Before the 2023 presidential elections, acres of print space and hours of airtime were expended by armies of well-paid publicists and media influencers to sell home the fact that candidate Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the real deal among the three presidential candidates running in the election. The narrative ran that Tinubu had in his ken, the ability to turn Nigeria’s flagging economy and transform it like he did as Governor of Lagos State when he oversaw an unprecedented level of development at the centre of excellence.
Last week, a major dent to that well packaged façade of President Tinubu was inadvertently revealed when it emerged that the cardinal economic measure of the administration, removal of subsidies on petroleum products, have all along been an elaborate deception. Before nervous and embarrassed Tinubu administration officials disclaimed it, the story that subsidy payments totalling N5trillion had been making the rounds.
To the utter consternation of Nigerians, the question was howbeit that a government that said it had ended subsidy payments is now having to pay more than two times the Buhari government which was paying over N2trillion on subsidies?
The case of petroleum subsidy payments has been mired in a crisis of clarity and truth. When some petroleum economists questioned the claim that subsidy had been removed with empirical facts, mum was the word from the President who announced the measure in the first place and who doubles as substantive Petroleum Minister. The minister of State in the same Ministry, Heineken Lokpobiri without providing contravening facts pointedly denied that subsidy was being paid. The Group Managing Director of the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) Mele Kyari also said what amounted to the same thing as the minister of state. His explanation was that in the past subsidies arose out of the necessity to license contractors to import and distribute petroleum products in the country as a result of non-functioning of the refineries. In the current dispensation however as the NNNCL had been given the sole responsibility of that task, there was no need for subsidies as he said ‘’NNPCL (through its ways, I presume) had the mechanism to cover the costs’’ of the task of importing and distributing the commodity without subsidy.
But the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank were not convinced. Let us not forget that the twin institutions are the authors and supervisors of the Tinubu administration’s economic policies. And what they say in their assessment of the economic policies of the administration cannot be far from the truth. Whereas the GMD’s explanation was more on the side of contrived sophistry intended to deflect embarrassing enquiry, the statements from the IMF and World Bank on subsidies were decidedly factual. The World Bank’s Country Director in Nigeria connected the variables of the oil importation and distribution monopoly of the NNPCL to arrive at the conclusion that subsidy was indeed being paid. These include; the rate at which the NNPCL procures the dollar for the transaction; the cost of the commodity at point of procurement; cost of freight and insurance; landing and distribution costs in Nigeria. Where there is a difference in the actual cost of one or all of the variables, this then establishes the fact of subsidy. The World Bank knew that NNPCL was getting foreign exchange preferentially at the official rate which is below the market rate. And from that stage right up to the landing stage and distribution in Nigeria, the subsidy graduates at every point leading inevitably and factually to the conclusion that subsidy was being paid.
The IMF on its part pointedly said that taking all the points together, the fact that the pump price of the petroleum products all things being equal should be somewhere between 700 and 800 naira per litre and not the 680 naira per litre that it is being sold presently. The fact that it is not being sold at those rates is the clearest indicator that the difference in pricing is the subsidy. Kyari’s explanation that the NNPCL is covering the cost is a vague indication that the conglomerate is paying the cost differentials to the local oil marketers to distribute the cost locally after it had imported the commodity to the country.
Let us not pussy foot about it; subsidy is indeed being paid by the Tinubu administration. The only difference here is that unlike in the past where the subsidy payment was a bazaar for all comers, in this particular dispensation, it is the NNPCL that exclusively warehouses the subsidy. And it is by connecting and calculating all the dots on the entire chain of NNPCL’s oil importation monopoly that the World Bank concluded that there was indeed subsidy in the process. So in reality, Mele Kyari’s explanation that NNPCL had the means to cover the cost of oil importation task was merely half the story and it does not convincingly disprove that oil subsidy was not being paid.
If walks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Much as it strenuously tries to deny that there is no subsidy, discerning Nigerians know for a fact that subsidy is indeed being paid by the administration. The truth however is that because the payment goes to a single source, the NNPCL which buries the payments in its labyrinthine maze of creative accounting it is not readily discernible as it was in the past subsidy dispensation.
That perhaps explains why from the President who is the substantive Minister of Petroleum to Lokpobiri the State Minister and the GMD of NNPCL, they all can put up a face and say that there are no subsidies. They are able to say so because they are secure in the knowledge that the NNPCL which is at the nexus and custody of the entire process of oil importation into the country can obfuscate the truth about it all with a wink and a nod as it is now doing.
Gadu, is a prolific writer and online communicator.

By: Iliyasu Gadu

The traditional institution is as old as human society. It predates the advent of modern and organised society. Before the emergence of political system of administration, the traditional institution has existed long ago. In fact, it was so revered and regarded as sacred because of the mythological conviction that it was the “stool of the ancestors”.
In most African societies before invasion of the Christian Faith, and consequent Christening of the traditional stools in many communities in recent times, ascent to the traditional institution was a function of a traditional method of selection. It was believed that the gods make the selection. And whoever emerges from the divination processes eventually is crowned as the king of the people after performing the associated rituals.
Whoever lacked the legitimacy to sit on the throne but wanted to take it forcefully, traditionalists believed, died mysteriously or untimely.
Traditional rulers wielded much influence and power because of the authority inherent in the stool ,the age of the person sitting on the stool notwithstanding. The word of the king was a law, embodied power. Kings so selected are forthright, accountable, transparent, men of integrity, did not speak from both sides of the mouth, could not be induced with pecuniary benefits to pervert justice, they feared the god of their ancestors and were consecrated holistically for the purpose dictated by the pre and post coronation rituals. Some of those crowned king were very young in those days, but they ruled the people well with the fear of the gods. There was no contention over who is qualified to sit or who is not qualified to. It was the prerogative of the gods. And it was so believed and upheld with sacroscance.
Kings were natural rulers, so they remained untouchable and could not be removed by a political government. If a king committed an offence he was arrested and prosecuted according to the provision of the law. But they have immunity from sack or being dethroned because they are not political appointees. However, the people on whose behest he became king reserved the power to remove him if found guilty of violating the oath of stool.
The traditional institution is actually the system of governance nearest to the people. And kings were the chief security officers of their communities. So indispensable are the roles of kings and traditional rulers to the peaceful co-existence of their people, ensuring that government policies and Programmes were seamlessly spread to the people that many people are clamouring for the inclusion of definitive roles in the Constitution for the traditional institution.
Traditional rulers are fathers to every member of their domain. So they are not expected to discriminate, show favouritism. By their fatherly position traditional rulers, though can not be apolitical, are also expected to be immune from partisan politics. This is because as one who presides over a great house where people of different political divide or interest belong, an open interest for a political party means ostracisation of other members of the family which could lead to disrespect, conflict of interest, wrangling and anarchy. Traditional rulers are supposed to be selfless, preferring the interest of their people above their personal interests following the consciousness that they are stewards whose emergence remains the prerogative of the people. The position is essentially for service and not for personal aggrandisement and ego massaging. So they should hold the resources of the people in trust.
However, in recent past the traditional institution has suffered denigration because of unnecessary emotional attachment to political parties and political leaders. Some traditional rulers and kings have shown complete disregard to the principle of neutrality because of filthy lucre and pecuniary gains, at the expense of the stool and people they lead. Sadly some traditional rulers have been influenced to pervert justice: giving justice to the offender who is rich against the poor.
Traditional leaders should be reminded that the “throne is preserved by righteousness”, not by political chauvinism, favouritism, or materialism.
Traditional rulers should earn their deserved respect from political leaders by refusing the pressure to be subservient, beggarly, sycophantic and docile.
They should be partners with every administration in power and should not be tied to the apron string of past leaders whose activities are aversive to the incumbent administration and thereby constituting a clog in the development of the State and the community they are to woo infrastructure development to. It is unpardonable error for a traditional ruler to have his conscience mortgaged for benefits he gets inordinately from any government.
It is necessary to encourage kings and traditional rulers to not play the roles of stooges and clowns for the privileged few, political leaders. Political Leaders are products of the people, even as every government derives its legitimacy from the people.
Today, Sir Siminalayi Fubara is in the saddle of the administration in Rivers State. Kings, traditional rulers, chiefs and entire people of Rivers State should give unalloyed and unflinching support and loyalty to the Executive Governor. The resources with which successive administrations served belong to the people so no past leader should be deified. It is unacceptable to attempt to make a god out of anyone. Leadership is transient so is life.

By: Igbiki Benibo

On Friday August 16, 2024, at the swearing-in of six new permanent secretaries in the Executive Council Chamber, the Executive Governor of Rivers State, Sir Siminalayi Fubara said that his government will no longer approve contract services for retired Permanent Secretaries in the State so as to give room for others on the line to progress. According to the Governor, if the government continues to give contract to retired permanent secretaries there won’t be room for those who are coming behind, adding that as soon as any permanent secretary retires a new person will be appointed to replace the office. The Governor Fubara’s decision is a “Daniel come to judgement”. It is a commitment to seamlessly drive succession in the civil service. In my considered opinion, it also demonstrates the end of unnecessary bureaucratic gaps in the chain of progression in the civil service.
The civil service as an organised, structured and well coordinated machinery, helps every government in power to achieve policies and Programmes. This however, cannot be achieved if the machinery of government is ineffective and inefficient. A situation where those who are supposed to have left the civil service having attained the statutory retirement age and service years are still being retained in the service speaks volumes of lack of functional succession plan in the service. In the Civil service, ranking is transitional such that a staff on a rank today is expected to transit to the next level in three or four years if he or she meets the promotional requirements. By this subsisting policy there should not be a lacuna in the chain of progression in the service. The functionality of the arrangement makes training and retraining of staff inevitable to enable staff meet the statutory requirements of their anticipated job.
Where there is regular manpower or capacity development training for staff the civil service cannot suffer dearth of efficient and qualified personnel that will necessitate the retention of a civil servant who ought to have retired from the civil service. Retention of retired civil servants implies that those retained are indispensable and that no person in the service was qualified enough to assume that position. The tacit belief that the exit of a retired staff will create a vacuum in the chain of production only reveals a systemic dysfunction. It shows that the exit of such “indispensable” staff was not anticipated so that any vacuum that the absence of such staff would create would have been taken care of well ahead of retirement of such staff. Nothing happens fortuitously in an Organised, functional system.
Retaining those who have retired on their position while there are undoubtedly, staff who are qualified for the same position, does not foster career progression in the service. An efficient and effective service should ensure that no succession gap exists in an organization. And this is achievable by the training and retraining of staff in anticipation of their next level job roles and demands. If a superior officer proceeds on an annual or casual leave any person who acted in his or her absence should be deemed eligible to fill that position when the substantive officer retires. Some civil servants rarely proceed on annual leave because of the false beliefs that the absence of such officer would affect the smooth running of the office. The false belief that a staff is indispensable unwittingly shows that someone has not done what he or she was supposed to do to fill the gap. Should such officer die, will the office be closed? Will someone next in line not be posted to take charge?
Another reason why retention of some categories of staff seem inevitable is when there is lack of manpower in that area. To check such situation, service providers and employers of labour should identify areas where there is lack of manpower and fill them early enough, so the newly employed will understudy their superiors and acquire the desired relevant knowledge on the job that will make them progress and assume a higher responsibility. After all knowledge can be generated informally on the job, as the workers are trained and understudy their superiors.The Governor’s decision should serve as a wake-up call to train and retrain workers. Funds should also be made available to the manpower development experts in the service to end the retention of staff who have retired.

Igbiki Benibo