You now see the reason why some of us don’t want to pay more for fuel. There is no accountability of whatever that is gained. The ONLY difference between removal of subsidy and retention of full subsidy is that the MASSES WILL PAY MORE FOR FUEL. That’s all.
Wale Edun Proper auditing is needed. This figure is staggering.
Emeka Nwokeocha: The fraud in the pms subsidy has grown worse than it was years ago. Going by the senate hearing, we would have spent a whooping sum of 2.9 trillion Naira in 12 months if we are buying fuel at 65 Naira a liter. Nothing has changed. So the rape continues.
Samuel Diminas: Subsidy payments are usually not in the budget. Even when it is budgeted for, the final amount is usually a large amount above projected amount, or it is simply inappropriate to put the amount in the budget. The cost of subsidy is usually deducted as first line expense before income from crude oil sales are remitted to the Consolidated Revenue Account/Federation Account. So the amount spent on subsidy, would go to the three tiers of government and first line funds if it didn’t exist, in accordance with the Revenue Sharing Formula
The current expenditure is N1.4T after 10 months. That is not in the budget. Fuel Subsidy has never been appropriately budgeted for. What you can get is that in 2014, there would be a budget for the amounts unpaid for from cleared invoices carried over from the past year. I am totally against petrol products consumption subsidy. As long as Nigeria keeps insisting on petroleum products consumption subsidy where there is incentive for manipulation, where the marketers who sell this same fuel at their filling station are expected to invoice the FG 90 days after the fuel has been burnt up/cosumed in Lagos, Cotonou, Niger, Benin, Lagos, Port Harcourt, the system would remain unmanageable and grow in exponential amounts, burning scarce resources in a most reckless manner.
To manage the economy efficiently, policies which target systemic and process checks are the appropriate means for achieving goals. Governments have limits to which they can achieve goals: a bad policy is a big delimiting factor in the fight against corruption, and promotes inefficiency and abuse.
Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri: The main issue here is that millions saved from subsidy were not spent on infrastructure as was advocated for. There are concerns that the subsidy savings are also looted just the same way the fuel subsidy is cornered by a few cabals. The difference is that one is official corruption and the other is “cabalistic corruption”. So, what exactly is the difference? If a few cabals steal and corner the fuel subsidies to themselves, the nation comprising 170 million Nigerians are likely to benefit! But in the reverse order, only a few officials “corner” the same subsidy savings and yet, the people excruciatingly pay more for fuel.
It doesn’t make sense to advocate for subsidy savings and reinvestment, and then the same savings end up being misappropriated by the same gatekeepers of the treasury. Many Nigerians would be happy to pay less on fuel, and have the cabal continue with their fuel subsidy windfall. This is purely a devil and the deep blue sea situation where one bitter choice has to be made. All those tempting arguments about reinvesting subsidy savings on infrastructure are no longer convincing. It seems like a terrible case of RELOOTING THE LOOT. This is a very terrible situation.
Nsikan-George Emana: The SURE-P programme is designed around certain core themes: youth, community and women empowerment; infrastructural development and service provisioning. I was part of the official team that facilitated the YES programme by SURE P in Calabar. I was amazed at the revelations by state MDAs and the youth representatives who constantly reminded SURE P officials that they were not willing to submit to another NYSC-type programme neither were they happy to have their vulnerable situations and joblessness exploited by politicians who played to the gallery with SURE P programme. So much said in public, SURE P has been hijacked by politicians.
I am not sure Nigerians want Federal Govt to continue to pay for fuel subsidy. That line of thought has long been overtaken by events. The string of argument now is that almost two years after Nigerians grudgingly submitted to FGN’s conditions for removing fuel subsidy, very unimpressive and unconvincing results have been delivered by SURE-P with subsidy funds defeating the very reason for that action. Today , it is the same tale of corruption served on a different saucepan – official corruption.