The controversy over the removal of oil subsidy by the Federal Government has stirred a new controversy, Kunle Oderemi writes on some of the undercurrents.

A popular Bulgarian aphorism goes thus, “You are permitted in time of great danger to walk with the devil until you have crossed the bridge.” An Arabian proverb, on the other hand, states: “The cure for bad times is patience.” Only those with unimpeded access to President Goodluck Jonathan can tell us which of the two wise sayings captures his current mood following the Babel of noise trailing the removal of oil subsidy by his administration.

The New Year action by the authorities has sparked off a seemingly unprecedented fury that cuts across the broad strata of the society. The action, which the government explained was meant to complete the deregulation of the downstream sector of the oil industry, has pitched the government against many people and groups, including the opposition parties. The latter, particularly, have taken refuge under the words of Bruce Barton that, “In good times, people want to advertise; in bad times, they have to.”

Since last Sunday, the spasm of criticisms from the opposition has been hinged on the timing of the removal, the necessity of the action, the need to follow what they called due process and the precarious security situation in the country, which according to them, has heightened political tension and constituted a major threat to political stability.

However, the most fundamental issue in the torrents of flaks is the insinuation that the authorities was only pandering to the whims and caprices of the Brent Woods institutions.

In a simple term, the opposition parties saw a hand of Esau and Voice of Jacob in the implementation of the whole policy that has left seamless ripple across the country.

This, they reasoned, ran against the grains of what Nigerians are craving for at this time. Consequently, the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) believed that by pandering to such external forces, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was only leaning towards the dictates of the World Bank and others. The party was of the view that the government had undermined the status of the legislature in a crucial matter like the contentious issue of oil subsidy. “It is our considered view that this decided action of the Federal Government is not only traitorous, but very callous desire to hurt the Nigerian people while pandering to imperialistic intervention of foreign interest,” CPC alleged.

Similar insinuations came from the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), which like the CPC, contended that the government’s action amounted to a “potent mine” that could push the country to the precipice in the New Year.” It was the position of ACN that against the background of the burgeoning ranks of jobless youths, the government action negated the saying that “when you are in a hole you stop digging.”  The Second Republic governor of Kaduna State, Alhaji Balarabe Musa equally drew a parallel between the official action and imperialism with possible far-reaching socio-economic and political implications.

“The imperialist-guided unilateral, vulgar and mindless removal of oil subsidy by the president even if the subsidy existed before, has opened the floodgate of anarchy,” Balarabe observed.

The strands of politics in the bedlam occasioned by the implementation was further stretched by the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), which said the action was incongruous  and antithetical with what the president had termed his transformation agenda having secured the legitimacy to rule at the poll. This theory was further expanded by CPC which relied on Section 14 (2b) of the 1999 Constitution that stats: “The security and welfare of the people should be the primary purpose of government.”

The view of former military president, General Ibrahim Babangida, on the issue and the smouldering crisis of confidence between the people and government, is also instructive.

His regime had tinkered with the subsidy during his eight-year rule. He believed that the government should have seen the oil subsidy saga from the prism of economics rather than politics.

Many individuals, including lawmakers have picked up the gauntlet and promised not to look back until the battle is won ostensibly by the Nigerian people. For example, Senator Femi Lanlehin said the authorities failed to recognize the “frayed nerves of ordinary Nigerians who are at the moment being pummeled from all sides by negative economic, security and socio-political challenges.”

Both Lagos lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana and a former member of the House of Representatives, Dino Melaye, have declared that the battle line had been drawing with a promise to team up with the organized labour and other interest groups to sustain the tempo of opposition to the policy. In a comic tone, Melaye said, “When the president promised fresh air, we did not know this is the type fresh air we are going to breathe in.”

However, majority of the state governors have maintained a near absolute silence on the controversial removal of the subsidy. Even a couple of them that have unwillingly commented on it tried to play the ostrich by neither vehemently condemning it nor praising the authority. After all, most of them had claimed that there was no way they could pay the new national minimum wage without more money coming to them from the centre. Thus, many have interpreted it to mean that most of them, peradventure, had the foreknowledge of the date for the implementation of the policy.

There is also the feeling of ambivalence from certain quarters in the National Assembly on the matter, as only a few members have openly expressed reservations on the policy.

The leadership of the legislature appears to be treading the part of dialogue and further consultation instead of the aggressive approach labour and other organisations have adopted to engage the government on the policy. But with PDP controlling majority in the legislature, Nigerians can only wait to see how the politics of the oil subsidy removal plays out in the coming days.