Atiku’s Critique of Tinubu’s Economic Policies
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s recent statement on how he would have approached Nigeria’s fuel subsidy policy if he were in power has reignited discussions about economic reform and the missed opportunities in Nigeria’s energy sector. His criticisms of President Bola Tinubu’s handling of the fuel subsidy removal are extensive, covering everything from anti-corruption measures to social protection and infrastructure improvements. However, the question remains: do Atiku’s suggestions reflect a realistic and actionable approach for Nigeria, or do they highlight his own administration’s shortcomings when he served as vice president under President Olusegun Obasanjo from 1999 to 2007?
Atiku’s statement reflects a clear position on subsidy reform: he advocates a gradualist approach, emphasizing the importance of phasing out subsidies rather than removing them suddenly. He argues that abrupt removal creates immediate and overwhelming financial pain for Nigerians, a reality he believes has been worsened by Tinubu’s approach. Citing his tenure as vice president, Atiku notes that his administration began a phased reform process to remove fuel subsidies in stages. Yet, this position is somewhat at odds with his past record, as the Obasanjo administration itself faced significant backlash for fuel price hikes. While the government under Obasanjo and Atiku made attempts to reduce subsidies and incrementally raise fuel prices, they struggled to implement lasting reforms that addressed the root inefficiencies of the sector, including poor refining capacity and corruption within the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).
In his recent comments, Atiku highlights corruption as a primary barrier to efficient energy reform, singling out the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) as a major beneficiary of the existing subsidy regime. He argues that meaningful reform would have required a deep restructuring of NNPCL, which he claims benefited from corruption and a lack of transparency in subsidy administration. This criticism is accurate; the NNPCL’s history is marred by allegations of rent-seeking and corruption, which siphoned significant resources away from the Nigerian economy. However, it’s worth noting that the Obasanjo administration, of which Atiku was a key player, also faced similar criticisms. The corruption within NNPC and other state-run institutions persisted during their tenure, with limited visible impact on transparency. Atiku’s suggestion to prioritize anti-corruption efforts is commendable, but his own administration’s lack of significant progress in curbing these issues leaves some questions about his ability to implement such reforms effectively.
Atiku’s call for Nigeria to focus on refining capacity is perhaps the most substantial part of his argument. He proposes privatizing state-owned refineries and achieving self-sufficiency in refining capacity to meet domestic demand. If implemented, this approach could reduce Nigeria’s reliance on fuel imports and lower costs for Nigerians. However, this idea is not new. The inefficiencies in Nigeria’s refining infrastructure have been a well-documented issue for decades. During the Obasanjo-Atiku administration, Nigeria’s refineries operated at minimal capacity due to mismanagement and underinvestment. While Atiku’s vision of a privatized and efficient refining sector is compelling, there is a sense of irony in his proposal. His administration had the opportunity to implement these changes, but state-owned refineries remained inefficient, and Nigeria continued to rely on imports for a significant portion of its fuel needs.
A key element of Atiku’s plan is the establishment of a social protection program to cushion the impacts of subsidy removal on Nigeria’s poor. According to Atiku, subsidy savings could be redirected toward improving infrastructure, healthcare, education, and agricultural support to create sustainable economic opportunities. While this is an ideal vision, Nigeria has often struggled with translating savings into impactful social programs. Atiku’s plan for social protection is reminiscent of strategies adopted by other countries, but the reality of implementation in Nigeria, where corruption and resource misallocation are persistent, cannot be ignored. When Atiku was vice president, similar goals were discussed, yet there was limited success in expanding healthcare access or infrastructure investments to an extent that could meaningfully change the lives of the poor. His vision, while valuable, lacks acknowledgment of the structural issues that have historically prevented such programs from reaching the intended beneficiaries.
Another dimension of Atiku’s approach is his criticism of the “trial-and-error” policy-making under President Tinubu, contrasting this with his administration’s planned, phased approach. This criticism underscores the challenges of hasty policy changes, particularly when they affect essential commodities like fuel. However, the phased approach suggested by Atiku, while more gradual, does not necessarily guarantee success. Even during the Obasanjo-Atiku years, phased price hikes met with fierce public opposition and failed to achieve comprehensive subsidy reform. The approach was politically cautious but often lacked the follow-through needed to achieve lasting results. Thus, while Atiku’s gradualist stance appears logical, it remains to be seen whether a truly phased plan could overcome the deep-seated challenges in Nigeria’s subsidy and energy sectors.
In summary, Atiku’s proposed policy approach offers an idealized roadmap for subsidy reform, targeting critical areas like anti-corruption, infrastructure, and social protection. However, his own tenure as vice president, when these same issues persisted without substantive solutions, raises questions about the feasibility of his recommendations. While Atiku presents himself as a voice for measured and thoughtful reform, his criticisms of President Tinubu’s policies ultimately underscore the challenges that all Nigerian leaders have faced in attempting to overhaul the fuel subsidy system.
Atiku’s Critique of Tinubu’s Economic Policies
thedailycourierng news
Reference
Hardship: What I Would Have Done Differently – Atiku Published in Daily trust