RE: LETTER OF COMMENDATION TO PRESIDENT GOODLUCK JONATHAN, BY THE ABIOLA FAMILY ON THE RECOGNITION AND HONOUR ACCORDED CHIEF M.K.O ABIOLA.

I have taken my time to read through the letter written by the Abiola family and cannot but appreciate the fact that for every matter bothering on human interactions, we are bound to see it differently. This said difference is either informed by our understanding of life and the said matter or family background and upbringing.

I would not venture into reacting directly to the words of their letter which in my own opinion squarely represents their views and I totally respect it. Afterall, we have different attachment to the man in question, Bashorun MKO Abiola.

I would rather attempt to look at the issue in my own perspective which I have already come to realise is shared by quite a number of individuals. I have tried hard to talk to some of my friends on this matter and canvas for a proper analysis of the renaming of UniLAG and its attendant implication on our democracy and unity as a people.

For all I care, I didn't follow MKO Abiola nor subscribe to his heroic feat because he's Kola or Lola or Deji's father, I did because as I grew up, I came to understand the importance of his sacrifice to our currently mismanaged democracy.

If the Abiolas choose to go by the “half a loaf is better than none” way of over blowing this 'honour', so be it. It doesn't stand in my way as an ardent follower of political developments in Nigeria to posit that the honour does more harm to MKO than good.

It is very important to separate issues so that points are not muddled up. The whole essence at the end of the day is to ensure that we all understand the need for honour to be given to whom it's due without abusing the institution the man had died for.

I would also like to point out how unfortunate the reaction of UniLAG student is but not without giving it a fair judgment of historical appreciation. How many of these kids have a thorough understanding of the postures of MKO Abiola pre and post 1993 before he was eventually murdered under one of the world most dreaded conspiracy. Second, UniLAG is that school where student activists have gone ahead to burn down the VC's lodge and other buildings claiming that the Dean of Students' Affairs killed the Students' Union Public Relations Officer over the phone through black magic popularly called 'APETA' in Yoruba. Summing all of these, I have personally seen a great departure from the days of Sowore in UniLAG. That said, we also cannot but agree that there is so much energy and passion within the student community making it very convenient to push them around. I truly feel sorry for them especially having to confront policemen over an issue they truly don't understand its workings.

Back to my point; in this renaming saga, 2 things are involved; whether or not MKO deserves to be honoured and then the honour itself.

Number one is straight forward! For reasons a lot of people and even his family members have quoted and for reasons we all cannot run away from, he deserves to be honoured over and over again.

On the honour itself, if we choose to see it as half a loaf, there is no point going any further. Obasanjo had refused to honour this man for the whole of his 8 years as the President, he even refused to have the Abuja stadium named after Abiola nor ever mentioned his name once in all of his national broadcasts; so for GEJ to have thought of this, we should sing hosanna and endorse him for 2015 is quite laughable.

Quoting freely from the submission of Barrister Jiti Ogunye, a submission my standpoint is in tandem with:
"First, let us deal with the statutory power of President Jonathan to rename UniLAG, if any. UniLAG is a federal government institution, and cursorily, it may appear that the President, being the head of Nigeria and head of the Federal Executive Branch of Government possesses the powers to rename any federal institution, including an academic institution, solely owned and funded by the Federal Government of Nigeria. As the law stands today, the President does not have the power to rename the University. The University of Lagos Act, Cap. U9, Volume 15, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, was made, by Decree No 3 of 1967, which came into effect on 1st April, 1967, and is deemed to be an Act that was duly made by the National Assembly, was so made “to provide for the establishment and incorporation of the University of Lagos, and to make a comprehensive provision for its due administration”.  Section 1(1& 2) of the Act provides that “ there is hereby established a University to be known as the University of Lagos to provide courses of instruction and learning in the faculties of arts, law, medicine, science, education, commerce and business, administration, engineering, and any other faculties which may , from time to time, be approved under the Act;  and ‘ the University shall be a body corporate and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal”
Thus, the name-University of Lagos- is a creation of an Act that was made by the National Assembly of Nigeria. This being so, the name can only be changed by a legislative enactment, amending the University of Lagos Act, upon a bill to this effect being passed by both Houses of the National Assembly, and being assented to by the President. If the President declines to assent, by vetoing such a bill, the two Chambers of the National Assembly may override the President’s veto and pass into law the bill amending the Act. In the light of the foregoing explanation, the name change that the President purported to have effected in his broadcast today, (May 29, 2012: emphasis and date addition is mine), is illegal, null and void and of no effect. That change of name is tantamount to usurping the legislative powers of the National Assembly."

It is very unlikely that Abiola would be glad that he is honoured by a process that abuses the institution he died for considering the power separation clause in the Nigeria Constitution.

Secondly, the renaming seems more like making an ethnic nonsense of the feat of MKO. All he stood for was not about being a South Westerner or an Egba man. He struggled and died for what is today being enjoyed by us all. So, the UniLAG choice localises all of these. Relying on my first point and the articulate submission of Barrister Ogunye, Mr. President wouldn't have needed the National Assembly to rename Aso Rock Villa, National Stadium, Abuja or the Federal Secretariat Abuja after Bashorun MKO. This would have represented a more national perspective and also save the injury of power abuse.

Subtly, is renaming the priority of UniLAG as an institution? I'd say No! UniLAG, like every other institution needs to have teaching, learning and living conditions improved upon and not renaming. This action has very little or almost no effect on the betterment of the institution. Mr. President should also have been fair enough not because he needs their consent, give a heads-up to the authorities of the school about the impending change of name. This is about inclusion in policy making. I'm also tempted to posit that a school just recovering from the sudden demise of a serving Vice Chancellor needs a level of pamper and not hard knocks.

Most importantly is the fact that this honour as renaming seem to represent is a far cry from what Bashorun MKO deserves. Mr. President should not cheaply cash into the mindlessness of Chief Obasanjo at the detriment of the merit of Abiola's sacrifice. The only full honour anyone can do is to correct the wrong that was done to Bashorun Abiola and by extension all Nigerians living or dead who stood strongly by the 1993 mandate. This is indeed a huge task but it truly would've helped set the records straight. Mr. President fell short of the posture of someone prepared for such task when he referred to Abiola as a "presumed winner" of the June 12 election. He probably has lost track of history or attempting to pass a polite insult. The elections of Saturday, June 12, 1993 by every standard represents the freest and fairest elections ever conducted on the soil of this country and we are all witness to the fact that Abiola's victory spoke volume and crushed ethnical and religious barriers unlike the pattern recorded in the 2011 elections. To tag such victory as "presumed" is selfish and embarrassing.
The honour Abiola deserves is to be posthumously recognised as a President of this country and have his picture and name included in the history books of Nigeria’s Past Presidents. The mandate he got was and is worth more than the 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011 watershed mandates put together. Then, celebrating June 12 as the true Democracy day would've been the icing on the cake of honour. It would even have been enough if Mr. President made the move by passing such a bill down to the Legislature for adoption. Anything short of this is in my opinion less attractive.

The failure to follow the due process in renaming UniLAG equally calls for concern. Nigeria wouldn't have gone to war if the pronouncement wasn't made on May 29. For a man who had full access to the Minister of Justice for advice, who had his personal lawyers, party lawyers and advisers on legal matters, I can't but be forced to submit that this decision was an afterthought. Someone somewhere should've guided him and helped him understand the dangers in such pronouncements. It wasn’t life threatening even though the true honour Abiola deserves is long overdue.

The greatest undoing of Mr. President is that he has reduced himself to such a level that an average Nigerian doesn't see anything good coming from him owing to his public utterances and goofs on matters of national interest especially security. One can therefore begin to understand why it was convenient for students to take to the street without a proper understanding of what was involved. So long it's a pronouncement of Mr. President; something about it has to be wrong.

In conclusion, I sincerely find it understandable for the Family to accept the renaming as a well deserved honour considering for how long they have waited. I am just not comfortable with the whole Abiola struggle being privatised by the family. So, in the long run, it is not for them to mistake their agreement with the move as a de facto decision all Nigerians must applaud. Also introducing the issue of 2015 as a reason for protesting the ’honour’ is very unfortunate. The Abiola family of today cannot mobilise a fraction of the crowd of 1993 and as it stands don't even represent a formidable force within the Nigeria political equation; hence, assuring GEJ of any support whether now or towards 2015 is only a way of showing appreciation for what they see as a personal gift to the family.

The legacies of Abiola shall remain so long as we are able to keep our democracy in order and one day, we shall have a leader whose emergence would help right the wrongs and injustices suffered by the true heroes of democracy. Then they shall be properly honoured and kept in the rightful place in the book of history. Until then, the struggle continues.

Long live Nigeria.

demoCRAZY indeed: 13 years of leadership in disarray

I am starting out in a traditional Nigerian way of greeting people on a particular occasion even when not a strand of hair on your body agree with such greeting. I wonder why a man who hasn't eaten nor has any hope of getting food in the morning would walk past me and say good morning; in fairness, there isn't a thing good about the morning except for other hidden theological things like it’s good to have life but then we still ask, how many people wish for a life without food? Hypocrisy!

That said, Happy Democracy day.

Yes, today marks 13 years of democracy in Nigeria counting from May 29, 1999 when Chief Olusegun Obasanjo took the oath of office. While it is natural for people to always have different views as to how well we have managed this democracy, there would always be a meeting point on certain issues bothering on governance in the last thirteen years.

We should place side by side what we are now and what we were post 1999. I think it won’t be enough to just hold on to the need to have a democracy without doing this comparison. While I am not an advocate of a military rule, I have always told my audience that when leadership is true to her promises and listens to her people, it won’t matter the nomenclature given to the leadership but because we as a country seem to have lost touch with true leadership, we get to hide under name.

In my opinion, the most important thing to celebrate today is the free 24 hours we have which is of alternate benefits to different people. For the employed, it’s a time to spend with loved ones and stay out of the mostly unrewarded labour. For the unemployed, it’s a time to fraternize with their employed mates who can at least stay at home for a day. Besides this, we have nothing in the real sense to celebrate except we want to quickly adopt the half a loaf principle.

Government has not just the responsibility of performance but also reassurance, let the people see that you are on top of your game. That’s not what we have here in Nigeria. The celebration has been called off today again like the Independence Day celebration because of the fear of the unknown. That’s the democracy we have.

A democracy that overnight transforms elected officers into demi-gods once the electorates cast their votes; it is not to say the votes actually count in the first place. We have a democracy where those who suffer the consequences of bad leadership are the people who have actually fought to put the leaders in place, where what we get after every attack are weak and never-to-be-redeemed promises.

I am just certain there is something crazy about this demonstration but would love to have your take on it too.

Let’s take a quick stock:

Health Care Services

Education

Job Creation

Road infrastructure

Security

This is not of the many articles that sets out to nail anyone to the cross but calls out to our subconscious. Lets every reader do an appraisal based on his or her understanding and then score our leadership character in the last 13 years.

The importance of this is that we have to leave the era of “Falana said” or “Fawehnmi said”, we should be able to say for ourselves based on what prevails around us, things we have heard of and confirmed, things we have seen and those that we feel. Let not your emotions run haywire, be as realistic as possible and you would be shocked how much you have endured in the name of making this democratic experiment work.

Take out time also to look at behavioural make up the kind of leaders we have had and still have; that should also help.

I have my opinions of all of these and my opening remarks should give you an insight..

May I just appeal to you that we take this test and drop a feed-back?

STOP PRESS:

Just when I was about to publish this on my blog and facebook, I got a message on my old blackberry that the prestigious University of Lagos, (UNILAG) has been renamed after the late. Moshood Olawale Abiola.

Interestingly, it is possible to just ask whether or not MKO Abiola deserves such honour, to that I would say, yes, he does. What about the timing and choice of school? I may want to take time after now to think about the rationale, but what comes to mind right away is that it won’t be enough for Mr. President to think that would get him our votes!!! If my memory isn’t failing me, there’s a polytechnic in Abeokuta, Ogun State that already answers that name. Could I be missing something? MKO Abiola all of a sudden is GEJ’s new found hero?!

BEYOND SUBSIDY

I have strong reasons to react to the current occupation of Lagos especially by soldiers, a non democratic act that is running into the fourth day as I write this article.

It doesn’t make any literary sense to still dance around the subsidy issue as so many people have done justice to it. Even the offenders and executors of this IMF sponsored package have tried hard to beautify its outcomes as if we don’t feel it.

What has refused to stop drawing me to tears is the continued display of confusion and outright hatred for the rule of law as being displayed by President GEJ.

I tried as much as possible not to join the president bashing style that seems to be prevalent amongst Nigerian protesters especially the IT savvy. However, you have to begin to ask yourself if these bashings are wrong. Mr. President has by all standards shown to us he is about almost everything he has been called by concerned and angry Nigerians.

I owe it a duty to salute all Nigerians who gathered at Ojota, Lagos State, to protest the subsidy removal by the government. This gathering represents the most populous and heterogeneous gathering ever recorded in the post June 12, 1993 era. It takes a lot to have such a gathering noting strongly that the only casualties are bottles of beer, sachets of pure water and cigarette.

The clandestine connivance of the NLC and TUC in truncating our very peaceful protest is enough to spark some serious crises but we exercised self restrain and eschewed every possible acts of violence because we understand our demands just as we understand the undying intents of the Federal government to brand our protests as violent and unleash terror.

Now that we have returned to work and the President also had to make another blind u-turn to N97; a decision that further confirms the fact that most of the current policies are designed around guess-work and fictitious figures; we still have to contend with the militarization of our streets.

This same President and his band of over-zealous cabinet members all came to Lagos to sing and dance in securing our votes. Whether the votes actually got them in or rigged in is yet another seminar discourse; what is of immediate concern is that we have adopted the same dance and sing approach to call Mr. President to order and what we get is this military invasion. Of a truth, many people, including governors, have called for the immediate demilitarization of our states and one wonders why the President has remained adamant in withdrawing the troops.

I would have expected the Federal government to busy itself apologizing to Nigerians for the huge fraud unearthed by the Ad hoc committee investigating the rot within the NNPC and oil sector as a whole and not terrorizing us to this extent.

I don’t intend to sound pessimistic but I dare to say that the President by himself has invited the military to help him manage his affairs and as such has opened himself to possible overthrow by the military. While this might sound extremely doubtful, I don’t have to remind you we are in a country where anything can happen.

In conclusion, I would like to also lend my voice in calling for the removal of soldiers from our streets. None of our conducts as it were warrants regular policeman shooting tear gas and live ammunition at us not to talk of soldiers.

Mr. President, kindly do what is right; that is the least we can ask for and also the least you should do for us.

God bless Nigeria.

IMF AND "FUEL SUBSIDY" REMOVAL IN NIGERIA by Izielen Agbon

"The prices of everything will increase, transport, housing, school fees, food, etc. The common man will not be able to survive. We will say no and oppose bad government policies. We will say no and oppose IMF (International Monetary Fund) policies." Mrs. Ganiat Fawehinmi, Jan 3, 2012.

Is 'Fuel Subsidy' removal an IMF policy? Is Mrs Ganiat Fawehinmi right? Yes. The present 'Fuel Subsidy' removal is an IMF program/policy. The IMF has promoted and supported fuel subsidy removal as government policy in most developing nations. It is part and parcel of the IMF liberalization policies and programs which it imposes on developing nations whenever the opportunity arises. Let me explain. I will limit this analysis to the last 10 years (2002-2012) for brevity. I will focus on 'fuel subsidy' removal.

'Hide nothing from the masses of our people. Tell no lies. Expose lies whenever they are told. Mask no difficulties, mistakes, failures. Claim no easy victories…..' Amilcar Carbal . - Unity and Struggle.

IMF working papers and staff position papers are discussion tools for IMF policy formation. They start off with the usual disclaimer that the positions and conclusions in the papers are those of the authors and not of the IMF or its policies. These papers are circulated for discussions within IMF and the World Bank. Sometimes, an IMF executive board workshop or seminar is organized around the ideas expressed in them. These discussions, meetings, seminars and workshops form the foundations of IMF policies. So, all we have to do is find the roots of the fuel subsidy campaign in the past IMF working papers and the subsequent implementation of these policies in developing nations with special attention to Nigeria. I will proceed to do just that.

In 2002, Sanjeev Gupta and a few colleagues in the IMF wrote a working paper on domestic petroleum pricing in oil producing countries. (Gupta, Sanjeev, Benedict Clements, Kevin Fletcher and Gabriela Inchauste, 2002, "Issues in Domestic Petroleum Pricing in Oil Producing Countries", IMF Working Paper 02/140 , Washington: International Monetary Fund). Sanjeev Gupta is the Deputy Director in the Fiscal Affairs Department of the IMF. Prior to this, he was the Assistant Director in the African Department. Gupta and his colleagues argued that petroleum product prices were heavily regulated. Domestic petroleum product prices were below international prices and this implied foregone revenue. The foregone revenue constitutes a hidden subsidy for its citizen (price - gap methodology). This hidden subsidy benefited high income more than low income groups. The solution was to pass international prices into the domestic market and increase fuel prices. They therefore recommended the imposition of international prices on the domestic petroleum product market and the removal of fuel subsidies. They advised on how to identify political opponents of the fuel subsidy removal program, how to do a publicity campaign, how to set up a program aimed at using the money generated, how to time the subsidy removal, how to make promises of transport buses, education, health, roads and give money to the poor if necessary. Their paper is the blueprint of the Fuel subsidy removal program that the FGN is unleashing on Nigerians today…step by step. It is all in the IMF working papers

Issues in Domestic Petroleum Pricing in Oil-Producing Countries

Let us look at this economic argument closely. We will leave the FGN and IMF corridors of power and enter the realms of household economics where ordinary Nigerian farmers, workers, students, market women, housewives, unemployed make rational economic decisions. A Nigerian farmer produces yams for household consumption and sales. This price-gap theory might argue that the yams that the farmer uses to feed his household constitute a hidden subsidy because he has forgone revenue or profit by not selling the yams in the market. Transparency demands that the hidden subsidy be acknowledged and recorded in the household budget and family members made to pay market prices for their meals. The theory might further argue that grownups benefit more than children (they eat more). Hence, the household yam subsidies should be removed and special programs (run by a honest uncle) should be put in place to help the children. A publicity program would be needed to explain the yam subsidy removal program to the mother and all other powerful family opponents. I do not need to go much further. Soon, the household members will demand market prices for their labor in the farm (market wages) so they can pay market prices for the yams they eat at home. The wife would demand market wages for the housework. The farmer's household will collapse. Every rational farmer knows that you first feed the family and it is only the excess that you sell in the market. No amount of Leontief Input-output model, Social Account Matrix (SAM) or Computable General Equilibrium model (CGE) can explain away this basic common sense fact.

Not long after Gupta IMF paper was published, the FGN decided to increase the price of crude supply to the NNPC from $9.50 per barrel to $18 per barrel. International spot oil prices for Bonny Light Crude were $25.15 per barrel. NNPC was now invoiced by the FGN in US $ for domestic crude allocations (445000 barrels of oil per day) and expected to pay the Naira equivalent to the Federation Accounts using CBN quoted exchange rates. This is where and how they created a non-existent subsidy. Since NNPC had no money, it paid the amount received from petroleum product sales minus the subsidy into the Federal Accounts. NNPC sent PPPRA a bill for the subsidy. NNPC then requested the Ministry of Finance to pay the subsidy amount from the PSF into the Federation Account. The FGN was left with this buck passing of a fuel subsidy payment. The IMF was not finished.

In 2003, Shahabuddin Hossain of the IMF African department wrote an IMF working paper on fuel subsidy in Nigeria (Hossain, Shahabuddin Mosherraf , 2003, "Taxation and Pricing of Petroleum Products in Developing Countries: A framework for Analysis with Application to Nigeria.", IMF Working Paper 03/42 , Washington: International Monetary Fund). He pushed the same ideas as Gupta with the same arguments. He recommended measures to protect consumption of the poor and politically powerful to stop any strong protest and social unrest after subsidy removal. Using Nigeria as an example, he calculated the fuel subsidy and called for a 115.4% increase in the price of petrol (from N26 to N56 per litre), a 89% increase in the price of diesel and a 37% in the price of Kerosene. He claimed that these were not specific suggestions for policy reforms in Nigeria. Maybe it is just coincidental, but a 115.4% increase of N65 /litre is N140.01/litre.

Taxation and Pricing of Petroleum Products in Developing Countries: A Framework for Analysis with Application to Nigeria

A few months after Hossain's IMF working paper was published, the FGN increased petrol prices from N26 per litre to N55 per litre using some of the arguments in his paper to support the decision.

In 2006, David Coady published another working paper on fuel subsidy removal. ( Coady, David, Moataz El-Said, Robert Gillingham, Kangni Kpodar, Paulo A. Medas, and David Locke, 2006, "The Magnitude and Distribution of Fuel Subsidies: Evidence from Bolivia, Ghana, Jordan, Mali, and Sri Lanka," IMF Working Paper 06/247, Washington: International Monetary Fund). David Coady is the Deputy Division Chief of the Expenditure Policy Division of the Fiscal Affairs Department of the IMF. Coady and his colleagues examined the impact of fuel subsidy removal in places like Ghana where there was a decrease of 9.1% in the real income of the poorest quintile after fuel subsidy removal. Ghana's fuel removal programs included free primary and junior secondary education, health and mass urban transport. Ghana (the Tema Refinery) buys crude oil from Nigeria at a discount on world prices.

The Magnitude and Distribution of Fuel Subsidies: Evidence from Bolivia, Ghana, Jordan, Mali, and Sri Lanka

The Obasanjo executive increased fuel Prices to N100 per litre when he was leaving office in 2007. The Yar'Adua executive decreased it to N65 per litre in the face of mounting opposition from labor and Nigerian civil society.

David Coady was back in 2007. (Baig, Taimur, Amine Mati, David Coady, and Joseph Ntamatungiro, 2007, "Domestic Petroleum Product Prices and Subsidies: Recent Developments and Reform Strategies," IMF Working Paper 07/71 Washington, International Monetary Fund). In this paper, the authors developed the strategies for imposing fuel subsidy removal. First, the subsidy is made explicit (NNPC to pay international prices).
Secondly, the expenditure is reflected in the budget. This creates a seemingly fiscal budget crisis. Then, a propaganda program is started. The support of State governments and local governments for fuel subsidy removal is obtained by promising to give them their share under revenue sharing formula. A program for the poor is published. Care is taken to get the timing and size of the price increase right in order to minimize social unrest and resistance. A publicity campaign for public trust and political support is unleashed on the populace. The whole strategy is laid out elaborately in this working paper

Domestic Petroleum Product Prices and Subsidies: Recent Developments and Reform Strategies

In 2008, the Executive Directors of the IMF held a Seminar on Food and Fuel Price Subsidies: Issues and reform options. The seminar was based on staff papers written by the Fiscal Affairs Department of the IMF. The papers included Food and Fuel Price Subsidies: Recent Developments, Macroeconomic Impact and Policy Responses and Food and Fuel Price Subsidies: Issues and reform options. The IMF executive directors supported the fuel subsidy removal program and divided responsibility with the World Bank. The IMF would focus on the macro-fiscal impact of subsidies and subsidy removal while the World Bank would assist countries in the design and implementation of subsidy removal programs.

IMF Public Information Notice (PIN) No. 08/135, October 10, 2008 The Executive Directors of the IMF Hold Seminar on Fuel and Food Price Subsidies—Issues and Reform Options

The IMF and World Bank pushed for adoption of thier fuel subsidy removal policies in the September 2009 G-20 leaders meeting in Pittsburgh, USA. The G-20 supported fuel subsidy removal worldwide. They called on the IEA, OPEC, OECD and World Bank to provide an analysis of the scope of the energy subsidies and suggestions for the implementations of the initiative.

David Coady and his colleagues pushed very hard in 2010 with the same arguments advocating price-gap methodology and fuel subsidy removal programs worldwide. (Coady, David, Robert Gillingham, Rolando Ossowski, John Piotrowski, Shansuddin Tareq and Justin Tyson, 2010, "Petroleum Product Subsidies: Costly, Inequitable, and On the Rise," IMF Staff Position Note 10/05 Washington, International Monetary Fund) and (Arze del Granado, Javier and Coady, David, 2010, "The Unequal Benefits of Fuel Subsidies: A Review of Evidence for Developing Countries", IMF Working Paper 10/202 Washington, International Monetary Fund).

Petroleum Product Subsidies: Costly, Inequitable, and On the Rise
The Unequal Benefits of Fuel Subsidies: A Review of Evidence for Developing Countries

"However, it is worth noting that the price - gap methodology has shortcomings. OPEC is of the opinion that the benchmark price to be used in the case of energy resource well-endowed countries should be the cost of production. Consequently, OPEC could not associate itself with the above estimation of fossil fuel related consumption subsidies." OPEC/IEA/OPEC/OECD/WB Joint Report, June 2010

The report prepared by the IEA, OPEC, OECD and World Bank was released in June 2010. (IEA, OPEC, OECD, World Bank Joint Report, "Analysis of the Scope of Energy Subsidies and Suggestions for the G-20 Initiative", Prepared for submission to the G-20 Summit Meeting, Toronto, Canada, 26-27 June 2010, June 16, 2010). OPEC rejected the price - gap methodology of the IMF, World Bank and IEA . OPEC insisted that fuel prices should be calculated on the basis of the cost of production in oil producing nations. Nigeria is an OPEC member and petrol prices calculated on the basis of the cost of production is N39.30 a litre.

In 2011, the Ministry of Finance carried out a review of the economy based on the IMF price - gap methodology. The FGN insisted that the fuel subsidies must be passed on to the consumers. It advocated fuel subsidy removal and the implementation of the IMF plan. It carried out the IMF inspired publicity to the best of its ability. It involved the NNPC, the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, the State Governors (revenue sharing) and other arms of government as planned by the IMF. It even prepared a list of projects called Subsidy Reinvestment and Expenditure Program (SURE) as advised by the IMF and published it. It set up a committee to disburse funds. It did everything according to the IMF play book. It talked to labor and some opinion leaders in civil society. But, Nigerians did not accept the arguments or fuel subsidy removal program. So, the FGN forgot the Nigeria people and imposed the fuel subsidy removal program as a New Year gift. We have gone into details to show the IMF roots of the fuel subsidy removal policy and program in Nigeria because we, as a people, deserve the truth. Knowledge is power. We mask no difficulties and claim no easy victories. Victory is certain when we stay firm and resolved.

Izielenagbon @yahoo.com

The New Challenges of Boko Haram by Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde

I have decided to put this on my blog so as to afford my followers to have another idea on how best to analyse the Boko Haram insurgent. I have an article on the way on this same topic coming shortly. Just for your information, I have finally decided to start posting articles from other writers to allow for varieties. All articles would be posted as written by the original writer without any form of modification. Thanks. Discourse 338 By Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde The New Challenges of Boko Haram Within 48 hrs of publishing Jonathan and the Security of Nigerian Christians on the internet and a number of Nigerian newspapers and websites, Imam Abubakar Shekau, the leader of Jama’at Ahlus Sunnah Lidda’wati wal Jihad – commonly called Boko Haram – released a video on Youtube describing the objectives of its mission. I feel that both the international and local press have not done justice to the speech of the Imam. Though he has clearly given reasons behind their mission, everything was just reduced to “Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for attacking Christians in Nigeria”, without even stating the reasons. Given the relevance of the group to our national security today, I think it is essential for the media to maintain a balance in its reporting of the group. This is not to say ‘five minutes for the Israelis and five minutes for the Palestinians”, but a coverage that ensures the message of each side is passed to readers in the most comprehensive form possible is desirable. In following 'few' paragraphs, I set out to discuss the most essential points of Imam Shekau’s message – the category of Nigerians that the group is targeting and its reasons for doing so. Of course, he has raised some controversial matters in the province of contemporary Islamic jurisprudence just as there are also many things he did not say which we would love to hear from him directly. However, these are matters that can best be discussed separately at a later date, hopefully, by more capable minds than mine. As conclusion, the challenges the group posed by the group to government, Muslims and Christians are discussed. Targets The video, according to Imam Shekau, was essentially directed at three targets: President Jonathan, for whom the Boko Haram leader promised “more troubling times ahead”; the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) for its “vituperations” in the aftermath of the recent bombings; and, individuals opposed to the group including those that see it as a “cancer or disease among the people." Imam Shekau was also clear on who the group regards as its enemies. First on the list was security personnels who the Imam charged with persecuting members of the group, including the cold blood murder of its leader in police custody, killing many of its members and eradication of its centres; two, Christians, for killing Muslims in various parts of the North in various religious and ethnic crisis that took place during the past two and a half decades; and, three, Muslim informants and moles, "yan chune", who assist the government to identify and kill its members. “Apart from these”, said the Boko Haram leader, “we have not targeted anyone.” Let us discuss each of these targets separately. Security Personnels It is difficult for anyone to suggest an alternative for the group after the treatment meted it by the Yar’adua administration in 2009. Instead of abiding by rule of law, like arresting its leader and charging him - maximum - with treason, the authorities deliberately chose to provoke the group. The police killed a number of its members during a funeral procession on the flimsy ground of not using a helmet. To date, nothing was done to the culprits. The group promised to retaliate after Ramadan in 2009. What happened after that Ramadan when the group protested at some police stations in Bauchi did not actually necessitate an all-out war against it. Many groups have attacked the police before but they were handled by normal means without resorting to extreme measures like massacres. Let us not forget the “finish them” order that President Yar’adua gave to the security forces that morning when he was leaving for Brazil. In fact, he even timed it that by 4.00pm that day, the job must have been completed. In Bauchi, it was estimated that over seventy members of the group were massacred at their centre behind the airport. Apparently, they were even unaware of the conflict at Dutsen Tanshi police station that started that morning. By evening, the state commissioner for special duties led a team of government agents that leveled the centre with bulldozers. Passengers at the Yankari Park in Bauchi also witnessed how eight unarmed members were arrested and killed instantly by soldiers as the were boarding a bus to Maiduguri. The governor, Isa Yuguda, would later claim credit for the “decisive way” in which his government dealt with the group in his state. In Maiduguri, what happened was pretty clear. Government went for total extermination of the group without recourse to any due process. The world was witness to how their centre was leveled by soldiers; how Muhammad Yusuf, their leader, was executed; how Muhammad Foi, a former member of Sheriff’s cabinet, was executed on the street after his arrest; and how the police and the military went about killing anyone that resembled their members to the extent that people started shaving their beard en masse because a senior police officer was reported in the press saying that he cannot guarantee the life of anyone wearing such features. So many were arrested along with their wives. They remain in prison to date without trial. Extermination is still the strategy of government in dealing with the group. While some ulama that were in the good books of government justified the killings saying that the sect is Kharijite, the world condemned the killings. We wrote essays then condemning both the ulama and the authorities on the highhandedness they showed. The government apologized to the United Nations after it was condemned for the human right abuses, promising that it will bring the perpetrators to book. Actually, it did nothing. No disciplinary action was taken against anyone until when Boko Haram bombed the Police Headquarters in Abuja. Two police officers were then reportedly dismissed from service for the murder of the Boko Haram leader. Boko Haram therefore was left with no option but to go into hiding. The group did exactly that. It took time to heal its wounds, regroup and re-strategize before returning to revenge what Imam Shekau described as the “the injustice meted against it.” To my understanding this is why he chose the following verses to open his Youtube video speech: “Truly, God defends those who believe. Verily, God likes not any treacherous ingrate. Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against because they have been wronged, and, surely, God is able to give them victory. Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said, Our Lord is God.” The overwhelming opinion among Muslims then was that the group was indeed treated unjustly. Public commentators from the North openly accused Yar’adua of playing ‘Animal Farm’ with his brothers. The killing of Boko Haram members came just some few month after the President negotiated and granted a lucrative amnesty to more destructive militants in the oil rich Niger Delta. Beneficiaries of the amnesty were placed under a welfare package and chunks of the federal government expenditure was sunk into the development of that region in addition to the ‘lion share’ that its state governments collect from statutory allocations, which is greater than the allocations of all the 19 northern states. In addition, they receive 13% of Nigerian revenue earnings. Finally, as it was clear in 2011, 76% of federal projects are allocated to that region. The result is peace. However, for Boko Haram, the government chose to negotiate with bullets and bombs. It is not surprising, therefore, that the group replied it in its own language. In this context, one can easily understand its resort to violence as a means of survival. If Yar’adua was wrong in treating Boko Haram in the 21st Century with the same strategy that Shagari and Buhari used to overcome Maitatsine in the 1980s, Jonathan did little to correct that mistake. He has not shown any interest in dialoguing with the group, so far. The group has many times cited this as another reason for continuing its struggle. Appeal to its members to put down its weapons and negotiate with government and they will rebut in this standard format: “How can we trust any negotiation with people who are amassing arsenal to attack us?” All that Jonathan did was to constitute a committee to study the group and matters related to it. When it was insinuated that the mandate of the committee included negotiating with the group, the Secretary to the Federal Government quickly dismissed any such mandate. Months after the committee submitted its report, its recommendation for peaceful negotiation between government and the group continues to remain frozen. The result is insecurity. This is in sharp contrast to what happened to the October 1, 2010 bombers. President Jonathan laboured hard in public to exonerate the perpetrators, who claimed to belong to the Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta. They said they did it; he said they didn't. Security officials told the nation that they have evidence linking Raymond Dokpesi, the presidential campaign manager of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida and owner of AIT to the attacks. Security agents quizzed Dokpesi and some arrests were made. The media guru transferred his support to Jonathan and allowed his channel become the mouthpiece of the President. Behold, the bombing charges were forgotten. The last thing we heard between Jonathan and Dokpesi ten days ago was that the latter was reportedly paid N1.3 billion for ‘services’ he rendered to the government! Informants, Moles and Critics When it reappeared in 2010, Boko Haram started to selectively start killing people that assisted the authorities in identifying them. The initial victims were grassroots traditional rulers, the lawanis as they are called in Borno. After killing the first few, Boko Haram issued a warning that it will go after all those that aided the authorities in persecuting them. These included a number of ulama, traditional rulers, and the three governors of Borno, Gombe and Bauchi states. It demanded pubic apologies from the governors and got it from the last two. Though the group rejected the apology, it is yet to carry out its threat against the big three. Among the high profile killings made in this category was that of the junior brother to the Shehu of Borno, the state chairman of the ruling party in the state and its gubernatorial candidate during the last elections. Immediately the group started the selective killings, the ulama realized their vulnerability and none of them dire again to condemn the group publicly or repeat to assign it the Kharijite nomenclature. At a point, Boko Haram also issued a warning that they will also go against anyone who publicly condemns its activities, including journalists who do not live by the ethics of their profession in reporting it. The government has been unable to protect its informants and other citizens from these attacks. This partially explains the silence of the Muslim community over Boko Haram. Generally, though, it could be argued that it has not been the tradition of communities in Nigeria to criticize their own militants. The Niger Delta and the killing of Muslims in Plateau and Kaduna States are the bad examples that readily comes to mind. While whoever decides to serve as an informant or a mole knows the risk he is taking, it is my opinion that the group has gone far when it considers criticisms as attack. By so doing, though the group would gain the advantage of instilling fear in the population, it stands the chance of losing public sympathy and gaining the benefits of correction, or nasiha as it is called in Islam. Islam, which the group is linking its cause to, is very wide and it could harbour a variety of opinions on the same issue. Throughout its history, given the diversity of the their environment, Muslims have benefitted more than losing from such differences. Divergence of opinion is counted among the blessings of the ummah. And even great Caliphs like Umar welcome corrections by ordinary members of the society when they adopt policies that are contrary to the scripture. Likewise, there could be many other interpretations to the Nigerian situation than Boko Haram’s and if the cause is truly for the common good of the people as Imam Shekau has said, the door of constructive criticism must remain open. In his video alone, there are a number of controversial issues on which many Muslims would beg to differ with Boko Haram: the status of Christianity, democracy, jihad, western education, etc. It is the right of the Muslim community to debate them publicly in light of its understanding of Islam and it is the right of Boko Haram to rebut such points with superior arguments or accept them at its pleasure. Having made this observation, I must hasten to mention that debates on issues regarding Islam in Nigeria are very difficult even among Muslims in particular. What I have realized in the past thirty-five years is that some people are impatient, and many times unwilling, to listen to the other side. Immediately I differ with you in opinion, the first thing I do is brand you with heresy, infidelity, blasphemy, or other similar derogatory words. End of discussion! That is why in Muslims and Rule of Law in Nigeria (2009) I wrote strongly against the people who rushed to label Boko Haram as Kharijite. Others before them have been labeled with equally disastrous names, making it difficult for mutual understanding to be reached at on any single matter that arises. The very day their massacre started in 2009, the Bauchi State government sought and got from the ulama in the town a fatwa which served as a license for authorities to kill Boko Haram members without recourse to justice. Only the most elderly sheikh in town opined differently, insisting that in Islam no soul should be killed without a ruling from a judge. That is why some of the ulama fled the country when Boko Haram made staged a return the following year. The governor too has abandoned the Government House and practically relocated to Abuja since after he received the death threat. The reluctance of Boko Haram to engage this kind of ulama is therefore understandable. Yet, if it will look around well, not the entire ummah is a mouthpiece of government. There are hundreds of other ulama with whom it can engage constructively. Christians Up to last Christmas, Boko Haram has not clearly claimed attacking any church. As we did above, it is possible to see the angle from which the group justifies its attack on security personnel, informants and the like. However, making targets of innocent Christians is extremely hard, if not impossible to reason with from the Islamic viewpoint. Justifiably, nothing has negatively affected public sympathy for the group like those attacks. The uproar that greeted the Christmas bombing among Muslims and Christians alike is a testimony to that repugnance. But let us be fair and examine the reasons of Boko Haram first before we hang it. Imam Shekau based his justification on the brutal killings of Muslims in various incidents Kaduna and Plateau State since the Kafanchan crisis. He mentioned how Muslims were killed in the various crises, their women subjected to dehumanizing treatments, and so on. The acts, and worse ones, like the reported trafficking of children of victims and the sex-slavery of their women did not receive any condemnation from Christians or their leaders. Government also declined to prosecute perpetrators clearly identified by their victims. It was against this background that the Boko Haram leader rebuffed the vituperations of the President of Christian Association of Nigeria “simply because of the few successes we recorded recently,” apparently referring to the Christmas bombings. There could be few Muslims who would concur with Shekau, privately arguing that reprisal attacks are the norm in Nigeria. Christians, they would argue, would know that if they continue to kill Muslims in their areas, there are now in place a set of Muslims that will revenge it. The overwhelming majority of Muslims, however, were disappointed with the claim. I was planning to visit Gombe, Yola and Mubi to investigate the recent attacks on Christians because of the widespread belief that those attacks could not have been the work of Muslims. As I reclined on bed to plan out the trip that Wednesday, the BBC Hausa Service broke the news that Boko Haram has released a video claiming to target Christians in Nigeria. I was completely devastated. Like most people, I have my reservations about the recent attacks on Christians in the Northeast. This is not like Jonathan's case of “they said we did it, he said they didn't.” There is a mountain of evidence that implicates Christians in activities linked to Boko Haram. The SSS has shared some with the public. Some were reported caught attempting to burn churches. The latest is in police custody right now in Kaduna. The last person I spoke to in Yola regarding the bombings that took place there recently. He said, “we don’t have Boko Haram here; all we have are politicians who are using the bombings to canvass votes.” Despite the above revelations, the speech of Imam Shekau must be given its due weight. We must be honest to say that Boko Haram has unequivocally declared Christians as targets of its attacks. Pure and simple. Whether the group carried all attacks on Christians or not is a matter that is open to debate, which like many, I thought the Imam will clarify himself. Unfortunately, he did not. If I were a consultant to Boko Haram, I would have advised it against taking this measure on both religious and political grounds despite my appreciation of their concern over the atrocities repeatedly committed against Muslims in . many communities in Plateau and Kaduna States. From angle of religion, it would be quite easy to prove, using unquantifiable number of sources, that collective punishment to Christians in Nigeria is not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Qur’an. It is haram. If the group had taken the pain to investigate the people or the communities that perpetrated those atrocities against Muslims and directed its anger against them, that would have put its mission of revenge in a more proper context. But to hold a Christian in Madalla, Borno, Yobe or Adamawa for the wrong done by some Christians in communities of Kaduna and Plateau state is a cause that is difficult to support. Revenge in Islam, even where it is chosen by the victim over the preferred option of forgiveness, must be precisely surgical to meet the requirement of Shariah. Politically, I will continue with my advice, attacking Christians sends the message that, one, the group is losing in its battle with the Nigerian authorities. Two, attacking armless and innocent Christian worshippers is interpreted as going for a cheap target. Thirdly, it is a cheap way of conscripting the entire Nigerian Muslim community into the conflict after the group failed to earn its support in the ongoing conflict. In a nutshell, it is a political blunder that it should not have ventured into. In any case, attacking Christians does not solve any problem since it exposes Muslims to retaliatory attacks in the communities where they are a minority, thus feeding the vicious mill of violence with the blood of innocent souls. It is doubtful if God will be pleased with such a bath. Meanwhile, the attacks have introduced some favourable developments in Muslim Christian relationship. Muslim groups, in both Northern and Southwestern parts of the country, have started visiting Christians in Churches, expressing their support for living in their communities. Some have even taken the extra-measures to give protection to churches on Sunday. The realization that some clerics on both side of the divide who would not care to ignite a conflagration must not be allowed to succeed has visited on many. Such Nigerians seem to say that these clerics have crossed the line. Challenges In his comment on my blog after reading Jonathan and the Security of Nigerian Christians, Dr. John H. Boer, a Canadian missionary that lived in Nigeria for decades until recently, wrote the following few sentences, which alerts us on the challenges ahead of us: “Assuming your facts to be correct, this is a very interesting analysis. If your analysis is correct, Christians, along with government and Muslims, have a huge job to do, but everyone should start at home. I have circulated your article to a lot of Christians for their consideration. Da godiya da yawa.” That was an apt observation from an elder. It is my firm belief that government must take the lead, while both Muslims and Christians address the problems of relating with each other in their communities. Government must tackle Boko Haram, not by bullets and arrests, but by negotiation as advised by its committee on the conflict. Fortunately, unlike Niger Delta militants, the group is not looking for material benefit. There is no reason why the government cannot dialogue with it, given the resources at its disposal. There are sufficient ulama that understand its language and may succeed in realigning its understanding with mainstream Islam. There are also sufficient members of the group at hand that the government can use to reach out to its leaders. Government must be even handed in the manner it treats different communities in Nigeria. Money for one, bullets for the other will not breed peace. Prosecution to this and support to that is the differential treatment that encourage violent reprisals. Other matters are political and a common ground to handle them can easily be discovered. There is nothing, once said the UN Secretary-General after the bombing of UN headquarters in Abuja last year, which cannot be amicably resolved through dialogue. Despite the reputation of the source of that advice, the Nigerian government has shown little interest to take it. Among the duties of the Christian community in Nigeria, from the Muslim point of view anyway, is appreciating the frustration of Muslims with the escalation of violence against them in minority communities in Plateau and Kaduna States in particular. Horrific crimes have been committed. Silence over such atrocities by Christians, their support for the perpetrators or their manipulation of public opinion in the Christian dominated media to shift blame to the victims only generates anger and retaliations. These conflicts are basically ethnic and political, but a religious identity is recruited to augment support for them. No true Christian will commit them. But when CAN or Christians generally justify them or manipulate them against Muslim victims, that will cultivate a fertile ground for suspicion among Muslims. The Muslim community has an equally great task before it. It requires a unified voice that can express its spiritual and political aspirations. JNI and SCIA cannot play this role since its members – mostly traditional rulers – are government employees, unlike what obtains in the South or among the Christian community in the country. The Sultan, by virtue of his office, cannot employ the militant posture of the CAN president, for example, neither could any Emir.The demand for such a voice in the past did not exist for the simple fact that governance was better and the Muslim community did not face the multifarious challenges it is confronting today. Frustrations about ill-treatment of some Muslim communities, like those articulated by Imam Shekau, must not be left to sediment so hard until people resort to violence. Jointly, Muslims and Christians, especially in the North, need to find a common ground for social interaction. The gap between them in is too much wide for stability. To reduce mutual suspicion and build trust among members of the two communities, avenues must be created for such interaction at all levels and spheres of human activity. Interactions in schools, offices, parks, cafes, games, resorts, churches, mosques, festivities, town meetings, and, of course, homes can all be revived to achieve this goal as it used to be before the late 1970s. Both Muslims and Christians need to check the activities of extremists among them, people – mainly youths – with a lot of zeal to serve God but with little appreciation of the complexity of life and of contemporary Nigeria. They need to be guided accordingly by leaders of their sects and relevant authorities. Otherwise, they will continue drifting away from the centre until they reach a point where they dream of a whole world covered by a tsunami of human blood. Certainly, this will not please God that has described Himself as the Most Merciful. Finally, we must all keep our guard against corrupt politicians, people who for their irresistible penchant to loot our treasury are always ready to exploit our differences and foment communal misunderstandings that often translate into religious crises. Northerners are more susceptible to these homo-viruses than others because religion in the region is the cheapest and most inflammable vector at their disposal. From Borno to Kwara, the realization that we are destined to live together forever is sufficient to bring us together against the wish of many that would love to divide us for their own gain. The government may today succeed in subduing Boko Haram by arms or by negotiations. But unless we meet the above challenges, another group will rise tomorrow, among Muslims or Christians, to face us with similar or greater challenges. Abuja 16 January 2012

MY TAKE ON SUBSIDY

I have read through the trend of discussions and picked some interesting submissions. I however have some few questions to ask.

I'm not going to go into the subsidy argument as I've seen so many patterns and I really want to keep learning.

Should we be blind about this whole subsidy noise so much so that we also peddle some outrageous messages going round? Somebody sent a blackberry broadcast that the office of the first lady has a furniture allocation of N5 Billion!!! That for me beats common sense except my facts aren't right. Much as we can't argue the fact that there is a high level of executive recklessness and wasteful spending, we also can't afford to get unnecessarily dirty in trying to sell our dissatisfaction.

Second, while we are entitled to our opinion on this issue as it affects us in different ways, do we really have to close our eyes to logic?

I don't believe I have to be popular to make my points. Inasmuch as my facts are clear and I can defend my stands, I'd go ahead; I therefore have learnt to respect people's opinion even if they appear to be unpopular but like I said, common sense is very important. That still leaves me with one salient question of being truthful and sincere. Being able to see beyond our respective comfort zones. Because at the end of the day, it is a question of the collective. No matter how much we feel we can get around this as individuals, it is a collective thing at the end of the day because we all have dependants. We all deal with the larger society in more than one ways.

I strongly believe in the economics and paper analysis of subsidy removal as it doesn't make any sense to me. Like previous IMF induced policies have also looked wonderful on paper without regards for the objective reality within the Nigerian confines, subsidy removal would not do any better. What got us into the subsidy mess ab initio was government recklessness and brazen corruption. So the question of removal shouldn't be made to look unusually fantastic. The problem at hand is far beyond subsidy.

I am not going to be part of people who try to discuss the subsidy removal as a stand alone issue or as if it started and should end with this government of Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan. I also strongly hold on to the fact that government is a continuum. We are unfortunately a nation that lacks plans and strategies with leaders branding projects as if the pojects were executed with their fathers monies.

Logically, does the timing of the removal seem right especially for a government that has made so much noise about April 12? A government that is soliciting trust? So it beats me when people still talk about trust like a commodity you pick off the shelves of a supermarket.

Trust, whether political or not is, a process. A process of trials, failures and successes with evident efforts of genuineness and sincerity of purpose. The likes of Shagari weren't as successful with policies but one way or the other while people accused government of recklessness, they could pinpoint the culprits. We aren't afraid to fail as all theories based on human beings are so inelegant and can't always be right.

People smoke for different reasons for instance. So trying to outline purchase theories based on weather is almost unreasonable. What about those who smoke to get high, to awaken their mental alertness, to show off etc. We really don't have to hit right into the bulls eye but we must at all times be seen to have tried and failed having given our very best. Just as we must be seen not taking pleasure in failure or making excuses for our democracy as young.

This also comes to us as members of this political platform and occupants of this very geographical space called Nigeria. We can't afford to address this issue outside the context of reality. We should pick issues and be as realistic as possible. That's only when we can command the respect of the outside world. When a government fails to prioritise education, this is what we get. How many people can understand the economics of subsidy removal? Even amongst us?? Why then do you blame people for littering the street in protest?

How many government who have adopted fire brigade approaches have been able to earn the trust the their followers. During the Egypt protest, Mubarak reshuffled his cabinet and made so much promises; that didn't solve the problem and the protest got wilder. That explains the fact that you can't make subjective proposals and expect the masses to believe you. It doesn't work in leadership.

Leaders should endeavour to articulate their plans and follow through so that the people can have a fair idea of what is happening around them.

We are citizens of this country with no place to go to. We should be fair to our country and by extension, ourselves.

The whole subsidy noise is centered around N1.2 trillion. Does that amount actually solve our problems of dilapidated infrastructures? No. People in this country have stolen well over that amount and are strolling freely on the street, if this government can't be bold dealing with such individuals, why taking on the helpless followership?

Now that people are protesting, why were policemen sent out to harass and kill protesters? When was Subsidy Reinvestment And Empowerment Program (SURE) conceived? An after thought? The same fire brigade approach?

So, it has been removed. For how long do we have to wait to have the system running properly? Would prices be brought back to normal especially when the government lacks control? How do I trust a government that can't even enforce benchmark prices for PMS?

It's all about market forces. Now importers have to sell what they import keying in their respective profit margins, how do we benchmark that. What eventually would be the role of government beyond begging for trust and making empty promises.

God would not come down to change things but my faith tells me we would go to God one day and give accounts. Why do we emulate the western world only when it is convenient for the government. So, Sanusi can ask us where in the whole world is subsidy done the way its done in Nigeria or even done at all? This is for the government of Goodluck Jonathan, where in the whole world do leaders tell their followers to get used to being bombed? Where in the whole western world that they visit and stash money do they sleep without lights or with the fumes and noise from generating sets? Where in the world does government export her oil and refuse to give account of what is accrued after sales? Where in the world do senators live like thin gods???

We can't be realistic only when it is convenient for us. We can only make a good nation when we begin to speak with a broader understanding of the collective hardship government policies bring on us.

The report sheet of any leader is right on the face of her followers. When you fail your followers, steal from them, refuse to educate them and then cry for trust, you are not a leader but a cheat.

Whatever our respective opinion on subsidy is, is fine. We only have to argue in the light of reality and not just from our comfort zones. No matter how hard or bad things get, man would get to his destined point.

I am a Nigerian and a strong believer of a better Nigeria. A better Nigeria that I don't see Dr. Goodluck and his cabinet helping us build. A Nigeria that isn't arrived at by impulse. A Nigeria that requires genuine leadership with developmental agenda is what I look forward to and we shall get there.

God bless Nigeria.