Revisiting or reinstating petrol subsidy in any form would have no meaningful positive impact on the economy, finance and economic experts said yesterday.
They were unanimous in cautioning against any thought of reintroducing subsidy payment, which they warned would destabilise the economy and reserve the steady consolidation being experienced.
Experts described any thought of returning subsidy as a policy reversal that is unviable, unsustainable, sentimental, counter-productive and injurious to the economic growth and national development.
One-time Vice President Atiku Abubakar promised that his administration, if elected, would reinstate subsidy payment.
Incumbent President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had on May 29, 2023, announced the stoppage of payment of subsidy on petrol, promising to re-channel funds hitherto used by the Federal Government to subsidize importers.
Those who bared their minds included Chief Executive Officer, Economic Associates, Dr. Ayo Teriba; Managing Director, Arthur Steven Asset Management, Mr. Olatunde Amolegbe; Managing Director, HighCap Securities, Mr. David Adonri; former Registrar, Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria (CIBN), Dr. Uju Ogubunka, Chief Economist at ARKK Economics and Data Limited, Dr. Samson Galadima Simon, Managing Director, Ambosit Capital Managers, Dr. Wahab Balogun and Dr. Yusha’u Aliyu of the Institute of Professional Economists and Policy Management among others.
They argued that savings from subsidy removal and other incremental incomes from government reforms should be channeled into critical infrastructural development, social welfares and institutional support systems for the needy and the vulnerable citizens.
Teriba, who said that the proposal to reverse subsidy removal was more political than economic, noted that politicians always appeal to their bases for electoral purposes by making populist statements that they will find difficult to implement.
According to him, reinstating subsidy on petrol will discourage investment and kill businesses in the oil and gas sector.
He noted that Dangote Refinery would not be able to thrive as its doing were subsidies on petroleum products not removed.
Teriba said that whatever the government policy is, it must ensure that prices are cost reflective to attract domestic and foreign investment.
He said the question should not be whether subsidy should be given or not, because there will always be subsidy but doing it the right way.
‘The reality is that subsidy will always be there. This government subsidizes CNG buses conversion, electric vehicles and education through soft loans. What I don’t subscribe to is price subsidy. I would prefer giving out coupons to the most vulnerable to enable them buy things that they need most,’ Teriba said.
Amolegbe, a senior investment banker and former president of Chartered Institute of Stockbrokers (CIS), echoed the same sentiment noting that the ship has already sailed on the subsidy issue and it is very unlikely to return for many reasons.
He said: ‘Firstly, our finances as a country cannot accommodate it. Secondly, we now have local refining capacity so who will you be subsidising, a private enterprise? Thirdly, it will cause untold damage to the stable macroeconomic environment we’ve sacrificed to attain in the last few years.
‘Finally, all it will do is take us back to an era where funds that are supposed to be used to build much-needed infrastructure will end up being spent on wasteful subsidies.’
Adonri said reinstatement of petrol subsidy is not a viable and sustainable option.
He said: ‘The economy has already adjusted to the new energy price level because of its flexibility. Reversal of the reform will connote policy inconsistency which is very injurious to economic stability.
‘It will be ironic for a developing economy to subsidize consumption when domestic production of goods is financially hampered. Instead of consumption subsidy, Nigeria needs production subsidy for domestic creation of wealth and generation of direly needed productive employment.
‘Should the reform policy be rolled back for political expediency, it will stifle the allocative efficiency of resources in the financial and energy sectors of the economy.
‘Thinking about reinstatement of petrol subsidy ought to be treated as a monumental economic sabotage. The reform should continue with unrelenting intensity.’
Balogun said a permanent return to the old subsidy would be a poor economic choice because Nigeria had already experienced the enormous cost of keeping petrol prices below their economic value.
He noted that the combined cost of the former petrol subsidy and foreign-exchange subsidy was estimated at about five per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) before the reforms, thus the scale of resources that had previously been absorbed by the subsidy system and could have been deployed to other national priorities.
‘The government does not have free money,’ Balogun said, explaining that every naira spent subsidising petrol represents money that cannot be spent elsewhere unless government raises additional revenue, cuts other expenditure or borrows.
The concern, according to him, becomes more serious because the government is already facing a high debt-servicing burden.
Balogun said borrowing money at high interest rates simply to keep petrol prices artificially low would offer short-term relief but could leave the country with a much larger financial burden in the future.
He, however, underlined the need to ensure the savings from subsidy removals translate into tangible improvements in ordinary people’s lives.
According to him, the removal of petrol subsidy created a major shock that spread far beyond filling stations as higher petrol prices increased transportation costs and affected the movement of food, agricultural production, manufacturing and other economic activities.
‘A reform cannot be judged only by whether it improves government finances. It must ultimately improve people’s lives,’ Balogun said.
Galadima recalled that many economists, as well as international financial institutions, had supported subsidy removal because government was effectively paying a large part of the cost of petrol consumed by Nigerians.
He noted that the argument for removing the subsidy was that the money could instead be used to finance infrastructure, hospitals, schools, roads and other development needs.
He rejected a complete return to the former subsidy system, urging the government to direct part of the gains from subsidy removal towards the poorest Nigerians.
‘What is fair is to channel the gains to the most vulnerable,’ Galadima said.
He suggested that government should develop a credible and transparent social protection system that identifies the poorest households and provides assistance to them.
Galadima said such support should not become another avenue for political patronage or the distribution of money to favoured individuals.
According to him, government should have a reliable register of vulnerable Nigerians and gradually extend assistance to those at the bottom of the income ladder.
He pointed out that government should not expect market reforms alone to distribute economic gains to ordinary citizens.
Galadima pointed to improvements in foreign exchange reserves, the capital market and other macroeconomic indicators, saying that although such developments could be beneficial to the economy, they were difficult for an average Nigerian to connect with his or her daily experience.
‘What people need to see is food becoming more affordable and infrastructure improving,’ Galadima said.
He cited visible improvements such as better roads and public infrastructure as examples of government actions that citizens could directly associate with economic reforms.
Aliyu argued that the Petroleum Industry Act of 2021 had already provided the legal framework for ending the subsidy regime, meaning that any attempt to bring back the former system would involve significant legal and political considerations.
‘Before subsidy is reintroduced, the PIA must be repealed,’ Aliyu said, arguing that the issue could not simply be settled through a political announcement.
According to him, any attempt to restore subsidy would require consideration by the National Assembly as well as a review of the legal framework governing the petroleum sector.
Aliyu also expressed concern about the exchange-rate regime and the ability of Nigeria’s state-owned refineries and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) to operate efficiently.
He said these issues were important because the cost of petrol in Nigeria is closely connected to crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining capacity and the efficiency of the petroleum supply chain.
Ogubunka faulted former Vice President Atiku Abubakar for promising to return subsidy payment on petrol.
‘At his level, he does not know whatever the impact of subsidy removal or return is. When we talk of the impact of subsidy removal on the masses, he may not be the right person to judge,’ Ogubunka said.
He pointed out that economic statistics point to improvement on economic growth in post-subsidy era, adding that steps should now be taken to ensure that positive impact of the subsidy removal gets to the ordinary people.
He said that discussions on best ways to manage and support the masses should be held between the people and government.