By Clement Adeyi, Ben Adoga, Kenny Folowosele, David Lawani & Anthony Otaru, Abuja
As President Bola Tinubu’s administration moves to contain the politics and economics of palliative administration in the country, officials need to make it easier to achieve good results.
The plank of the new problem arises from the difficulties encountered in making the rice component of the ambitious palliative control programme designed to contain the pangs of excruciating hunger in the land available to the citizenry at the ‘advertised’ price.
The Federal Government enacted the palliative measures to alleviate the burden and cushion the effects of the hardship on Nigerians after the removal of fuel subsidies and other economic policies to regulate the financial sector, particularly ‘tax manipulation’ and import duty regulation.
Recently, the Federal Government promised to create centres in 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to sell 50kg (one bag) of rice at N40,000 to Nigerians.
Already, there are insinuations that these rice are either unavailable anywhere or the management is being wracked by corruption, among other issues.
Government officials are accused of hoarding the items to use for election campaigns in 2027, while other officials in charge of distribution are reportedly diverting them to their families and relations.
Apart from the contentious issue of availability and corruption, other problems relate to whether the government is even suitable to adopt the palliative distribution module as its strategy to contain hardship in the country.
In this spirit, ThisNigeria went to town to sample the scenarios and opinions of politicians, lawyers, analysts, farmers, economists, academics, and youths, who were nudged to bare their minds on the country’s contentious issue of palliative administration.
An FCT resident and civil servant, Usman Kartum, criticized the government’s use of palliatives and stipends to solve the hardship.
He described the approach as insulting to Nigerians’ sensibilities because, according to him, it is not a long-term solution.
“In my own opinion, it’s no, no, no. Fighting hunger and hardship by throwing palliatives at Nigerians is insulting. Throwing grains and money at problems created by the people throwing the palliatives can never be the solution to the hardship and hunger in the country. It can’t even be a temporary, long-term solution,” Kartum said.
He said, “We know that our borders were closed because the government had ‘invested’ much in agriculture and didn’t want the grains to be smuggled away. Even so, we have not seen the grains.”
He also expressed disgust that the 50kg bags of rice promised by the federal government to be sold at N40k at specific centres across the country had yet to be released.
Kartum said, “Even if this is the way to go, how many Nigerians can access the so-called subsidised rice? How long will this continue? Would the government always be able to provide subsidized bags of rice because people must continue to feed?
“For me, anything that has to do with the government giving products to citizens is the highest form of insult, except if the products are farm produce or equipment for agriculture and educational materials.”
Human and civil society rights activist, Sam Ogbeifun, also criticised the Federal Government for using palliative measures to alleviate hardship.
Rather than alleviating the problem, he said, “The present palliative distribution is a wrong step in the wrong direction. How can you create and solve a problem through an ad hoc policy that will not work?
”So, to be giving somebody palliative is an insult. That is meant for IDPs and refugees. You can only provide palliatives for people who are displaced. It’s an insult to the nation.
Another legal practitioner, Emmanuel Ekwe, expressed dismay that the measures were cosmetic and the best money to proffer solutions to hardship.
A senior lawyer, Issa Manzuma, said when an economy finds itself in an inflationary trend, the government would always be compelled to devise a welfare package.
According to him, palliatives were justified in Section 14 of the 1999 constitution, which states that the government’s primary responsibility is Nigeria’s welfare and security.
A university lecturer and economic expert, Prof Peter Siyan, said the government should use palliatives as a short-term or temporary measure to assuage hardship.
“The use of palliative measures by the federal government of Nigeria to alleviate the burden of food scarcity can only provide temporary relief, but cannot serve as a long-term solution to the underlying structural issues causing food scarcity and economic problems,” he said.
The Lead Director of the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), Eze Onyekpere, said, “It is not a right to sit down and feed somebody with palliatives. According to the dictionary, palliative is not a cure; it is like a doctor has finished checking on a patient and says, you have a particular ailment.
“Then the doctor gives you a pain reliever to seduce or reduce the pains before surgery is carried out when the need arises. So, what Nigerians need are not palliatives but a cure.”
