Former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar at the weekend gave a hint of what he would.have done differently in managing the economy if he was elected the president in 2023.
Atiku was the 2023 presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party.
He noted that effective reforms should be implemented in the nation’s oil and economic sectors, adding that he supports both the removal of the fuel subsidy and the floating of the naira.
However, the PDP chieftain lamented that while he is not the president, his suggestions are “in the interest of the Nigerian people,” holding Tinubu responsible for the “excruciating pain” suffered by citizens due to what he described as “trial-and-error economic policies.”
Since the removal of the fuel subsidy and the unification of the foreign exchange, Nigerians have continued to feel the impact of various economic reforms under the Tinubu administration. This has led to increased prices for food, transport, fuel, and other essentials.
In a tweet titled “What We Would Have Done Differently,” Atiku, a former Vice President who served alongside former President Olusegun Obasanjo from 1999 to 2007, outlined his recommendations for addressing issues such as insecurity and easing the effects of subsidy removal on the masses.
Atiku noted that his reform agenda is detailed in his policy document, My Covenant with Nigerians, which advocates for “comprehensive diagnostic assessments of the country’s situation, greater consultation with stakeholders, and clear plans for achieving desired outcomes.”
The tweet read, “We would have planned better and more robustly: My reform journey would have benefited from more thorough preparations, deeper diagnostic assessments of Nigeria’s conditions, increased consultation with key stakeholders, and well-defined ideas for the final destination. We would have relied on my comprehensive reform agenda as set out in My Covenant with Nigerians, a policy document that aimed to protect our fragile economy by preventing business collapses. Our document outlined policies that were consistent and coherent.
“We would have sequenced our reforms to achieve fiscal and monetary alignment.
“Introducing reforms to set an appropriate exchange rate, cost-reflective electricity tariffs, and PMS prices all at once is certainly excessive. Additionally, the Central Bank’s aggressive tightening of the money supply complicates matters. As importers of PMS and other petroleum products, removing subsidies on these products without a stable exchange rate would be counterproductive.
“We would have been more strategic in addressing reform challenges. I would have recognised the risks of reform failure and the challenges posed by weak institutions, and I would have worked tirelessly to address them. As a responsible leader, I would pause, reflect, and, if necessary, adjust implementation.
“I would have led by example. Any fiscal reform to improve resource management must first eliminate revenue leakages due to governance costs, including government expenses and procurement processes. Neither I nor my team would live in luxury while citizens suffer. We would have communicated more effectively with the people —courteously, tactfully, and diplomatically. Transparent communication is essential for public trust, which is vital to helping the public understand government actions.”
On fuel subsidy removal, Atiku confirmed his support for it, citing its administration as “opaque and rife with opportunities for corruption.” He highlighted the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) as a major beneficiary of the status quo, describing the subsidy regime as a breeding ground for rent-seeking.
Atiku also criticised Nigeria’s “poor refining infrastructure,” lamenting that the country is “the least efficient OPEC member in terms of refining capacity utilisation and the percentage of crude refined.”
He advocated for the gradual privatisation of state-owned refineries, aspiring for Nigeria to refine at least 50% of its current crude output and export half of this capacity to ECOWAS countries.
He suggested a gradual approach to subsidy removal rather than the sudden elimination seen under Tinubu.
“A phased approach would allow for adjustments, adaptation, and minimal disruption. When I was Vice President, we adopted a phased strategy and completed phases one and two of subsidy reform before our tenure ended. Unfortunately, the incoming administration in 2007 abandoned the reforms.”
He noted that most countries adopting subsidy reforms, including Malaysia and Indonesia, take a phased approach, often taking up to five years to fully withdraw subsidies.
On forex reforms, Atiku commented, “A fixed exchange rate system was unsuitable, as it contradicts our goal of an open, private sector-driven economy. However, given Nigeria’s economic conditions, a fully floating exchange rate system would be too extreme. We would have encouraged the Central Bank to manage a gradualist approach to FX management, favouring a managed float.”
