Babachir Lawal, a former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, has again criticized President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for removing fuel subsidy.
A onetime ally of the president, Lawal said the decision was taken without due consultation with stakeholders in the country.
President Tinubu had at inauguration on May 29, 2023 ended the multi-billion-naira fuel subsidy regime in the now infamous ‘’subsidy is gone” statement he made during his speech as he took over power for his predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari.
The decision had far-reaching implications on the economy as the prices of food and other essential households’ commodities spiked beyond expectations.
Not a few Nigerians have demanded the return to the old regime of the federal government subsidizing fuel for Nigerians, while the administration insist there is no going back.
Speaking during an interview with The Cable, the former SGF said the decision to remove fuel subsidy was too hasty, saying the president may not have considered the consequences before going ahead with it.
Lawal said “fuel subsidy removal was driven by a sense of arrogance” on the part of the president.
Below and abridge part of the interview:
My take is that fuel subsidy removal was driven by a sense of arrogance. You are now sworn in, and you believe that since you are now in charge, you can boss everybody around. You just announced the removal of the fuel subsidy without due consultation.
My experience in life is that when you are going to take a monumental decision, especially one that affects the lives of over 200 million people, you need to have wide consultations. Taking such a spur-of-the-moment decision on that very important issue is very insensitive, and probably he (Tinubu) was ignorant of the challenges he was going to face. That was why everything came crashing down immediately after he was sworn in because of the removal of the fuel subsidy. He ought to have waited, formed a cabinet, got every relevant person in place, and held discussions among his advisers and the cabinet. By so doing, they will get alternative solutions to the removal of subsidy, whether or not it should be done. If they agree that subsidy must go, what are the actions that will be put in place to mitigate the negative outcomes? If the outcomes are positive, they will also consider how to maximise them. They will also list their options. If this happens, then we fall back on this.
He has enough examples from the past to rely on. When (Sani) Abacha removed subsidy, he created the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) to channel the additional income into social development, and everybody today knows the various projects undertaken by the PTF, such as hospitals, schools, social services, and so on.
When (Olusegun) Obasanjo removed the subsidy, he created SURE-P to renovate roads and carry out social services. I don’t understand how my friend Tinubu got this arrogance that he could do things radically different from others who were before him and get results. So, he is only reaping the benefits of his hasty decision, and we are also reaping the benefits of putting in power somebody who works in a cavalier manner.
