who was believed to be the preferred candidate of the party leadership in a somewhat controversial manner leading to some face-offs and rancor within the party. Obanikoro not only rejected the results of the primaries, but went ahead to file a legal suit against the declaration of Mr. Agbaje as winner, a situation that elated the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) as it would have potentially balkanized the opposition PDP ahead of the polls if not quickly checked.

Part of the deal that assuaged the anger of Obanikoro was that President Goodluck Jonathan assured him that he would be reappoint into the cabinet if he sheathed his sword over the scuffle. The settlement informed Koro’s decision to discontinue his legal challenge of the PDP governorship primary result for Lagos State promising to join forces with Agbaje and the PDP to capture Lagos come February 28.

There is every likelihood that the National assembly may ratify his nomination although there are fears that some of his perceived excesses during his brief stint in office as Minister of states, Defence may pose some albeit, temporary challenge to his easy passage. Again, if the nominations are not ratified before the first set of elections on February 14, 2014, his roles and activities during and after the elections will most likely be a factor in screening and ratifying his nomination.

Time To Remove The Controversial For Fuel Subsidy

After several unsuccessful attempts by governments in Nigeria to completely remove fuel subsidy, there seem to be a silent but persistent crusade by concerned and patriotic Nigerians who are determined to educate and enlighten them on the benefits of fuel subsidy removal.

By Chukwudi OHIRI

Indications are rife that the advocacy for the total removal of fuel subsidy and by extension, total deregulation of the Oil and Gas industry in Nigeria is gaining greater currency now than it was a couple of years back when President Jonathan allegedly gave Nigerians a ‘bitter new year gift’ through what analysts termed, a backdoor approach.

Recall that on January 1, 2012, Nigerians woke up in the wee hours of that fateful day, and rather than chanting the usual ‘Happy New Year’ slogan, it was ‘Return the Fuel Subsidy or hell will be let loose’ that rent the air. Lo and behold, many a Nigerians who went to buy PMS popularly called petrol realized to their amazement that the pump price of fuel had jumped from the previous N65.00 to somewhere around N147.00 for inexplicable reasons. Every entreaty by the government to calm the nerves of the visibly angry Nigerians with what was then perceived as ‘economic jargon’ which preached that the action was in the interest of the common masses fell on deaf ears.

True to their threat, indeed, hell was let lose as Nigerians in their droves took to the streets in protest of the New Year shocker. For one whole week, the nation was grinded to a halt as no government or private activity was carried out especially in major commercial cities across the country. The protest and bare-faced resistance got to the point of near anarchy. The labour and trade unions spearheaded the quasi revolution joined by Civil Society, Human Rights activists, the organized private sector, transport unions, students and indeed, most Nigerians from all divide. Those who dared profess their support for the federal government were treated with disdain and as saboteurs and anti-masses and so, even those who truly understood the economic viability of the action of the government at that time risked lynching in their advocacy. It was at that time that the intimidating credential of the likes of Adams Oshiomhole, Governor of Edo became suspect for standing on the side of the federal government. 

For the first time and like never before, Nigerians were almost united in the struggle from East to West, North to South. Within the government circles, many were ‘sympathetic’ to the cause of the ‘ostensibly’ swindled Nigerian masses. In an unusual show of patriotism, the senate hurriedly called off its recess to persuade the federal government to rescind her decision. It was this effort, perhaps, and the diplomatic persuasion of some well meaning Nigerians that paved way for negotiation between the organized labour (who refused to negotiate until a reversal is announced) and the federal government (who had threatened that it was not going back on the fuel subsidy removal). At last, each party had to sheathe its sword under a yet another ‘no victor, no vanquished’ truce that forced the federal government to reduce the pomp price of fuel to the present N97.00.

Heated as the argument for and against the subsidy removal was then, today a lot of grounds have been shifted.  Their seems to be wider acceptance of idea of removing fuel subsidy and deregulating the Oil and gas sector now than it was some two years ago.

Only recently,       The Forum of Commissioners of Finance of the 36 states of the federation passed a resolution calling on the federal government to remove the controversial fuel subsidy. The Chairman of the forum, Mr. Timothy Odaah, told journalists shortly after their monthly Federation Account Allocation Committee’s meeting, that the resolution was passed following irregularities observed in the fuel subsidy regime. Not stopping there, Odaah, who is also the Commissioner of Finance, Ebonyi State, said the resolution on the fuel subsidy regime would be sent to the Nigerian Governors’ Forum for transmission to President Goodluck Jonathan for a quick action.

Advancing his reason for the ‘new’ position, Odaah stated that the payment of fuel subsidy was a scam against some states, especially the less industrialised ones, as it had made “the rich to become richer, while the poor are becoming poorer.” Ironically, he argued that if Nigerians had not protested against the removal of fuel subsidy in January 2012, most states would have experienced significant level of development by now.

In his confession, Odaah said: “We looked at subsidy on oil (at that time) as more or less a solution worse than the problem it is meant to solve. “Looking at it presently, you will discover that it is not solving the problem, which it is meant to solve. In the first place, the NLC (Nigeria Labour Congress) and the majority of the Nigerian populace appear to have been deceived into clamouring for subsidy. “It is a system that robs Peter to pay Paul by making the rich to grow richer and the poor to go poorer.

Summarizing the position of the Commissioners of Finance, told reporters that “What we (the commissioners) are advocating is that the subsidy be removed so that every state or any member of the federating unit sharing from FAAC will take his own money, then decide to use it or grant subsidy in a level that it will be able to afford.” He further warned that if the issue was not urgently addressed, it would get to a point where the states would have nothing to share from the Federation Account as their allocations would be wiped out by subsidy claims by marketers whom he accused of taking advantage of the subsidy regime to engage in sharp practices.

Delivering a Keynote address during a Business Clinic organized by the Petroleum Downstream Group of the Lagos Chamber Of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) with the theme: Removing Subsidy: the implications on Banks, Downstream & Upstream Sector, government and the Populace, the Chairman and founder of Starteam Consult, former president, Nigeria Economic Summit Group (NESG) and former Chairman of the Manufacturers’ Association of Nigeria, Mazi Sam Ohuabunwa did a critical expose of the fuel subsidy economics warning that “we either tame this fuel subsidy now or it will tame us”.

Mazi Ohuabunwa called for a total deregulation of the oil and gas sector in order to reap the full benefits in no distant time acknowledging that in the short term, prices may go up, but would nosedive afterwards because of the likely influx of players which would trigger off competition to the advantage of the whole populace as was the case with the telecoms industry.

He revealed that “the government has unfortunately been wasting over 30 per cent of the annual budget on subsidy payment as it spends about N1.436 trillion which is about 118 per cent of the budget in 2011 on subsidy payment”. According to him, “this is not sustainable; the fund would be better used in strategic infrastructure provision of other critical social infrastructure such as education, health care and other social safety nets.” The savvy Pharmacist and self-made Economist par excellence further expounded the advantage of removing fuel subsidy and its almost assured impact on banks, petroleum downstream & upstream sector, government and the populace saying that the merits far outweigh the demerits.  

For the banks, he said lending and accruable profit would increase with genuine importers, investors, manufacturers and even speculators scampering for available funds to do genuine businesses. This will guarantee less risky lending. The advocacy for proper funding of Micro, medium and Small Scale Enterprises, MSMEs would become more realizable leading to explosive boom of that critical area of the economy.

For the upstream and downstream sectors, Ohuabunwa said as a result of increased activities, more investments that would create jobs, increase foreign reserves and boost the economy will spring up. Refineries which licensed investors have refused to build over the years because of non-profitability will be built as every sector of the economy including transport will receive a boost. “There will be increased efficiency, more competitive markets which is a great incentive for innovations and high return on investment,” he added. Above all, he envision a more open and transparent market that will lead to a drastic decline in corruption and “weeding out of fly by night operators” thereby enthroning corporate values and culture in the economy.

On the part of the Government, Mazi Ohuabunwa said the government would save trillions of naira that would be used to develop critical economic and social infrastructure like roads Bridges, Railways, power, Education, Healthcare, and social safety nets etc. He enthused that more foreign Direct Investment would flow into the country thereby improving the value of the currency and diminishing the urge to borrow, keeping inflation rate at all time low.  

The ultimate beneficiary of the fuel subsidy removal will be the masses who would now have jobs created for them, better quality of life, regular and better assured supply of fuel without having to queue for long hours and finally, “everybody wins except of course, the fly by night operator.

In spite of this analysis, the audience showed concern over the increasing mistrust between the government and the citizenry as a result of long years of unfulfilled promises of the leaders and lack of commitment towards providing palliatives to cushion the effect of the fuel subsidy removal. Ohuabunwa while castigating the government for not prosecuting the subsidy ‘thieves’ called on the people to intensify their advocacy and insisting on holding the leaders accountable at all times through formal and legitimate means.

Supporting the position of Mazi Ohuabunwa but at a different forum, the former Group Managing Director of the NNPC, Engr. Andrew Yakubu, told newsmen that only the removal of subsidy from petroleum products would attract investors to the downstream sub sector of the industry argueing that subsidy was creating distortion that scare investors.

Unfortunately, Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC don’t seem to buy into the econometrics and permutations of proponents of total removal of fuel subsidy. At its 57th annual general meeting held recently in Lagos, the Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association, NECA toed a parallel line with NLC insisting that the continued sustenance of fuel subsidy regime will be very harmful to the economy and national development in the long run. But NLC stood its ground insisting that it was sustainable and would help Nigerians to cope with current harsh economic realities.

Speaking through its national President, Mr. Abduwaheed Omar, NLC pointed out that Nigeria had no business importing petroleum products, lamenting that the problem had been government’s lack of the political will to ensure products were refined locally. He alleged that subsidy was being used by government officials to deceive Nigerians revealing that about N1.3 trillion was being spent annually for subsidy. According to him, “it is not correct to say that in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, about N1. 3 trillion was spent annually for subsidy. What is provided for in the budget is N260 billion”. The implication of this allegation is that somewhere along the value chain of subsidy payment, figures are either inflated to enrich certain pockets or such figures are merely cooked up to justify the proposal to remove subsidy. Omar insisted that N260 billion which should be the actual figure expended on fuel subsidy “is not too much for government to spend for Nigerians to benefit from God given resources”. He stressed that “subsidy is sustainable. What is not sustainable is corruption”. He called on all Nigerians to “join hands to fight the corruption therein”. “With the level of poverty in the country, the Nigerian people need the subsidy and it is sustainable,” he added.

This analysis by the NLC helmsman seems to be at variance with the analysis advanced by Mazi Sam Ohuabunwa who is not just an insider in the subsidy administration, but an indirect recipient, or rather, administrator of the SUREP funds as a member of the board of the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE-P). While acknowledging that there is much more than the eyes can see in the subsidy regime, he asked “is it not better that the subsidy be removed to stop the thieves rather continue the cry without any help coming forth”.

He revealed to Mightier Than Sword in an exclusive interview that in two years of SURE-P’s existence, it has received about N360bn out of which about N80 billion was rolled over from unspent allocation of 2013. He disclosed to Mightier Than Sword that SURE-P spent about N280bn within the period under review mentioning the East-West Road, the rail line running from Kano to Lagos and a litany of other intervention projects as being done by SURE-P with N280 billion which is only the federal government’s share of the proceeds from the partial subsidy removal since 2012. The importance of this explanation is that NLC may not have its facts right on the issue of fuel subsidy allocation in the budget. He clarified that the federal government gets about 41%, States get 51% while ecology gets about 5% of the total proceeds from the partial fuel subsidy money. He said he could only account for the federal government’s share as he is yet to know what States are doing with their own share of the funds. For him, the amount allocated to fuel subsidy in the budget is above N1 Trillion annually and he had this to say: “Imagine if the over N1tr that was spent on subsidy is released for this kind of work, Nigeria will get the best of services.”

OBJ investigations revealed that as at April 2014, the sum of N959.8bn has been allocated by the Federation Accounts Allocation Committee for Subsidy Re-investment and Empowerment Programme implementation. The Findings revealed that on a monthly basis, the sum of N35.549bn was deducted from the gross collectible revenue by FAAC and paid into the SURE-P account domiciled with the Central Bank of Nigeria from which Federal Government receives 41 per cent of the subsidy savings, the state and local governments share 54 per cent, while the remaining five per cent is reserved for ecological challenges.

According to Nelipher Moyo and Vera Songwe in an essay titled ‘Removal of Fuel Subsidies in Nigeria: An Economic Necessity and a Political Dilemma: “In debating the merits of Nigeria’s fuel subsidy it is important to understand who benefits the most from the program. Contrary to popular belief, it is the rich not the poor who disproportionally benefit from Nigeria’s fuel subsidy. With the government subsidizing the market to keep domestic fuel prices artificially low, it is those who consume the most that have a greater benefit from the subsidy. Nigeria’s poor rely primarily on public transportation as such their per capita fuel consumption is significantly less than the country’s rich, who generally use private vehicles. Neighboring countries also benefit significantly from Nigeria’s fuel subsidy through smuggling”. This might be the last opportunity Nigeria has to correct this irregularity and stop these brigands from insulting our sensibilities and rape of our collective patrimony. It is end of the road for fuel subsidy or remain we remain perpetually in bondage.