Opinion
Is May 29, 2011 Handover Realistic?
The news is everywhere that the 2011 general elections have been shifted from January to April by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) because of the time constraint, given the litany of activities it has to complete to ensure credible, free and fair elections in Nigeria. It is also no longer news that the expiration date of this Yar’Adua/Jonathan administration is May 29, 2011. Even President Goodluck Jonathan has restated his commitment to hand over on this date. However, one question remains unanswered: Is May 29 hand over date realizable?
Given the turn of events in the country, from the amendment of the 1999 Constitution, to the Electoral Act, and even the issue of conduct and completion of voters’ registration, the workload is mountainous. Nevertheless, I agree that INEC Chairman, Prof Attahiru Jega is a man of credibility. I also reckon that President Jonathan is a man of integrity. My dilemma is if INEC, in a bid to ensure transparency, fails to finish all the electoral processes before May 29, 2011, what happens? I ask this question because the litigations that may result in the aftermath of the elections, the re-run process arising from cancelled voting units, which are usual in Nigeria due to prevalent electoral malpractices, could delay the hand over process.
The May 29, date is known as Democracy Day in Nigeria, and always the day set aside for the inauguration of a new government on the expiration of the former or celebration of the emergence of democracy in the country. However, there is a serious dust in the air concerning May 29, 2011, due to the serious issues before INEC. Prof Jega should do everything possible to conduct credible elections and ensure proper hand over on May 29.
Indeed, the realization of the May 29, handover date will depend, on the following: commencement and satisfactory completion of voters’ registration exercise, conclusion of recruitment and training of ad-hoc staff, retreat for and re-orientation of INEC’s staff, procurement and deployment of voting machines and other electoral materials, engagement of credible election monitors within and outside Nigeria, among others. Since 1999, when Gen Abdulsalami Abubakar’s military administration fixed May 29, as handover date for democratically elected government officials to assume office, despite many activists’ outcry that it was supposed to be October 1, the date has not changed.
However, a section of the political elite, in their characteristic manner, have recently raised false alarm in some quarters, about alleged plans to change the handover date. They even fear that the president plans to elongate his tenure. Although the Presidency has denied this allegation, these political hawks do not seem to be satisfied yet.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that President Jonathan is not like other African presidents, who believe they were born in power, and must die in power. Thus, he has vowed to ensure that the handover date of May 29 remains sacrosanct. Now, if the president plans to change the handover date or elongate his tenure, why did he immediately release the N74billion budget for INEC to conduct credible, free and fair elections come 2011.
I must say that their accusation of plots to elongate the Yar’Adua/Jonathan Presidency is out of place. In fact, the president has done nothing to suggest any plan to elongate his tenure. He is completely innocent for now. I must say that some of the allegations are coming from politicians whose hands are not clean. Moreover, a man that does evil is always afraid of evil. The same applies to the woman whose stock in trade is to plot evil plans and the downfall of a man.
Some of the political elite that are afraid of the president are always in this habit. They have done it before. They think they can do it again. That is why they annulled the most credible election in Nigeria’s political history with impunity. They shunned the international community’s observation that the elections of 1993 were the freest and fairest. They did not show any remorse! Yet, they claim today to be democrats, and have the best solutions to Nigeria’s problems.
As a social critic, I am not the president’s spokesperson. Moreover, I cannot claim to be one of his cronies. I even criticize him when the need arises. But in this case, Jonathan and Jega appear to me to be innocent, given their dogged commitment to the course of credible, free and fair elections in 2011.
The Nigerian people know the political actors and gladiators in this country. They know those who cause problems, plot and execute coups, use their criminally acquired wealth to fund usurpers of dully elected governments, and compromise Nigeria’s interest before some greedy foreign governments just to further their ambitions.
I know that President Jonathan is an academic who came into politics with clear records from Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (OMPADEC) as Bayesla State Governor D. S.P. Alamieyeseigha’s deputy in 1999. The same goes to Prof Jega, a distinguished university don, union activist, and radical social critic. He was nominated to the National Council of State and the National Assembly for confirmation as INEC chairman with the aim of correcting the deluge of misdeeds of the past INEC leadership. Therefore, I see the convergence of these two personalities and qualities as the precursor and desired elixir to deliver credible elections, and handover to those adjudged fair and best winners by May 29, 2011. Their pedigrees make the handover date realizable.
Nevertheless, a sound of warning to those who think they can hijack the political landscape for their selfish interest. They should know that this is not a military era, which they operated or worked under for years without a constitution. They should know that there is law and order, and that the rule of law and the constitution must be applied, complied with and respected by all actors irrespective of their leanings. They should give Jonathan a chance within the remaining months to deliver good governance to Nigerians.
All hands must be on deck, from the media, judiciary, doctors, engineers, teachers, nurses, architects, politicians, farmers and fishermen, market women and business moguls, as well as the poor masses in the rural areas, to ensure that the promise of Mr. President is realized. Let us not allow political jobbers and vampires to put the rest of us to shame by thwarting the president’s noble vision for Nigeria. Let us work in synergy towards May 29. It is possible. Let us do it.
Ogulu is of Niger Delta Students’ Initiative, and resides in Port Harcourt.
Enoch Ogulu
Opinion
A Renewing Optimism For Naira
Opinion
Don’t Kill Tam David-West
Opinion
Fuel Subsidy Removal and the Economic Implications for Nigerians
From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.
Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.
The Subsidy Question
The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.
While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.
A Critical Economic View
As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.
- Structural Miscalculation
Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.
- Neglect of Social Safety Nets
Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.
- Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives
Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.
Political and Public Concerns
Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.
This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.
Broader Implications
The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:
- Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
- Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
- Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
- Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
- Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.
In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.
Missed Opportunities
Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:
- Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
- Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
- Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
- Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.
Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.
Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face
Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.
Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.
Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.
Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.
References
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
- National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
- World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
- OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.
By: Amarachi Amaugo
-
Oil & Energy4 days agoHysteria Clashes with Missing Oil Barrels
-
Rivers4 days ago
Shippers Council moves To Enhance Service Delivery At Nigerian Ports
-
Editorial4 days agoStrike: Heeding ASUU’s Demands
-
Oil & Energy4 days agoOil Theft: Economic Council Urges NNPC To Strengthen Security In Creeks
-
News4 days agoAir Peace Begins Direct Flight From Abuja To London
-
Business4 days agoNigeria Exits FATF Grey List For Global Financial Crime ………..NFIU
-
Nation4 days agoCommunity Health Practitioners Marks 2025 Week
-
Sports4 days agoFBN, C’River gov partner to boost tourism
