Politics Of Incitement …That Bakare’s Call For Public Protest

Barely a week after the House of Representatives’ Ad-hoc committee, assigned to probe the Petroleum Subsidy Regime submitted its report for consideration by a committee of the whole, the self-styled leader of the Save Nigeria Group, Pastor Tunde Bakare and his ilk are calling for a public protest against perceived complacency on the part of Goodluck Jonathan Presidency. The over-blown claim is that the Federal government  harbours a secret agenda and might not implement the House’ decisions.

Like a bad loser who sees nothing good in the government, which the Nigerian electorate forbade his kind, under the aegis of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) to form, Bakare is reported to have openly incited organised labour and the gullible citizenry to prepare and take to the streets, in a planned protest intended to vilify government and if possible, cripple the Nigerian economy. This, we are told is to arm-twist the Federal government into doing their bidding.  The ill-timed protest is obviously targeted at some serving ministers whose sack, Bakare and co had repeatedly championed.

Ordinarily, in a democracy like ours, opinions naturally differ, there should be nothing wrong with a disenchanted citizen or groups of people protesting against a given public action or inaction.  What is wrong is when such protest is obviously actuated by malice.  And more importantly, when it ignores prevailing security implications, especially at a time the nation records one form of terror attack or another.

Let us recall that during the public protest and nationwide strike called by the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) early this year, to protest the hike in transport fares, on account of the removal of subsidy on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) otherwise called petrol, Bakare’s Save Nigeria Group openly called for ‘Regime Change’ and labeled President Jonathan in the most unsavoury of names – Badluck, Sadist, Anti-people and Inhuman were merely the lightest.

Infact, touts, common criminals and the vengeful political opposition, masquerading as civil/society groups hijacked that protest in an attempt to get through the back-door, the political mandate, which the Nigerian electorate denied them during the last general elections.  Labour inadvertently conceded that much, when, calling-off the strike, after successfully pegging the pump price at N97.00 from, well over, N140, through dialogue with government.

In course of the protest, men like Bakare even questioned the authenticity of fuel subsidy claim by government and said it was merely an economic lie, a conduit through which government siphoned scarce resources for its personal aggrandizement.  That was in spite of the fact that it was the same government that not only sought subsidy removal but also laid the foundation for probe of the regime, by setting up among others, the appointment of the Nuhu Ribadu Committee to help sanitise the sector.

Even so, spurred by their pre-conceived ends, nothing short of regime-change or at least the sack of both Ministers of Petroleum Resources and of Finance,  has been their dream even as they call for implementation of a report that is yet inconclusive.

Not only has the final copy of the Hon. Farouk-Lawan Committee report, partially considered by the House, not gotten to the executive arm, some grey areas still remain unattended to.  For instance, even after the presentation of the report to the House and in the middle of debates on the document, the Committee itself sought amendment to its own already submitted work.  It concerned reaching conclusions without hearing from all accused persons.

Infact, it took the prevalence of reason and wisdom by some House members for the Committee of the whole to resolve that all those earlier indicted by the report but who were not granted benefit of self defence, be given another opportunity to defend their actions.  That meant, some were indeed indicted without fair hearing.  Is that the kind of report a reasonable executive arm should be arm-twisted into implementing within two weeks?

Only last month, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) also debunked one of the conclusions reached by the House Committee to the effect that the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), received subsidy payments from two sources. The Ad-hoc Committee had in its report of the probe of the subsidy regime between 2009 and 2011 said: “The NNPC might have been withdrawing subsidy claims from two different points and should refund the excess to the Federation Account within 90 days.”

But in a letter addressed to the committee chairman, marked BPS/DIR/GEN/DOL/10/020 and dated April 27, 2012, the CBN denied that it ever paid any money to the NNPC in respect of subsidy claims.  The letter which was a response by the apex bank to some observations and recommendations contained in the subsidy report, and signed by the CBN’s Deputy Governor (Operations), Mr Tunde Lemo, said emphatically, “There was no time CBN paid any money to the NNPC in respect of subsidy claim.  It is pertinent to note that the NNPC started advising the CBN of the subsidy deductions from October 2009, after the states had complained at various Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) meetings of lack of transparency in the management of the subsidy regime.

The CBN further explained that some of the payments received by the NNPC, which the committee had raised questions about, were indeed credits due to the NNPC in respect of its domestic crude allocations.  It further said, “Direct deductions by the NNPC as per CBN records between October 2009 and December 2011 show a total figure of N844,944,471.72 before transfers to the FAAC were made.

To be sure, the CBN wrote, “CBN does not make any payment to NNPC on fuel subsidy.

If true, what this simply explains is that not all funds accruing to NNPC were tied to the subsidy fund as suggested by the report.  That infact, some are indeed the corporation’s legitimate earnings as a corporate citizen and not multiple payments as the report made Nigerians to believe.

It was in acceptance of this shortcomings also, that the committee corrected itself on the floor of the House, when, it found out that not all companies that allegedly got Forex allocations did so as participants in the subsidy regime or fuel importers.  That was also why the Lawan Committee eventually de-listed four firms earlier indicted.

The bottom-line is: the committee assignment is far from conclusive, particularly since all those earlier indicted have now been formally invited to present their various defences.

Beyond that, it is human nature that some individuals charged with the kind of responsibility as the House Committee is saddled with often fall into the temptation of reaching conclusions largely expected by the people and the critical press either to earn instant popularity or a folk-hero status.  Could that also explain the Save Nigeria Group’s obvious anxiety to play to the gallery in veiled attempts to appear progressive and masses-friendly?

That is not how true democracy must work.  It should instead respect facts as basis for any public protest and not just play to the gallery in a bid to incite the people against their government.

If indeed the Save Nigeria Group hates injustice and corruption and truly wants to institutionalise true Federalism, it should rally Nigerians and Labour to clamour for resource control; afterall that’s the hallmark of our mode of government.  As lovers of truth, fairplay, equity and good governance, how many times has the Save Nigeria Group ever considered correcting the kind of lie, Nigeria has lived as a Federation?  In which Federation does the centre appropriate resources sourced from the Federating units, rather than merely receiving Federal tax on resources from the units?  Or is the group targeting the Goodluck Jonathan presidency?

These self-acclaimed progressives must be reminded that they do not enjoy the monopoly of calling to the streets hungry young men and women for the purpose of festering their hollow political nests.  There are many other true believers in fiscal federalism who could march into the streets in larger numbers to demand for resource control, fiscal federalism and equity – a march which the economy can ill-afford.

This is why the House and indeed the Executive Arm must be given ample time to correct the huge mess left behind by successive administrations, the various groups’ faceless sponsors and tin-gods – an attempt no government, before the serving Presidency, ever ventured.

My Agony is that the subsidy report is not the only one.  Why are very few clamouring for the implementation of the Orosanya Committee report which also recommended among others, scrapping of EFCC, ICPC and FRSC among others?  Because these institutions serve their purpose of vilifying their political opponents for their own cosmic amusement? Or what?

Enough of this flip-flop.

President Jonathan and Tunde Bakare