By Segun Ayobolu
Last month, on October 10 specifically, former Vice President and serial losing contender for Nigeria’s presidency, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, referred to President Bola Tinubu as ‘T-Pain’ in a statement on his ‘X’ handle criticizing the handling of the removal of fuel subsidy and the undeniably painful consequences of the major economic reform policy for the majority of the population. Atiku borrows from current fashionable social media labeling of President Tinubu as ‘T-Pain’ on account of the harsh impact on living conditions of the far-reaching economic reform policies of the latter’s administration without demonstrating a capacity to rise above the shallow superficiality, careless over generalization and sheer lack of rigour that characterizes much of what passes as discourse on social media.
The ‘T-Pain’ labeling of President Tinubu insinuates that the current economic crisis began and was instigated by the Tinubu administration particularly through its attempts at key structural reforms that have had excruciating implications for living standards for millions of Nigerians. But was the former subsidy on fuel resulting in humongous amounts of illicit funds accumulating in a few private pockets and the attendant ever increasing indebtedness of the Nigerian state sustainable?
Could this administration have continued with a parallel foreign exchange management system that enabled a microscopic number of well-connected persons buy foreign exchange at relatively low official rates only to sell and make obscene profits at the unofficial market without any productive exertions whatsoever? Is it not true that the pains associated with the current administration’s reforms are fundamentally rooted in a dysfunctional structural crisis of the Nigerian economy that has prevailed over the last four and a half decades with successive administrations incapable of or unwilling to take the necessary ameliorative policy measures to tackle the source of the problems?
Over three and a half decades ago, a Nigerian economist, banker and administrator from Kano State, Dr Ibrahim Ayagi, wrote a book on Nigeria’s protracted economic conundrum titled ‘The Trapped Economy’. He clinically dissected why at that time in 1990, the country’s economy remained seemingly irretrievably trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty, indebtedness and underdevelopment.
The situation has worsened ever since Dr Ayagi penned these words nearly four decades before Tinubu’s emergence as President thus demonstrating that the key causes of Nigeria’s economic disarticulation predated the current administration. If restless, impatient and angry Gen Z contributors on social media are unable to situate economic policy issues in their proper historical context, should we not expect much more in terms of nuanced and informed public policy analysis from a politician and supposed statesman of Atiku’s stature?
This week, Atiku in another statement on his ‘X’ handle offered his alternative economic policies to that of the Tinubu administration saying he was spurred by many people asking him what he would have done differently had he been elected. Regurgitating what would appeal to populist emotionalism, Atiku with dishonest subtlety sought to create the impression that as President he would have made omelets without breaking eggs by engaging in structural reforms without pain. He said his administration would have adopted a gradualist approach to fuel subsidy removal, repositioned the NNPCL and revived the nation’s refineries, ensured frugality by those in government, sequenced reforms to achieve fiscal and monetary congruence and introduced a robust social welfare programme to make life meaningful for the vulnerable.
But beyond sheer verbosity, what do these assertions mean in concrete policy detail? As Presidential spokesman, Mr Bayo Onanuga, aptly noted “First, Alhaji Atiku’s ideas, which lacked details, were rejected by Nigerians in the 2023 poll…Abubakar lost the election partly because he vowed to sell the NNPC and other assets to his friends. Nigerians have not forgotten this, nor would they be comforted by Atiku’s antecedents when he ran the economy in the first term of President Olusegun Obasanjo’s government between 1999 and 2003”.
Mr Onanuga rightly noted that “Despite the futile attempt to hoodwink Nigerians again in his statement, it is gratifying that the former Vice President could not repudiate the economic reforms pursued by the Tinubu administration because they are the right thing to do. His advocacy for a gradualist approach only showed that he was not in tune with the enormity of problems inherited by President Tinubu…While advocating for gradual reforms may sound appealing, Tinubu took measures that should have been taken decades ago by Alhaji Abubakar and his boss when they had the opportunity”.
Atiku makes a number of assertions that seem right but coming from him they sound hollow because he had a free hand to run the economy during Obasanjo’s first term but never demonstrated the ethical and moral standards he now advocates to the incumbent administration.
The fraudulent privatization programme under his superintendency that saw several multi-billion Naira public corporations sold to his friends and cronies at giveaway prices is partly at the root of Nigeria’s contemporary protracted economic crisis. It was also under a PDP administration that the former Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) was unbundled and sold to Generating and Distribution Company owners who obviously lack either the technical or financial capacity to effectively and efficiently discharge their obligations. This is apart from the $16 billion squandered on the power sector under the Obasanjo administration with negligible impact on electricity supply.
If the over $12 billion lump sum paid to our creditors by the administration in return for debt forgiveness had been invested on improving electricity transmission infrastructure, for instance, the frequent national grid collapses that continue to hobble economic growth would most likely have been overcome by now.
When asked during the campaign for the 2019 presidential election about allegations that he had sold public assets to his friends at giveaway prices under the Obasanjo administration’s privatization programme, Atiku wondered cavalierly on national television if he should have influenced their sale to his enemies showing no remorse whatsoever for what was a national calamity he was responsible for.
When Atiku avers that “I would not run a ‘palliative economy’ yet, we would have a robust social protection programme”, what is this but a mere play on words? As Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Mr Wale Edun, told reporters at the end of the 145th meeting of the National Economic Council (NEC) recently, under the Tinubu administration, the reach of the social investment programme has been expanded to encompass 25 million vulnerable Nigerians from five million households who have received N25,000 conditional cash transfers in two tranches so far with plans to sustain and continuously expand the exercise.
To address the challenge of food inflation, Mr Edun said the government has introduced a programme allowing millers to import duty-free and levy-free brown rice to bridge the 2.5 million metric tons supply gap. Other poverty alleviation initiatives of the administration include the Consumer Credit Scheme, which has benefited 11,000 individuals with N3.5 billion within a week and the Student Loan Scheme that has reached over half a million students with N90 billion in interest-free loans for fees and student upkeep. There is also of course the doubling of the national minimum wage to take into account current cost of living realities. All these among others show that Atiku is incorrect or just mischievous when he accuses Tinubu of being “undisturbed by the economic hardship in the country”.
Again, Atiku asserts that had he been elected, “We would have launched an Economic Stimulus Fund (ESF) with an initial investment capacity of approximately $10 billion to support MSMEs across all economic sectors”. But just last week, the Tinubu administration commenced the distribution of N75 billion single digit loans to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises through the Bank of Industry (BOI). Micro, Small and Medium enterprises can access at least N1 million at nine percent interest rate repayable within three years while enjoying a moratorium of three months.
Speaking during a briefing on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the BOI and the Nigerian Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI), the National President of NASSI, Dr Solomon Vongfa, said “The N75 billion MSME Intervention Fund is more than just a financial injection; it is a beacon of hope for countless MSMEs that have been struggling to access affordable credit. This initiative will undoubtedly catalyze economic growth, create jobs and foster innovation”. The MSMEs Intervention Fund is part of the N200 billion Presidential Intervention Fund to boost businesses which comprises N50 billion Nano grant, N75 billion loan scheme for big businesses and N75 billion loan scheme for MSMEs.
Of course, no one can downplay the extent of hardship being borne by Nigerians as the Tinubu administration strives to restructure the economy towards greater productivity and prosperity and there is no indication the current government is doing so as Atiku so misleadingly insinuates. But is there any hope of light at the end of the tunnel even as Nigerians bear temporary pains of structural economic surgery? No less a person than Reno Omokri, an ardent Atiku supporter in the last election offers an informed, fact-premised response. His words, “Nigeria under Tinubu has experienced two quarters of unprecedented trade surpluses. At the end of August 2024, it had a record-breaking N14.6 trillion trade surplus and a GDP growth of more than 3%, as Nigeria now exports more than it imports. Inflation is being tamed, and the minimum wage has been increased…Our foreign reserves hit a record $40.2 billion because we no longer indulge in the politically popular but economically unreasonable act of defending the Naira with $1.5 billion each month”.
Seasoned economist, former Central Bank governor and current governor of Anambra State, Professor Chukuma Soludo, speaking on Thursday at the convocation of the Abuja-based Veritas University, does not appear to disagree.
According to him, “Nigeria is undergoing a fundamental and disruptive reset. Hopefully, we have ended the debilitating scam called fuel subsidy as well as the Forex and electricity subsidies. We have entered a ‘muddling-through’ phase which we must navigate carefully. Soon we must migrate from the destructive subsidies that benefitted largely the urban elite to a productive social contract that creates opportunity for all”. But then, Nigeria’s envisaged economic resurgence lies not just in the realm of economic technicalities but also in that of mass political mobilization and ideological enlightenment. We have addressed this issue before in this space and will do so again.
Culled from The Nation
