Opinion
That Furore Over Osinbajo’s ‘Coordinating’ Mandate
President Muhammadu Buhari, for the second time, transmitted a letter of notice to the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for a medical vacation in the United Kingdom, last week. The letter which contained among other terms, ‘coordinating’ has been subjected to severe criticisms by both the political class and the masses who questioned the rationale behind the use of such term in place of ‘acting’ as previously used during Buhari’s earlier vacation.
Senator Mao Ohuabunwa (PDP) representing Abia North Senatorial District fired the first salvo at the Senate plenary when the letter was read. He vehemently condemned the term, ‘coordinating’ used by the President to describe Vice President Yemi Osinbajo. Since then, many Nigerians, especially opposition politicians, have continued to dwell on sundry insinuations, pointing at the skeletons in the cupboards of the Presidency.
Emphatically, the Nigeria constitution is clear on the matter. Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, provides, “Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a written declaration that he is proceeding on vacation or that he is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such functions shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.”
Clearly, the above provision did not give the President powers to recommend, appoint or make his Vice an Acting-President; instead, it simply gives an outline on how powers can be transmitted from the President to his Vice on temporary basis, especially while indisposed to discharge duties temporarily. As a matter of fact, President Buhari needed not to inform or be at peace with his Vice for the office of Acting-President to come on board. As long as a letter is transmitted pursuant to Section 145 supra, it is immaterial if the letter mentioned Vice President or not. It will be automatically incumbent on the Senate to invoke or apply the constitutional provision as the office of the President makes no room for vacuum.
By implication, the President does not need to mention either ‘acting’ or ‘coordinating’ in his letter to the Senate as long as the letter clearly pointed to vacation or short-term unfitness. The constitution is supreme. It explicitly states that on such situation, once a formal communication is transmitted to the upper chamber of the National Assembly by the President, the powers automatically shift to the Vice President pending the President’s resumption. Thus, the needful is for the President to formally transmit a correspondence on his vacation. To even use the word “acting’ in the letter by the President is akin to direct or tell the Senate what to do.
Incontrovertibly, the Senate knows that the legitimate step is to declare Professor Yemi Osinbajo as Acting-President pending when counter-correspondence is received from the President on his readiness to resume duties. Professor Osinbajo can only do mere ‘coordination’ if no correspondence was sent to the Senate on the President’s medical trip.
The hullaballoo generated by the President’s use of the term ‘coordinating’ is, therefore, uncalled for, and reduces the architects as mischief makers. Nigeria as a nation should face important issues that would bring substantial dividends of democracy to the people.
In the first place, the President presently does not have constitutional powers to appoint Acting-President. It is strictly the affairs of the Senate, and the Presidency understands it clearly.
Secondly, the section of the constitution cited in the letter made the intention of the President unambiguous. Thirdly, the perception and claims that President Buhari didn’t appoint Prof Osinbajo to be Acting-President is ridiculous and the height of naivety. The office of the Acting-President is provided in the constitution and the prerequisites clearly spelt out. It is an office recognized in law and invoked upon exclusively by the lawmakers on meeting a specified condition, including transmission of a notice by the President.
Without a doubt, the President can magnanimously mastermind his Vice to become an Acting-President. Nonetheless, he doesn’t do the ‘appointing’, but can only stop at creating the way by transmitting in writing his vacation or inability to discharge official duties.
Importantly, the office of the Acting-President does not fall within the appointments designated for the President such as ministers and aides.
I want to believe that the sole aim of detractors is to plant seeds of discord between President Buhari and Acting-President, Osinbajo whose working relationship since inauguration has remained cordial, exemplary and brotherly despite religious differences, ethnicity and careers. However, they will not succeed.
Criticisms are essential characteristics of leadership especially in a democracy but when they lose constructive elements and values; it becomes bickering, loquacity and pull-down syndrome. Hate politics in Nigeria in recent times is monumentally grotesque, bizarre, barbaric and egoistic. The country is greater than any individual or political affiliations, and therefore, national interests should be utmost priority.
Critics should rather be concerned about the unprecedented discoveries of public funds in billions of naira, dollars, pounds inside pits, septic tanks, uncompleted buildings, serviced-flats, locked-up shops and others, amidst economic recession, in a society most average families and pensioners are facing hell. The challenges facing the nation are enormous, and therefore unacceptable for the red chamber to concentrate on such irrelevancies. There are numerous executive bills awaiting legislative processes, as well as other relevant, sensitive issues to address towards improving the standard of living of the citizenry.
Umegboro, a public affairs analyst, writes from Abuja.
Carl Umegboro
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