Hardship: What I Would Have Done Differently – Atiku

• Atiku Abubakar criticized Tinubu’s economic reforms as “trial-and-error policies,” advocating for a gradual approach to avoid overwhelming the economy
• He proposed a $10 billion Economic Stimulus Fund to support MSMEs, alongside a robust social protection program for vulnerable Nigerians

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has criticized the current administration’s economic reforms, describing them as “trial-and-error policies” that are causing hardship across Nigeria.

In a recent statement, Atiku detailed how he would have approached these issues differently if he were in office, proposing a more gradual and strategic reform plan.

Atiku argued that implementing simultaneous reforms on fuel subsidies, exchange rates, and electricity tariffs has overwhelmed the economy.

Instead, he would have prioritized a phased approach, similar to Malaysia and Indonesia, to ease the transition and avoid economic shock.

He emphasized that his administration would have adopted a well-planned, consultative approach to reforms, backed by diagnostic assessments, stakeholder consultations, and targeted strategies, all outlined in his policy document, My Covenant With Nigerians.

He said: “I’ve been inundated with inquiries of what I would have done differently if I were at the helm of affairs of our country. I am not the president, Tinubu is. The focus should be on him and not on me or any other. I believe that such inquiries distract from the critical questions of what President Bola Tinubu needs to do to save Nigerians from the excruciating pains arising from his trial-and-error economic policies.

“We would have planned better and more robustly: My journey of reforms would have benefited from more adequate preparations; more sufficient diagnostic assessment of the country’s conditions; more consultations with key stakeholders; and better ideas for the final destination.

“We would have been guided by my robust reform agenda as encapsulated in ‘My Covenant With Nigerians’, my policy document that sought to, among others, protect our fragile economy against much deeper crisis by preventing business collapse; our document had spelt out policies that were consistent and coherent.”

Atiku further said, “Unleashing reforms to determine an appropriate exchange rate, cost-reflective electricity tariff, and PMS price at the same time is certainly an overkill. Add CBN’s bullish money-tightening spree.

As importers of PMS and other petroleum products, removing subsidy on these products without a stable exchange rate would be counterproductive.

“We would have been more strategic in our response to reform fallout. We would not overestimate the reform measures’ efficacy or underestimate the reforms’ potential costs. I would recognise that reforms could sometimes fail. I would not underestimate the numerous delivery challenges, including the weaknesses of our institutions, and would work assiduously to correct the same. I would, as a responsible leader, pause, reflect, and where necessary, review implementation.

“I would have led by example. Any fiscal reform to improve liquidity and the management of our fiscal resources must first eliminate revenue leakages arising from governance, including the cost of running the government and the government procurement process. I (and my team members) would not have lived in luxury while the citizens wallow in misery.”

The former Vice President who said his reforms would wear a human face, added, “We would have been more strategic in the design and implementation of reform fallout mitigating measures. I would not run a ‘palliative economy’ yet, we would have robust social protection programme that will offer genuine support to the poor and vulnerable and provide immediate comfort and security to enable them to navigate the stormy seas.”

Speaking on specific measures, the PDP Chieftain said, “We would have launched an Economic Stimulus Fund (ESF), with an initial investment capacity of approximately US$10 billion to support MSMEs across all economic sectors.

“Alongside the ESF, we would have launched a uniquely designed skills-to-job programme that targets all categories of youth, including graduates, early school leavers as well as the massive numbers of uneducated youth who are currently not in education, employment, or training.

“I have always advocated for the removal of subsidy on PMS because its administration has been mildly put, opaque with so much scope for arbitrariness and corruption. Mind boggling rent profit from oil subsidy accrued to the cabals in public institutions and the private sector. I would have prioritized the following:

“First, tackling corruption. Fighting corruption should have commenced with the repositioning of the NNPCL, which is a huge beneficiary of the status quo. Its commitment to reform and capacity to implement and enforce reforms is suspect. The subsidy regime has provided an avenue for rent seeking, and reforms will threaten the NNPCL and its guardians.

“Second, paying particular attention to Nigeria’s poor refining infrastructure. We are by far the most inefficient OPEC member country in terms of both the percentage of installed refining capacity that works and the percentage of crude refined.

We would’ve commenced the privatization of all state-owned refineries and ensure that Nigeria starts to refine at least 50% of its current crude oil output. Nigeria should aspire to export 50% of that capacity to ECOWAS member states.

“Third, adopt a gradualist approach in the implementation of the subsidy reforms. Subsidies would not have been removed suddenly and completely. It is instructive that when I was Vice President, we adopted a gradualist approach and had completed phases 1 and 2 of the reform before our tenure ended.

The incoming administration in 2007 abandoned the reforms, unfortunately. The majority of the countries that review or rationalize subsidy payments adopt a gradualist approach by phasing price increases or shifting from universal to targeted approach (Malaysia, 2022 and Indonesia, 2022 -2023).

“In many EU economies, complete withdrawal often takes 5 years to effect. The gradualist approach allows for adjustments, adaptation and minimizes disruptions and vulnerability.”