A recent report by the National Bureau of Statistics says that Nigeria lost about $1.3billion during the nationwide strike that got many people on the streets in protest against an increment in the price of fuel. The strike, which began in January 9, shut down most business operations across the nation and forced many Nigerians to stay at home while thousands of protesters hit the streets. It was the most daring of all strikes in the history of civil unrest in Nigeria. Even in the days of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who is considered to have been even more stubborn than President Goodluck Jonathan, a national strike never took that dimension. Hoodlums and failed politicians hijacked the protest from organized labour. In so many parts of the country, Nigerians were robed and attacked. There were reports of loss of lives and destruction of property all over the country. Businesses were totally shut down. Those who were afraid to hit the streets stayed at home while economic activities completely came to a halt.
In the business environment, the wholesale and retail sector counted the most losses with about 42 percent of total losses during the strike action. Nigeria lost about 87billion naira in that sector alone, according to reports, while the petroleum sector was next with losses of 28.7billion naira. Although, the price of fuel per liter has since been reduced from 141 naira per little to 97 naira, inflation has refused to come down, and transportation fare remaines high. According to Chief Bayode Ogunmupe, economist and Social Commentator, fuel subsidy is a waste hence it is advisable that it be removed. He agrees that this would lead to temporary hike in the pump price of petroleum products. But on the long run Ogundipe opined that the policy would encourage a free market economy, which would motivate investors to build refineries in Nigeria with many gains. Enumerating the long term gain of subsidy removal ,economist said they include : a fall in the price of petroleum products in the long run, employment opportunities, eradication of fuel importation and corruption, technology transfer, and stability of the naira, strong economic growth and many other gains.
Although, the Central Bank Governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, the Federal Minister of Finance, Dr. Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo–Iweala, Federal Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Deziani Allison-Madueke, among others, had passionately explained and enumerated the various benefits of the fuel subsidy removal to the national economy in a widely televised debate, it did not stop Nigerians from protesting the policy when it was implemented. The administration of President Goodluck Jonathan cannot be accused of not carrying Nigerians along in the implementation of the policy. In the words, of former President of Nigerian Labour Congress, and Governor of Edo state, Adams Oshiomole, the present administration should be commended because unlike the administration of former President Olusegun Obsanjo, the Jonathan administration took time to explain the policy to Nigerians. The obvious question is this: What really went wrong? The general opinion even from informed quarters, converges at the fact that the timing was wrong . And it is hard to fault those who object to the timing because simple logical thinking shows that a festive period when many Nigerians had traveled to remote villages for the Christmas and New Year celebrations was indeed a bad time to increase pump price which subsidy removal translated to, as many could not return to base because of the sudden hike in fuel prices which made transportation back unimaginably high. The government clearly did not give Nigerians time to prepare for the hike.
Furthermore, many opined that the government should have put in place adequate palliatives to ensure that ordinary Nigerians do not suffer because of high cost of fuel which everyone agree would have a multiplier effects on every aspects of the economy and caused inflation. This is why some Nigerians, including former Head of State, Yakubu Gowon, suggested that the removal of fuel subsidy should be gradual. Some economic experts said the fuel subsidy removal should have been done in phases. In a shere emotive reaction Nigerians lamented that a 100 percent increase in fuel price in January was a bad New Year gift from a president, in a country where majority of the 160 million people live on less than two dollars a day, and where Nigerians are weary of years of blatant corruption under different regimes. Many view the subsidy as their only benefit of the nation’s oil wealth. In the words of Segun Alabi, a Lagos business man, ‘‘When one realizes that many countries had taken a similar policy measure to their economic advantage, one will endorse the removal; on the other hand if we look at the immediate short term experience of the average Nigerian, and the huge corruption in our governmental institutions, one will be forced to oppose it,’’ According to him, Nigerians are not opposed to the removal of subsidy they are afraid that the money would be stolen. The Federal Government should have extended the period of awareness to enable all stakeholders lend their voices to the policy. He also advocated a gradual removal of the oil subsidy with plenty of palliatives. According to him, 1500 buses provided by the federal government for mass transit is grossly inadequate judging from the huge population of Nigerians who depend on fuel for various commercial activities including power generation since Nigerians still suffer an epileptic electricity supply.