The seven-day protests and strikes embarked upon by organised labour and civil society groups in January forced most governors to abandon President Goodluck Jonathan despite the plan they had with him to withdraw the fuel subsidy, investigations have revealed. Findings by our correspondents showed that although most governors were party to the decision to withdraw the subsidy, they distanced themselves from the policy because of the fear that the protests could lead to a revolution similar to the Arab spring.
Before the protests, there had been demonstrations in some Arab countries that eventually led to the ouster of their leaders. The uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and other Arab nations were dubbed the “Arab Spring.” A cross-section of the governors told our correspondents that they had to abandon the President because they did not want what happened in these countries to repeat itself in Nigeria. Jonathan had on May 7, said the governors abandoned him during the protests against the removal of the subsidy.
However, some governors said they were not happy that President publicly said they abandoned him during the subsidy protests. One of the governors from the South-East, who pleaded anonymity, said he and some of his colleagues decided to dump the President when it was obvious that Nigerians opposed the issue. According to him, after analysing the security implications of the strike and street protests that were going on in different parts of the country then, the governors felt that the best way out of the logjam was to reach a compromise.
He said, “You know we did not put ourselves in office, we were elected by the people. This is not a military government. If you are doing something on behalf of the people you are leading and they say ‘no, don’t do it; we did not send you to do that,’ what do you do? “The best thing for us to do at that time was to stop that action and return to the people who have the sovereignty. That is democracy in action. We didn’t expect the President to go to newspapers and the television stations to say governors let him down.
“All of us sat down and looked at the implications of the civil unrest that was ongoing at that time. We were afraid because the country was heading for its own type of Arab spring. Leaders should also learn from the followers. As at that time, we needed to learn from the people we were and still leading.” Also commenting on the president’s statement, the Enugu State Governor, Mr. Sullivan Chime, said he had earlier supported the removal of fuel subsidy because it was the agreed decision at the Governors’ Forum but that the decision was later changed.
Chief Press Secretary to the governor, Mr. Chukwudi Achier, said, “The governor, from day one, made his stance known on this matter. He has repeatedly said he would always be part of any decision taken by the governors. “So if the governors decided that they would switch from their initial position, the governor would definitely be part of it. The forum speaks with one voice, so our governor is automatically part of any decision taken by it since he is a member.” In Rivers State, a top official of the state government defended Governor Rotimi Ameachi against the president’s allegation.
“The Federal Government takes the lion’s share of the funds that accrue to the country and it is not delivering. “Let it face the issue of subsidy and not blame governors. It is not a hidden fact that the Federal Government has not been allowing states to perform. Take for an instance the power project in the state; it is not a hidden fact that the Federal Government has not allowed the state to distribute the power it (Rivers) has been able to generate.”
The Action Congress of Nigeria governors, however, distanced themselves from the joint decision to remove fuel subsidy. The Osun State Governor, Mr. Rauf Aregbesola, said his administration never supported the removal of fuel subsidy by the Federal Government. Speaking through the Commissioner for Special Duties and Regional Integration, Mr. Ajibola Bashiru, he said, “All ACN governors in the South-West were opposed to fuel subsidy removal. Why did fuel subsidy become a serious matter in an election year? “What the Federal Government needs to do is to clean the oil sector.
The Federal Government should overhaul old refineries and build new refineries. It is absurd to import oil when we are an oil producing nation. The energy problem militating against industrial investment should be resolved too.” Also, the Ekiti State Governor, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, said the president had no right to blame anybody for the failure of his policy. The Commissioner for Information, Mr. Funminiyi Afuye, who spoke with our correspondents in Ado-Ekiti on behalf of his boss, said the subsidy removal policy was the policy of the president.
He said, “The president being the number one person in the country and the head of government should not blame any governor for his administration’s policy. The buck stops on his table.” The Federal Government had on January 1 announced the removal of fuel subsidy. As a result, the price of petrol was increased from N65 to N144. The price hike was followed by seven-day protests in the South-West, North and parts of the South-South, by organised labour and civil rights groups, especially, the Save Nigeria Group.
0 comments:
Post a Comment