Former Member of the Federal House of Representatives, Hon. Kolawole Taiwo, discussed various topics in an interview, including President Bola Tinubu’s first 100 days in office and the removal of fuel subsidies. He emphasized that Nigeria’s shift from socialism to capitalism, the dysfunctional state of refineries, and patterns of consumption were impacting the nation’s economy negatively. He praised Tinubu’s efforts to plug loopholes, particularly regarding fuel subsidy, and highlighted how corruption and other factors were weakening the naira. Taiwo also mentioned Tinubu’s track record of addressing such issues, pointing to his actions as Lagos State Governor in 1999 and his plans to revitalize refineries.
However, in 2012, some individuals within the government protested against former President Goodluck Jonathan’s plan to remove fuel subsidy.
It’s essential to note that President Bola Tinubu was not the one who removed the fuel subsidy. Former President Muhammadu Buhari did not allocate any funds for the subsidy. When you have a budget of N17 trillion, and N6 trillion is dedicated to fuel subsidy, it leaves only N12 trillion for other expenses, including capital expenditures. This situation is unsustainable and unreasonable.
Former President Jonathan’s attempt to remove the subsidy in his time was relatively manageable as it was a fraction of what is currently being spent. The current subsidy expenditure would deplete the country’s revenue, leaving little for other critical expenses, including loan payments.
Dangote Refinery, which was recently commissioned, has not been fully operational yet, despite expectations that it should start immediately after commissioning. Some argued that palliatives should have been provided before removing the subsidy, but it’s important to note that doing so would lead to demands for further palliatives once the subsidy was removed. The decision to remove the subsidy was taken to avoid potential problems.
It’s worth mentioning that former President Jonathan did not campaign with the promise of subsidy removal before the election. In contrast, President Bola Tinubu campaigned on the platform of removing the subsidy, making it an integral part of his campaign promises.
Regarding the appointment of Ministers with pending cases at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), it’s essential to uphold the principle that individuals are considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. EFCC cases can be lengthy, and it’s unfair to assume guilt without a court verdict. Many of these cases are initiated based on allegations from individuals, and they can drag on for years. The legal principle dictates that it’s better to acquit 99 innocent people than to punish one innocent person.
As for the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT), there is a belief that it’s unlikely for an incumbent President to lose, leading to suggestions that such cases should be resolved before a new President is sworn in.
I looked at the charges they took to the PEPT, which of them is worth taking to court, none. For instance, someone said that the Vice President was not properly nominated. But the law says that election adjudication is in two parts; the first part is pre-election matter, while the second one is post-election matter. Selection of candidates is pre-election matter, you now took that one to the Court of Appeal after the election and they said they could not adjudicate on it. If they do so, the Supreme Court will rubbish it.
What of the issue of winning Abuja before one can be President?
Look at the definition by the constitution, it says the person that must be declared as the President must have 1/3 in 2/3 states and Abuja, it is a combination of the states and Abuja. That is in 2/3 of 36 states of the federation.
