Subsidy removal not wrong, Tinubu’s approach was — Peter Obi
….Peter Obi has shallow knowledge of economy, governance – Presidency
Former presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi, has said there is nothing wrong with the removal of fuel subsidy, but President Bola Tinubu’s approach to implementing it was flawed.
Speaking in an interview with Arise Television on Monday, Obi maintained that while he supports subsidy removal in principle, it should have been done in a planned and structured manner to avoid the economic hardship currently affecting Nigerians.
Obi said, “I’ve consistently maintained that I would have removed the fuel subsidy. If you go to my manifesto, it’s there, steps I would have taken to do it in an organised manner.”
He acknowledged that the subsidy regime was riddled with corruption and needed to be ended, but stressed that Tinubu’s abrupt removal lacked proper implementation strategies.
“There is nothing wrong in the removal of subsidy; what is wrong is the haphazard way in which it was announced and implemented,” he said.
“Everybody knows that the subsidy regime was that of criminality.
“As outlined in my manifesto, I would have implemented subsidy removal in a structured and organised manner.”
Obi further criticised the Tinubu administration for not channeling the savings from subsidy removal into vital sectors that would benefit the masses.
“However, the savings from subsidy removal from the Tinubu administration are not being reflected in critical areas of human development, such as education, health, and poverty alleviation,” he added.
Recall that President Tinubu had announced the end of the fuel subsidy regime during his inauguration in May 2023, drawing both support and widespread criticism over the timing and impact of the decision.
Meanwhile , The Presidency on Monday took a swipe at the 2023 Presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Mr. Peter Obi over his comments on how President Bola Tinubu has handled resources from the removal of fuel subsidy.
The Presidency accused the former governor of Anambra state of having a shallow knowledge of economics and governance.
The presidency attack was as a result of the comments made by Mr. Obi when he appeared on Arise News programme where he called on the government to account for the billions of money generated from the subsidy removal.
Special Adviser to the President on Policy and Communication, Daniel Bwala in his X handle (formerly Twitter), accused Obi of being interested in grabbing power but lacked the knowledge of economics and governance.
In his X handle @BwalaDaniel, he said: “Is anybody watching @PeterObi on Arise TV? He agreed with our policy of removal of subsidy and unifications of the foreign exchange; he claimed he would have done it better than us in an “organized manner”
“He was asked what is the “organized manner” He played with words yet to arrive at agreeing with us.
“Anybody with rational mind knows these guys are just looking to grab power; but they don’t have any alternative agenda.
“He seem to have Very shallow knowledge of economics and governance
“Remember this is even an interview anchored by a member of his Obidient movement ohhh that’s why you don’t hear “I put it to you” no barking like a Rottweiler; Yet “if it didn’t Dey it didn’t Dey.”
Recall that Obi had challenged Tinubu when he featured as a guest on Arise News, to account for how his administration expended the billions of revenue reportedly saved from the removal of fuel subsidy.
Obi had admitted that nothing was wrong with the removal of the controversial petroleum subsidy and floating of the naira, but said that he would have done the same if he were to be elected president.
He, however, argued that he would have implemented the policies gradually and in a more ‘organised’ way than the ‘haphazard’ way the Federal Government went about it.
Obi said, “I have consistently maintained that I would have removed the fuel subsidy.
“If you go to my manifesto, it is there and the steps I would have taken in an organised manner.
“There is nothing wrong with the removal of the fuel subsidy.
“What is wrong is the haphazard way in which it was announced and implemented.
“Since we were told that we removed it because we don’t want to borrow and that the funds will allow for investments in critical infrastructure.
“Billions saved. Where is it? Where is it invested in critical areas of development?”
