The Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke told the international community in Australia last week that President Goodluck Jonathan has received a list of 'credible Nigerians' who would monitor and advice the administration on the use of the funds that would accrue from prospective withdrawal of subsidy on petroleum products, starting sometime next year.

She also said no specific date had been fixed for the commencement of the withdrawal and that consultations with Nigerians would be undertaken by before implementation of the decision. She assured the international community that withdrawing the subsidy was 'in the best interest' of Nigerians, because it would bring an end to waste and inefficiency, and channel resources instead into areas of need to accelerate development.


Mrs Alison-Madueke's extensive rationalization at the Commonwealth Business Forum was clearly intended to influence international opinion over a Nigerian issue which, in the next few weeks, will capture the world's attention. It is difficult to judge whether world opinion will be swayed by the arguments of the Federal government; but in Nigeria, the effort has merely drawn more fire from organized labour. The President of the Nigeria Labour Congress, Mr Abdulwaheed Omar, immediately dismissed the entire content of the Minister's briefing as rationalization of criminality. He said the President's letter to the National Assembly clearly stated that the decision on removal of the subsidy would commence in January 2012. Therefore, the Minister's claim that no date had been fixed for its commencement was a ploy to demobilize the gathering campaign against it.

Omar drew attention to the huge amount the Federal Government is spending on media campaigns and other manoeuvres to influence public opinion.

Labour's response to the claim that the rule of law limits governments capacity to deal with fraud and corruption around the subsidy, and, ultimately, that the solution is to allow the market to determine the cost of the product is that government was rationalising criminality. Labour says it does not take military government to deal with criminality, as the Minister seemed clearly to suggest. It insists that the democratic process is quite capable of dealing with the criminality which is hinted at existing around the subsidy policy. The resort to options other than exposing and eliminating crime around the policy is therefore an admission that government is incapable of tackling deep-seated corruption.

There is indeed a major link between the decision to remove subsidy and the repeated chorus that the subsidy amounts to stolen assets of the public. If the federal government is aware of large-scale fraud around the subsidy, then surely it must expose and prosecute those who are milking Nigerians of hundreds of billions in the name of the subsidy.

If the problem is one of absence of sufficient transparency, no one else should be responsible for improving it than the same government which now chooses to remove the subsidy altogether instead.

The bottom line is that the government's case is being poorly put, to the extent that it is built on issues it has exclusive responsibilities to deal with. Nigerians may appreciate the fact that more than 70% of them buy petroleum products at great cost; which makes nonsense of the subsidy.

Many may even support its removal if they are convinced that the stolen subsidy will be better utilised for them.

Many will also appreciate the fine points of an argument that while petrol, kerosene and diesel may cost more, their roads will be better, they will have more power, better hospitals and schools, and improved security of life and property.

The problem is that Nigerians do not believe or trust the government. The government knows this; which is why it says it is fishing for 'credible' people outside mainstream governance to monitor what it does with the removed subsidy funds. Perhaps the Minister missed the point that the government has shot itself in the foot with this announcement.

First of all, it is clearly an admission that government itself is incapable of operating with the required standards of transparency and accountability to retain the trust and faith of Nigerians. Some Nigerians will say this is the same reason why it is abolishing the subsidy policy because it has no capacity to deal with crime and other forms of corruption.

Secondly, why should Nigerians trust a group of Nigerians appointed by a government which itself cannot exercise its full mandate to curb corruption and waste? The raging and unending tug-of-war between the legislature and some agencies of government such as NNPC, CBN, FIRS and Customs over revenues raised, remitted and spent will be used to question whether any agent of the federal government can operate at the required standards of openness and accountability.

Thirdly, to put huge resources at the disposal of a group of Nigerians to monitor and advice on use of the funds, will create parallel structures, or redundant bureaucracies which merely drain resources and create the false impression that are they doing real work

http://allafrica.com/stories/201110311203.html

He simply wants to create more avenue for d looters of our commonwealth.The advicers must be PDP members who he cannnot control bet me.