Resolution efforts focusing on the downstream petroleum sector deregulation crisis has brought out different intervention styles from the the nation’s bicameral legislature, writes UCHENNA AWOM in this analysis?
The agitation against the removal of subsidy on petrol rages. Efforts are however, being made to resolve the matter permanently; but whether this will be the last time the issue of subsidy or no subsidy will take centre stage or will be finally removed from Nigeria’s politico-economic lexicon is better left at the doors of assumptions.
However, the subsidy trouble as it were, surreptitiously took Nigerians on a cursory excursion to the inner recesses of the National Assembly. Perhaps, what played out in the two chambers; Senate and the House of Representatives on the eve of the mass protest and strike, may have availed the public with firsthand knowledge of the inter-dependence of both chambers and how each chamber’s operatives deploy its inherent powers to achieve a set objective.
There was no doubt that Nigerians looked up to the National Assembly for intervention, when the heat occasioned by the organized labour’s threat to embark on an indefinite strike in protest against the full deregulation of the downstream sector and its associated increase in the price of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) by last Monday January 9.
The expectation was to heighten the more following the statements from both chambers immediately the federal government announced the removal of the subsidy on New Year’s Day. This suggested their aversion to the suddenness of the commencement of the policy. To the public, the posturing of the national lawmakers means instant gain of support from a very strategic arm of government. But what was perhaps confusing was the nature of approach that could be deployed by each of the chambers that will be potent enough to sway the presidency to change course in the circumstance.? Will the National Assembly play mediatory role? Will they side with the people, government? These were the questions.
But analysts were careful not to harangue the lawmakers to immediately condemn the government, except the well coordinated responses by, first, the Senate and very much later the House of Representatives, which cautioned and also wondered why the presidency will embark on such hideous journey, when consultations were still ongoing. Analysts were not expecting any of the chambers to play to the gallery or to come out disparaging either the public or the government. That was to say that, they were expected to mediate since both chambers were informed of an imminent removal of the subsidy at the time President Goodluck Jonathan submitted his Medium Term Economic framework (MTEF). Besides, the subsidy fund was not captured in the 2012 budget proposal that was presented by the President late December.
The groundswell of opposition against the announcement and the spontaneous protest that followed may have ignited passion among the lawmakers, which somehow could have pricked their reasoning and pitched them between espousing public posturing for immediate political gain against succumbing to the economic argument been propounded by the government.
Expectedly, the lower chamber often seen as the tinder box of populism decided to first play the public card before settling for internal tripartite dialogue. Tripartite, in the sense that they first took position through their resolution thus making them a party to the raging crisis, despite their advise to organized labour to back down on the strike threat.
Though the public and in particular labour applauded their resolute stand and by inference the move as welcome as it were, was seen as a booster to the pressure been mounted on President Jonathan to reconsider the policy at least for now.
The approach was nonetheless at variance with the senate approach. The Upper Chamber rather chose to toe a middle course line, deciding to encourage dialogue between the government and the organized labour. The later approach seems to have captured the fancy of the presidency and even labour, to the point that both agreed to talk, a development, which the President of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Abdulwaheed Omar described as a sign of shifting ground. The senate did not speak through resolution, but instead, senators at a closed-door session mandated the Senate leadership to go and mediate between both parties. In fact they were said to have proffered solutions like suggesting a suspension of the withdrawal till first of April, by which time the 2011 fiscal year would have elapsed by March 31.
Reps Plenary Approach???
How did House of Representatives go about it? Often referred to as the ‘People’s Parliament’, the Lower Chamber made up of mostly very youthful, upcoming, experienced and rookie politicians did not mince words to side with the people and of course when they summoned an emergency session last Sunday to discuss the state of the nation, especially the removal of the subsidy, not many were surprised as to what the outcome would be.? So, rising from the session they asked President Jonathan to suspend the highly contentious withdrawal of subsidy.
They said this should be done in appreciation of the mood of Nigerians and to pave way for further negotiations. The lawmakers also urged the organized labour and civil society groups to suspend the planned strike action in protest of the subsidy removal and submit to further dialogue on the matter.
The House which took these decisions in a heated special emergency session, which commenced at 3pm however constituted two ad-hoc committees; one to interface with the executive, labour and other stakeholders with a view to finding a common ground on the matter and another to verify and determine the actual subsidy requirements and monitor the subsidy regime. Both committees are to report to the House within one week.
Similarly, the lawmakers urged the Nigeria police to exhibit more professionalism and ethical conduct in carrying out crowd management during protests. They nonetheless, appealed to Nigerians to exercise restraints in expressing their displeasure over the removal of fuel subsidy in order to allow room for dialogue and more consultation to resolve the situation.
Adopting the resolutions of a motion titled, “the removal of fuel subsidy by the executive’”, sponsored by Hon. Yusuf Tajudeen and 61 others, the House also moved that guided by the report of the ad-hoc committee on actual subsidy requirements, they will invoke the law-making and appropriation powers of the National Assembly where appropriate, to make provisions that would serve the interest of the Nigerian people in the 2012 budget.
In recognition of the sensitive nature of the day’s proceedings, the speaker of the House of Representatives opened the proceeding with a speech in which he appealed to the lawmakers to observe decorum and patience for every one with diverse views to express themselves.
He said: “As we deliberate, I want to plead with you my dear colleagues not only to respect the views of others but also to understand that times like this call for true leadership. At this difficult period of our history, the nation’s democratic tripod-the legislature, executive and judiciary must approach legislation, governance and justice administration according to a set of principles that reflects a sense of permanent destiny of the nation.
“It is important to remind ourselves that the issues before us though weighty and critical are certainly not insurmountable. The survival of Nigeria as a united, indivisible and prosperous nation is of crucial importance and must be factored into whatever positions we adopt on these issues. In a world of competing challenges and opportunities, it is simply critical that we remain focused on our non-negotiable goals of building a modern state where justice, economic prosperity and political stability reign supreme”.
Calling for them to make decisions in the best interest of Nigerians, Tambuwal noted, “there comes a time in the life of even individuals just as there comes a time in the life of nations when it is demanded of the leadership to rise to the occasion and take critical make or mal decisions- I believe we are in such times today. We must make decisions because while posterity may judge us harshly for inappropriate decisions, a much harsher judgement awaits us for failure to decide at all, for in the latter case, we would be promoting a dangerous drift whose terminus is better imagined”.
Explaining that their decision to summon the meeting was taken after “careful analysis of the state of the nation”, he added that “leadership took counsel and resolved that the recess be cut short in the national interest”, hence the emergency session in consonance with order 5(18)(2) of the standing rules of the House.
A minute’s silence was also observed for the victims of various attacks by the lawmakers who commiserated with the victims and families who lost dear ones and to the Christian community in general.
“We the entire members of the House of Representatives deeply and most sincerely sympathise with the bereaved families and indeed the entire Christian community”, he said.
Supporting the motion, Hon Yakubu Dogara noted that principles of democracy must be upheld at all times. He stated that the people have spoken against the removal of the subsidy, adding that the voice of the people is the voice of God and must be respected.
He accused the IMF of propagating their own agenda which will pave way for their economic benefit, while pointing out that peculiarities in each country determines the kind of policies that should be implemented.
“’Subsidy works in different environments. The West subsidizes Agriculture and the IMF is not condemning that.
“If we remove capping from emerging nations, it cheapens the fuel for them, it is not because they love us.
“Petroleum products are listed as one of the products that must be subsidised by the government and neither the National Assembly nor the courts has repealed it and before the executive removed subsidy, they ought to have repealed that provision first”.
He warned the president to be cautious about being heady on the issue because it is such that “’leads to a waterloo’’.
Also supporting the motion, minority leader, Hon Femi Gbajabiamila condemned the president’s decision, adding that the facts that are being presented are erroneous. He lamented that it was wrong for 99 percent of Nigerians to suffer for the sins of one percent of Nigerians who are in the cabal sabotaging the fuel subsidy and called on the government to bring the perpetrators of the ‘”biggest economic crime in Nigeria to book’”.
“’What the executive seeks to do for this inefficiency is to remove subsidy from the remaining 99 percent. These are facts that are unacceptable’, he said.
Another member, Rafiu Ibrahim said the distrust for the government is the major issue, adding that over the years, nothing has been shown for subsidies removed. Citing an example of the deregulation of diesel, he noted that after 4 to 5 years, no diesel refinery has been built and nothing is on ground to show for the funds gathered from the subsidy while others lamented that the 2011 amended budget will be truncated if the subsidy on fuel is removed.
Warning that signs of war are clear from the fallout of the deregulation, Hon Ali Madaki said in his contribution that “’the removal is not only bad politics but bad economics. We can’t have peace when there is no harmony, we cant have a buoyant economy when there is riot everywhere’’, he added.
Leading the pack of supporters of subsidy removal, Hon Warman Ogoriba who was initially prevented from speaking but for the intervention of the speaker, said no right thinking president would want to bring hardship on its citizens, adding that the economy will collapse if the step is not taken.
Leader of the House, Hon Mulikat Akande-Adeola sympathised with Nigerians on the hardship being experienced as a result of the policy but however asked for understanding with the government. She appealed to her colleagues to stand with the executive to implement the policy and assume the role of mediators rather than taking sides with any party.
‘”I expect all of us to speak together from same side of the mouth. We should assume roles of mediators rather than trying to judge.”
“’The country right now cannot be allowed to degenerate into a crisis”’, she said.
Similarly, Hon Seriake Dickson also spoke against the bill, pointing out that it wasn’t a product of President Jonathan but a policy first introduced by late president, Yar’Adua through the PIB which wasn’t passed by the last House.
Calling for support of the executive, he said: “’We seem to have forgotten that at a time like this our duty is to strengthen the executive that has found courage to do what other leaders have not been able to do”’.
Senate’s Mediatory Approach
The Senate as the club of elders and mostly peopled by very experienced and elderly politicians, comprising former governors and other top retired military officers that played major role during the military governments, were ordinarily expected to be in-between the fray and try to calm frayed nerves. This they did by deploying a middle course approach in finding solution to the raging crisis. Though most of the senators did not hide their indignation at government’s approach to the subsidy removal issue, they rather chose to express themselves behind closed door apparently not to be seen as taking sides without digesting the different arguments for and against.
So, during the executive session they asked its leadership to meet President Goodluck Jonathan to urge immediate suspension of the full deregulation of the downstream sector of the oil industry and the associated removal of subsidy in petrol.
The Senators were also said to have asked the President of the Senate, who was to lead other principal officers to the meeting with Jonathan to counsel him that he should rather settle for April 1, 2012, as effective date to commence the zero subsidy regime in the light of the prevailing circumstance. The lawmakers it was learnt gave Mark and his team to work out the consensus within twenty-four hours and report back to plenary.
The closed-door session lasted for about one hour. Sources at the meeting disclosed that the senators were concerned about the gridlock and near shut down of the national economy, which the strike action has caused the nation. They were also said to have raised the alarm that the announcement of the subsidy withdrawal failed to take cognisance of the prevailing security situation in the country.
Consequently, the Senate suspended other matters for the day’s proceedings to allow its leadership to continue the dialogue with organised labour which it started Monday night and meet with the executive to convey the position of the chamber.
However, Mark at the plenary vowed that the senate will deploy all its legislative arsenals to nab and bring to book all those that have abused the fuel subsidy proceeds. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the unpopularity of the decision among the Nigerian people, but however averred that the economic argument in support of fuel subsidy removal is compelling adding that the political and social imperatives must also be considered.
“On the other hand, this government is compelled by a genuine drive to transform the country and expand opportunities for economic growth. In order to overcome this impasse, it is imperative that we engage each other honestly on this issue. In line with this, during the recess, I directed the Senate Committee on Labour, Employment & Productivity to interface with labour groups. I had also urged individual Senators to engage with Labour and Civil Society Organisations.
“The Senate Leadership has also been interfacing with the leadership of the Nigerian Labour Congress and the Trade Union Congress as well as the Executive. These talks are ongoing and I hope that it will lead to an outcome that will be in the best interest of Nigerians”, he said.
Explaining Senate’s approach, the leader of the senate, Ndoma Egba explained why the upper chamber did not take a position on removal on fuel subsidy unlike their lower chamber counterparts. He noted that the senate was focused on ensuring that the nation makes progress adding that the issue for the upper chamber now is not “whether we support it or not’
Senator Ndoma-Egba however recalled that “some weeks back Senator Saraki had brought a motion on fuel subsidy which was debated.”Subsequent to this the senate set up a committee to investigate the fuel subsidy scheme. To debate a matter that is ongoing by a committee will be undermining the mandate of the senate to that committee.”
He added that the when deliberations begin on the 2012 budget it will be debated again.
“So we have had two opportunities to debate the subsidy” adding that the senate will address the issue in all its ramifications; economic and corruption inherent will be at the base. So far, negotiations between the leadership of senate the executive and the organized Labour has produced positive movements towards the resolution of the current impasse”, he said.
The two scenarios painted better elucidate the approach deployed by both chambers, which will ultimately end up achieving the same goal, irrespective of the difference in the modus operandi. It could be recalled that the House Ad-Hoc Committee also met with the organized labour and representatives of the executive last week Wednesday despite the misgivings expressed by the government over the Reps resolution urging it to rescind the decision and revert to the prevailing pump price of petrol before the withdrawal.
The Senate leadership also kept meeting with the parties in Senator Mark’s Apo mansion. Their effort culminated in the Senate leadership meeting with the President in the morning of Thursday, and the subsequent one with the labour leaders in the afternoon of the same day to prepare labour for the meeting with President Jonathan by 5pm the same day.
How it ends would be to the credit of the National Assembly, if a compromise is reached eventually. In any case both chambers are already in the clear whatever the outcome.