The Federal Government, on January 8, 2012, made pronouncements that it would introduce a number of palliative measures as a way of cushioning possible effects of the fuel price hike due to the removal of fuel subsidy.
As part of the subsidy palliatives, the government promised to pay the January salaries of federal civil servants by January 20. It also pledged to pay contractors for jobs already executed, and ensure that state governments comply with the N18,000 minimum wage.
The palliatives also include the introduction of 1,600 diesel-powered buses to ease public transportation, particularly for the urban poor across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The mass transit intervention, according to the government, is designed to provide cheap transportation to the masses in view of the significant hikes in transportation fares as well as expected increase in cost of living caused by the fuel subsidy removal.
However, discordant tunes have continued to trail the introduction of these palliatives almost two months after government promises. While some states are yet to receive their share of the much publicized 1,600 buses, the few who have are experiencing serious operational and implementation challenges.
We are not in doubt that government is sincere about delivering on its promises, but it is pertinent to ensure that government’s best intentions are not frustrated by a few corrupt elements involved in the implementation of these programmes. This is important because trust, transparency and accountability are important prerequisites for good governance. Against this backdrop, we believe that it is imperative for the government to be unwavering in its commitment to ensuring that its promises are matched by performance.
Furthermore, in view of the perception by some Nigerians that government cannot be trusted, we believe that this is a rare opportunity for the leadership to earn the trust of the people by delivering on its promises of providing the subsidy palliatives in a timely and efficient manner. By getting the implementation of the subsidy palliatives right, government would have silenced its many critics who feel that the palliative measures were an ‘emergency’ plan rather than a carefully thought-out plan.
The state governments too, in conjunction with the local governments, should as a matter of urgency invest time and resources into designing their respective palliative programmes and delivering on them, with a view to cushioning the effects of the subsidy removal on the people at the grassroots.
