Opinion

Tinubu, Remi and Akpabio mocking Nigerians’ hardship, By Farooq Kperogi

Published

2 months ago

October 12, 2024

Farooq Kperogi

Tinubu, Remi and Akpabio mocking Nigerians’ hardship, By Farooq Kperogi

The torment of incessantly escalating petrol prices and the consequent surge in the cost of everything have plunged Nigerians into a precipitous decline in quality of life. This dire situation is exacerbated by insensitive, almost mocking remarks from those responsible for inflicting this pain.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, aptly nicknamed “T-Pain,” recently stated from London that Nigerians would, in the future, appreciate the wisdom of his “reforms.” Such a statement is both callous and mendacious.

It is callous because these “reforms” are literally destroying the livelihoods of millions and causing the deaths of many. What possible benefit could the deceased derive from economic reforms that precipitated their untimely demise?

It is mendacious because, as evidenced by the history of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) in Nigeria—and the experiences of other nations implementing similar neoliberal economic reforms—such policies invariably erode the middle class, exacerbate poverty among the lower classes, yet please the markets, thereby benefiting the upper classes.

Almost without exception, neoliberal policies—such as the elimination of subsidies, deregulation, reductions in social spending, and fiscal austerity—exacerbate economic inequality and hinder sustainable development in developing economies. These policies often benefit large corporations and the wealthy, which creates an inequitable concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and widens the chasm between the rich and the poor.

Thus, the deferred benefits for which Tinubu wants Nigerians to endure mass deaths and hopelessness are the opening of Nigerian markets to international competition—which may please global markets but will overwhelm local businesses lacking the resources and technology to compete—and the freeing up of resources to invest in infrastructure.

However, the reality is that contemporary Nigeria is inhospitable to foreign investment due to the absence of security, social, and physical infrastructure, and because Tinubu’s policies have so impoverished the majority that they cannot afford to purchase what foreign businesses produce. This explains the mass exodus of foreign companies since 2023.

Furthermore, given the culture of endemic corruption entrenched within the upper echelons of power, most of the funds saved from subsidy withdrawals, tariff increases, intensified taxation, and cuts in social programs will likely be misappropriated. The government will still resort to borrowing from the World Bank and the IMF to finance its operations.

READ ALSO:

We are already witnessing this phenomenon. Despite massive inflows of cash into government coffers, no new projects are being constructed or even initiated. In fact, governments at all levels are procrastinating over implementing the ₦70,000 per month minimum wage. State governors convert the excess funds they receive from federal allocations into dollars and stash them away, thereby putting pressure on the naira.

Now, the vast majority of Nigerians have resigned themselves to the fact that death, starvation, and hopelessness are the only certain outcomes of Tinubu’s “reforms” and are seeking a way out. Middle-class citizens are saving up to leave the country, and, for the first time ever, even the majority of northern Nigeria’s middle class is investing in plans to escape from Nigeria.

In response, Senate President Godswill Akpabio declared that Nigerians fleeing the blazing neoliberal hellhole that Tinubu has created are ungrateful and unpatriotic cowards who should be stopped. “I believe people should place love for their country above financial gains. That is why many of us choose to remain here,” he said.

Akpabio and his ilk choose to stay in Nigeria not out of love for the country but because they thrive off it and are insulated from the harm they inflict upon it. The professionals leaving Nigeria in droves are not doing so because they lack love for their country. They love their country; they simply abhor the raging neoliberal inferno it has become. It is insulting to suggest, as Akpabio did, that Nigerian emigrants are motivated by base and unpatriotic motives. Even more insulting is Akpabio’s proposed solution to halt emigration: that dissatisfied Nigerians should reduce the number of cars they own.

At times, one wonders whether Akpabio retains any functioning brain cells.

Meanwhile, Remi Tinubu, Bola Tinubu’s wife, continued this pattern of insulting Nigerians amidst their suffering. On Thursday, she told the Ooni of Ife that her husband is not responsible for Nigeria’s current travails, which contradicts her husband’s own acceptance of responsibility for the hardships Nigerians are enduring—with a promise of an illusory better tomorrow as compensation for the pain he is inflicting.

“We are just 18 months into our administration,” she said. “We are not the cause of the current situation. We are trying to fix it and secure the future.”

She then inverted logic, implying that Nigerians are suffering not because her husband has increased petrol prices more times and at higher rates than any previous president, but because prior presidents did not do what her husband is doing.

“We know that subsidy has been removed, but with God on our side, in the next two years, Nigeria will be greater than this,” she said. “Those who attempted removing subsidies before could not see it through. But with your prayers in the next two years, we will build a nation for the future.”

The rage that overcame me upon reading this is beyond description. Do these insensate individuals utilize their cognitive faculties at all?

I have long harbored a suspicion that the upper echelons of Nigeria’s power structure have been displeased with the emergence of a middle class since 1999. The markers of middle-class status—such as car and home ownership, fine dining, foreign education, and sartorial sophistication—have deprived the upper class of privileges they believed should remain exclusive to them.

In the early 2000s, they used to speak derisively of “Obasanjo drivers”—individuals who could afford to own cars due to minimum wage increase and arrears of the minimum wage during Olusegun Obasanjo’s presidency. It isn’t Obasanjo who gave people cars or created the middle class, of course. By its nature, practice of democracy creates certain jobs and circulates opportunities that foster the middle class.

Now, Tinubu’s neoliberal policies are eradicating the middle class and plunging the poor into deeper, more excruciating poverty, reminiscent of the days of military dictatorship. I wonder how much longer this can continue. Yet we will be observing from afar, as nothing that is happening now comes as a shock. I forewarned that this would occur even before Tinubu assumed power.

Tinubu, Remi and Akpabio mocking Nigerians’ hardship, By Farooq Kperogi

Farooq Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based professor of journalism.

Related Topics:Akpabio hardship Remi Tinubu

Up Next

Does it still make sense to trust Tinubu? by Azu Ishiekwene

Don't Miss

The Logic and Magic of Integrated Marketing Communications in the Promotion of Rotary Public Image

Opinion

Farooq Kperogi: Petrol is cheaper in Atlanta than in Nigeria

Published

6 days ago

November 30, 2024

Trends Admin

Farooq Kperogi

Farooq Kperogi: Petrol is cheaper in Atlanta than in Nigeria

This week, as I refueled my car, I couldn’t help but be struck by the sharp contrast between petrol prices here in Metro Atlanta and in Nigeria.

In Metro Atlanta, fuel prices hover at $2.70 per gallon, which is equivalent to around 67 cents per liter. (Four liters make up a gallon.) Translating this into naira reveals a stark discrepancy.

At the current exchange rate of 1,647 naira to the dollar, a gallon of petrol in Atlanta equates to approximately 5,200 naira or 1,102 naira per liter. That’s astonishingly cheaper than Nigeria’s prevailing rate of around 1,300 naira per liter.

This disparity grows even more troubling in light of the wildly differential minimum wage standards between Nigeria and the United States. In the United States, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, which amounts to roughly $1,200 a month. Converted into naira, this comes to nearly 1,974,000 (one million, nine hundred and seventy four thousand) naira.

Note that almost no one earns the minimum wage. Even the lowest remunerated workers here earn above the minimum wage. For example, my 16-year-old daughter who works at an entertainment restaurant chain on weekends earns $13 an hour.

Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage in Nigeria is a piddling 70,000 naira, or around $42.55. In other words, Nigerians with a minimum wage of 70,000 per month pay a higher rate at the pump than Atlantans with a minimum wage of 1.9 million naira per month.

When one presents these figures, defenders of past and present Nigerian regimes— and clueless, stonyhearted neoliberal evangelists— often argue that it’s fruitless to compare Nigeria with the United States, the world’s largest economy.

READ ALSO:

Yet, it’s worth noting that the U.S. does not indulge in the luxuries afforded to Nigeria’s ruling political elites. For instance, while American presidents pay for their own meals, including the meals of their guests, Nigeria allocates billions for the upkeep of its first families.

Such contrasts illustrate not merely economic differences but also the broader question of public accountability and fiscal priorities.

In much of the developed world, government subsidies for fuel are deemed vital, particularly where public transport systems are not robust. In the U.S., for example, state governments sometimes provide targeted subsidies to cushion residents from high fuel prices.

The lower fuel prices in America are facilitated by state subsidies aimed at counterbalancing a lack of comprehensive public transit options, as is the case in Western Europe.

For instance, the governor of Georgia, Governor Brian Kemp, recently decided to suspend fuel taxes in Georgia following Hurricane Helene, which temporarily reduced petrol prices to around $2.50 per gallon. This is typical all over the United States.

The Center for Investigative Reporting found that the true cost of petrol in the United States is $15 per gallon, that is, $3.75 per liter. Converted into naira, that would amount to 24,648.90 naira per gallon or 6,162.23 naira per liter. But the average pump price of petrol in the United States is $3.16 per gallon.

(Gas prices can vary greatly within each state, with Texas having the lowest price of $2.669 per gallon and California the highest price at $4.68 per gallon. Note that California’s minimum wage is more than twice the federal minimum wage at $16.00 an hour.)

Americans don’t pay the actual cost of petrol because their state governments spend billions to subsidize their petrol consumption. According to the IMF, which has demonized fuel subsidies in the developing world, compelled governments to remove subsidies, and recruited scorn-worthy traitors to brainwash poor people into accepting that subsidies are bad for them, the United States spent $757 billion in fossil fuel subsidies in 2022 alone.

READ ALSO:

Globally, the IMF said, “subsidies surged to a record $7 trillion [in 2022] as governments supported consumers and businesses during the global spike in energy prices caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the economic recovery from the pandemic.” That represents 7 percent of global GDP.

U.S. state governments spent a significant sum on fuel subsidies, largely as part of measures to alleviate the impact of elevated energy costs. These measures included gas tax holidays, direct consumer grants, and discounts, aiming to shield residents from the global surge in fuel prices following supply disruptions caused by international events like the Ukraine crisis.

These interventions illustrate the fiscal lengths governments are willing to go to stabilize fuel costs for their citizens amid economic challenges.

Countries as diverse as Egypt and Indonesia have similarly leveraged fuel subsidies to maintain price stability, alleviate poverty, and stimulate their economies. These examples illuminate a fundamental principle that subsidies, when properly managed, can serve as powerful tools to bridge income disparities and invigorate economic growth.

But not in Nigeria. Nigerians face relentless economic strain despite residing in an oil-producing nation. It’s a country where, somehow, people have been persuaded by a sophisticated mob of well-compensated spin doctors that exorbitant fuel prices are an unavoidable reality to which they must resign themselves.

For a resource-rich nation, which is also among the poorest globally, this is a bitter, disconcerting irony.

Those who denounce subsidies as inefficacious or detrimental often betray a limited understanding of their societal role, or worse, they may advocate for policies that consolidate wealth at the top.

In societies grappling with inequality, subsidies can mean the difference between bare survival and a modest but dignified life for millions.

To disparage such measures, particularly in a nation with profound economic inequalities, is to endorse a vision of society that is untenably divided—and to invite criticism that should rightly be directed not only toward them but, if you’ll pardon the expression, toward the legacy of those who espouse such values.

It is a grave irony, and a deeply unjust one, that the people of Nigeria — a nation abundantly blessed with oil wealth — must endure petrol prices that surpass those of Atlanta, a city in one of the world’s richest nations. This, while the average Nigerian subsists on a minimum wage of approximately $43 a month, a pittance that could scarcely fill a tank, let alone sustain a family.

The removal of petrol subsidies is not merely an economic policy; it is a sentence handed down to the already struggling, forcing countless Nigerians to choose between transportation, sustenance, and survival. The ripple effects are evident in unchecked inflation spirals, faltering businesses, and tragic loss of lives in the wake of avoidable hardship.

To govern is to protect, to prioritize the well-being of the many over the convenience of the few. To abandon subsidies under the guise of fiscal responsibility while the vulnerable teeter on the edge of despair is neither responsible nor just. It is, instead, an abdication of moral duty.

President Tinubu should restore the subsidies minus the corruption, not as a concession, but as an obligation to the people he is obligated to serve. To do so is not to admit defeat but to affirm humanity, to wield governance as a tool of compassion rather than austerity.

After all, what use is a nation’s wealth if it is not deployed in the service of its citizens? Let Nigeria’s oil be a blessing once more, not a bitter reminder of inequalities entrenched and lives disregarded.

Farooq Kperogi : Petrol is cheaper in Atlanta than in Nigeria

Farooq Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism.

Opinion

What NNPCL staff revealed about reported revival of PH Refinery – Farooq Kperogi

Published

7 days ago

November 29, 2024

Trends Admin

Farooq Kperogi

What NNPCL staff revealed about reported revival of PH Refinery – Farooq Kperogi

Renowned Nigerian columnist and US-based professor, Farooq Kperogi, has linked the reported revival of the Port Harcourt Refinery and the ill-fated launch of Nigerian Air.

In a social media post on Thursday, Kperogi shared his findings after attempting to fact-check claims that the refinery had resumed operations and was producing petrol.

Seeking clarity, Kperogi said he reached out to a friend with expertise in the oil industry, who in turn consulted a staff member of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL).

“The Port Harcourt Refinery guy responded with a single, devastatingly eloquent gesture: he sent him a picture of Nigerian Air,” Kperogi wrote, leaving readers to interpret the cryptic reply.

READ ALSO:

The comparison to Nigerian Air resonates with the controversy surrounding its much-celebrated launch, which was later revealed to be a façade as the aircraft returned to Ethiopian Airlines.

Reflecting on the situation, Kperogi remarked, “Reader, I think we both know the translation: dreams may take flight, but some never leave the runway.”

He concluded on a somber note, suggesting that continued optimism about Nigeria’s progress may require an extraordinary tolerance for disappointment: “At this rate, to not give up on Nigeria is to be a masochist with a superabundant love for perpetual emotional self-flagellation.”

The post has sparked a wave of reactions, with many questioning the authenticity of the refinery’s reported revival.

What NNPCL staff revealed about reported revival of PH Refinery – Farooq Kperogi

Opinion

Farooq Kperogi: One president, many spokesmen, and mixed messages amid misery

Published

2 weeks ago

November 23, 2024

Trends Admin

Farooq Kperogi

Farooq Kperogi: One president, many spokesmen, and mixed messages amid misery

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s unparalleled appointment of three official, cabinet-level spokesmen—in addition to 9 other senior media aides— symptomizes an insidious governmental malaise. It shows a government that is obsessed with public relations at the expense of public welfare, propaganda at the expense of progress, and mind management at the expense of meaningful management.

On November 14, Daniel Bwala, the former mouthpiece for PDP’s Atiku Abubakar during the last presidential campaign, was inaugurated as Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Media and Public Communication. This move added him to a line-up that already included Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, who had been informally recognized as the senior spokesperson after Ajuri Ngelale’s dramatic exit, and Sunday Dare, Special Adviser to the President on Public Communication and National Orientation.

Yet, on his very first day, October 18, Bwala brazenly declared himself “the spokesman for the president” to State House correspondents, proclaiming that he was the direct successor to Ngelale. His Twitter declaration further cemented his self-anointment: “Resumed officially as the Special Adviser, Media and Public Communications/Spokesperson (State House).”

Since Onanuga had effectively functioned as the spokesman for the president after Ngelale was forced out of the Presidential Villa, it seemed like Tinubu had no confidence in Onanuga and chose to upstage him by bringing in Bwala.

That puzzled me. I wondered what reputational, symbolic, or political capital Bwala had to earn such an edge. Here’s a man who is deeply resented by Tinubu supporters for his erstwhile caustic attacks on the president and APC during the last election, who is reviled by the opposition for his perceived treachery and mercenariness, and who is disdained by people who couldn’t care less about both Tinubu and the opposition. Such a person is more of a reputational liability than an asset for persuasion.

So it came as no surprise when I read a swift news release from Bayo Onanuga disclaiming Bwala’s self-description as “the spokesperson” for the president. TheCable of November 19 reported that Tinubu was “furious on learning of Bwala’s manoeuvre and immediately instructed Onanuga to issue a clarification.”

READ ALSO:

The “clarification” says Bwala is now Special Adviser Policy Communication and Sunday Dare is now Special Adviser, Media and Public Communications. “These appointments, along with the existing role of Special Adviser, Information and Strategy, underscore that there is no single individual spokesperson for the Presidency. Instead, all the three Special Advisers will collectively serve as spokespersons for the government,” the statement said.

Tinubu has by far the largest media team in Nigeria’s history—just like he has the largest cabinet in Nigeria’s history. Yet his government has inflicted the most hardship on Nigeria and demands the greatest sacrifice from Nigerians whom he has already stripped of basic welfare and dignity.

Despite this elaborate roster of media professionals, Tinubu’s government stands as a paradox: the most expansive communication team in Nigerian history, yet the most tone-deaf administration in addressing the agonies of ordinary Nigerians. Like his record-breaking cabinet size, his communication machinery seems less about functionality and more about optics—a poorly orchestrated façade against the backdrop of deepening national suffering.

Historically, Nigerian presidents have managed with far leaner communication teams. President Olusegun Obasanjo had a relatively modest media and communications team. His first spokesperson was Doyin Okupe, who was designated as Special Assistant on Media and Publicity from 1999 to 2000.

He was succeeded by Tunji Oseni whose designation was changed to Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity and served in that role from 2000 to 2003. He was replaced by Remi Oyo from 2003 until 2007.

Apart from these official spokespeople, Obasanjo appointed Dr. Stanley Macebuh as Senior Special Assistant on Public Communications. After firing him, he replaced him with Emmanuel Arinze.

He also appointed Femi Fani-Kayode as Special Assistant on Public Affairs and replaced him with Uba Sani after elevating him to a minister. In other words, Obasanjo never had more than three media/communications people at any one time, and he always had just one official spokesperson.

Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s had Olusegun Adeniyi as his one and only media person/spokesperson. He is also on record as the first president to elevate the position to a cabinet-level position by redesignating as a “Special Adviser” position.

READ ALSO:

Goodluck Jonathan sustained this tradition. When Ima Niboro was his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity from 2010 to 2011, he had no other media/communications person. And when Reuben Abati took over from Niboro from 2011 to 2015, he was the only spokesperson and media/communications person for the president.

The slide into a propagandocracy began with Muhammadu Buhari, who doubled down on PR appointments. While Femi Adesina served as his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu operated as Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity. Buhari’s entourage also included social media mavens, photographers, and digital content creators—an unprecedented escalation in spin management.

There was Tolu Ogunlesi (Special Assistant, Digital & New Media); Lauretta Onochie (Personal Assistant, Social Media); Bashir Ahmad (Personal Assistant, New media); Sha’aban Sharada (Personal Assistant, Broadcast Media); Naziru Muhammed (Personal Assistant, TV Documentary); Sunday Aghaeze (Personal Assistant, Photography); and Bayo Omoboriowo (Personal Assistant/ President’s Photographer).

But Tinubu has taken this expansion to absurd heights. Apart from three cabinet-level official spokespersons, you also have Tunde Rahman (Senior Special Assistant to the President — Media); Abdulaziz Abdulaziz (Senior Special Assistant to the President — Print Media); O’tega Ogra (Senior Special Assistant (Digital/New Media); Tope Ajayi – Senior Special Assistant (Media & Public Affairs); Segun Dada (Special Assistant — Social Media); Nosa Asemota – Special Assistant (Visual Communication); Mr Fredrick Nwabufo (Senior Special Assistant to the President — Public Engagement); Mrs Linda Nwabuwa Akhigbe (Senior Special Assistant to the President — Strategic Communications); and Mr Aliyu Audu (Special Assistant to the President — Public Affairs).

Such bloated extravagance sends a disconcerting message about the administration’s priorities during a time of profound economic hardship.

In a March 4, 2017 column titled “Propagandocracy and the Buhari Media Center,” I pointed out that the size of a government’s propaganda apparatus is often inversely proportional to its confidence in its own legitimacy. Tinubu’s indulgence in this over-the-top PR operation signals two troubling realities: insecurity and incoherence.

The insecurity stems from an acute awareness of its own fragility—an administration desperate to control the narrative because it knows it has failed to deliver on substantive governance. The incoherence arises from the cacophony of voices in this unwieldy structure, breeding contradictions, turf wars, and conflicting messages. How can a government unable to synchronize its internal communication hope to connect with its citizens?

At its core, Tinubu’s sprawling PR machine is emblematic of an administration focused on perception management rather than problem-solving. This gluttonous obsession with propaganda, in the midst of soaring inflation, subsidy removals, and austerity measures, is an affront to struggling Nigerians.

Leadership demands more than just the appearance of competence; it demands action. Until Tinubu shifts his focus from multiplying spokespersons to delivering substantive governance, his legacy risks being that of a leader who built a fortress of spin while the people languished outside its gates.