Wike says Tinubu cannot dictate how states and local governments spend increased revenue from fuel subsidy removal, urging them to account for the funds.
Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, has defended the Federal Government’s decision to remove the fuel subsidy, saying President Bola Ahmed Tinubu cannot determine how state and local governments spend the additional revenue they receive from the policy.
Wike made the statement on Wednesday during a media parley in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, while reacting to comments by former Anambra State governor and presidential candidate, Peter Obi, on the financial benefits arising from the removal of the subsidy.
The former Rivers State governor argued that the focus should no longer be limited to the Federal Government’s decision to end the subsidy regime, but should extend to how the additional funds received by state and local governments are being managed.
He maintained that the various tiers of government should be held responsible for the way they utilise the resources allocated to them.
According to Wike, once the revenue accruing from the removal of the subsidy is shared among the federal, state and local governments, the President does not have the authority to dictate the specific areas where states or local councils must spend their allocations.
He explained that each tier of government operates within its own constitutional responsibilities and financial framework.
Wike said Obi should therefore be asking what state governments are doing with the additional funds that have accrued to them since the subsidy was removed.
“All he should have asked is, ‘Having removed the subsidy, what do you do with the gains?’ This is what I think a reasonable person should talk about,” Wike said.
The FCT minister noted that the Federal Government had already made it clear that the gains from the policy had been distributed among the sub-national governments.
He argued that expecting President Tinubu to prescribe how the money should be spent would amount to interfering in the financial responsibilities of governments at the state and local levels.
“Now, the government has said the gains have been shared among sub-nationals. Tinubu has no power to say, ‘State, this is what you should do with the funds that you’ve brought in from the fuel subsidy.’
“He has no power to tell local governments what to do with their money. All tiers of government are independent,” he added.
Wike further argued that the increased revenue available to states had provided many governments with greater financial flexibility compared with the situation before the removal of the subsidy.
He pointed to the ability of states to meet their salary and pension obligations as one of the areas where the increased resources had made a difference.
According to him, some state governments previously faced serious difficulties in paying workers and pensioners, a situation that sometimes contributed to industrial actions and disruptions in government activities.
He said the increased allocations had now given governments more room to meet their recurrent obligations while also embarking on development projects.
“Today states are saying, unlike before, we can’t pay salaries or pensions, and there are strikes all over the place. Now there are no strikes; there are advantages. Now, I have money to carry out projects,” Wike stated.
The minister’s comments come amid continuing debate over the economic consequences of the petrol subsidy removal and the manner in which the additional revenue available to governments is being deployed.
Since the policy was introduced, the Federal Government has repeatedly argued that ending the subsidy would free up resources that could be channelled towards infrastructure, social programmes and other areas of public development.
However, the policy has also generated concerns over the rising cost of living and the pressure placed on households and businesses by higher petrol prices and increased transportation costs.
For Wike, however, the availability of additional revenue at the sub-national level means state governments should now demonstrate what they are doing with the funds at their disposal.
He suggested that accountability should therefore extend beyond the Federal Government to the states and local governments that have also benefited from increased allocations.
The former Rivers State governor also praised President Tinubu for taking the decision to remove the petrol subsidy, describing it as a difficult step that successive administrations had been unwilling to take.
Wike said the President should receive credit for implementing the policy, despite the economic and political challenges associated with it.
“Tinubu deserves kudos for taking the bold decision no president took. Now, it’s time for states to account for the funds they have gotten,” he said.
His position places emphasis on the responsibility of sub-national governments to show Nigerians how the additional resources available to them are being utilised.
Wike’s comments also reinforce his argument that the debate over subsidy removal should include an assessment of how the funds released by the policy are being managed across the different levels of government.
While acknowledging the role played by the Federal Government in initiating the policy, he maintained that state and local governments must independently determine their spending priorities and, at the same time, remain accountable to the people they govern.
The minister therefore urged attention to shift towards the use of the additional revenue by the beneficiaries, particularly at a time when Nigerians continue to expect governments at all levels to translate increased public resources into tangible improvements in infrastructure, public services and citizens’ welfare.
About The Author
Love the community vibe here. It feels more like a club than just a betting site. Everything is smooth and professional at inyolo247club.