Analysing Tinubu’s speech on protest

From the moment the nationwide protest started gathering momentum, many political analysts suggested that an address by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu would assuage most of the concerns and nip the demonstration in the bud. But reactions that have trailed the address have only further polarised and left many unsure about whether the government has immediate answers to the pressing issues fuelling the #EndBadGovernance protest.

President Tinubu’s 38-paragraph speech, which can be summed up in about three thematic areas—call for peace and dialogue; commitment to democratic governance; and scorecards on economic reforms and achievements—has done little or nothing to assuage the protesters.

If anything, it appears to have angered more people, as the turnout for the protest in several cities across the country hours after the speech would suggest.

Contrary to the demands of the protesters, President Tinubu succinctly ruled out the return of fuel subsidy. In the speech, he insisted that even though the decision to remove the fuel subsidy was painful, it was necessary because it had constituted a noose around the economic “jugular of our nation and impeded our economic development and progress.”

• Atiku, Soyinka, Falana, others pick holes in Tinubu’s speech
• Fuel scarcity: Marketers seek Tinubu’s intervention

According to him, “For decades, our economy has remained anaemic and taken a dip because of many misalignments that have stunted our growth. Just over a year ago, our dear country, Nigeria, reached a point where we couldn’t afford to continue the use of temporary solutions to solve long-term problems for the sake of now and our unborn generations.

“I therefore took the painful yet necessary decision to remove fuel subsidies and abolish multiple foreign exchange systems which had constituted a noose around the economic jugular of our nation and impeded our economic development and progress.”

He said these actions “blocked the greed and the profits that smugglers and rent-seekers made. They also blocked the undue subsidies we had extended to our neighbouring countries to the detriment of our people, rendering our economy prostrate.”

The president also reeled out some of the things he believed his administration had put on the ground to alleviate the pains brought about by the fuel subsidy removal and the floating of the naira. These, he said, include a significant increase in government revenues leading to increased allocations to states and local governments for social services, a reduction in debt service costs and clearance of foreign exchange obligations, and major infrastructure projects aimed at boosting economic output.

He also listed the new national minimum wage of N70,000, the introduction of the Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) initiative to reduce transportation costs and save resources, the student loan scheme, support for small businesses and workers through grants and loans, as well as measures to boost food production and reduce import costs.

But observers said the palliatives deployed to cushion the effects of the policies have failed to alleviate the widespread suffering. The government’s resort to palliatives, many believed, had been mostly hijacked by politicians and middlemen and thus failed to solve the problems or fill the gaps created by subsidy removal; hence, the protest for some.

Many also believed the speech failed to address salient issues like the insecurity ravaging the country and most especially in the North West region, where farmers are having it difficult to access their farms. It was also vague on key indicators that can be used to measure the progress the scorecards listed.

As one analyst put it: “What is our inflation target by year-end? How much foreign direct investment (FDI) is the government targeting this year? What is the rate the government hopes to have taken unemployment to at the end of this year? What is the plan to cut fiscal deficits? What are our GDP growth targets for this year? These are some of the questions many have raised from an economic perspective about the speech. They are among the many questions many believe the speech failed to answer.”

Silence on insecurity and the ubiquitous Russian flags 

Many of the protesters, especially those from the northern part of the country, have also questioned why the president was silent about the insecurity, which they believed had led to food insecurity that has exacerbated the hunger ravaging the country.

In the North West, from Sokoto to Kano, saw arguably the largest turnout of protesters on the streets since the mass action started on Thursday, reinforcing the promoters’ sentiments that the escalating insecurity coupled with the several policies of the government had been the driving forces behind the current food crisis the country has been subjected to.

But a more worrisome trend that emanated from the protest, especially in Kano State, was the display of Russian flags by some of the protesters.

Russia, an Eastern power that is currently having a cold war with the West, Nigeria’s ally in world power play, has been fingered in the coup d’etats in West African countries such as Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, among others.

 “We are raising the Russian flag because we believe Tinubu is playing his imperial masters’ scripts—the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the United States of America,” a protester reportedly told The Cable.

While not directly referencing this, however, the president called on the protesters not to allow enemies of democracy to use them to topple his government.

 “Let us work together to build a brighter future for ourselves and for generations to come. Let us choose hope over fear, unity over division, and progress over stagnation. The economy is recovering. Please don’t shut out its oxygen. Now that we have been enjoying democratic governance for 25 years, do not let the enemies of democracy use you to promote an unconstitutional agenda that will set us back on our democratic journey. Forward ever. Backward, never,” he said.

But Bulama Bukarti, a lawyer and social commentator, urged the Tinubu administration to “take urgent steps to play its part.”

“It’s time to demonstrate that democracy and Western systems can work. This cannot be achieved by insisting on policies that exacerbate already dire economic conditions. Immediate action is needed to properly and sustainably address widespread hunger and frustration. Only then can we stop the protests and prevent their infiltration,” he said.

“Detached from reality”, more critical reviews

Criticising the president’s nationwide address, Nobel laureate Professor Wole Soyinka argued that it failed to address the brutal crackdown on #EndBadGovernance protesters by security agencies.

There had been reports of several shootings across cities where protests had taken place in the past few days, which reportedly led to the deaths of many protesters while several others were injured.

On Saturday, police and other security officials were reported to have fired live rounds of ammunition at protesters and journalists at the Moshood Abiola Stadium in Abuja, while at least 10 people were reported killed in Kano when protesters defied the ordered curfew and clashed with security officers. There have been several other incidents since Day One of the protest.

In a statement on Sunday, Soyinka noted that while Tinubu called for calm and insisted on maintaining the subsidy removal, he failed to address the government’s handling of the protests. 

 “His outline of the government’s remedial action since inception, aimed at warding off just such an outbreak, will undoubtedly receive expert and sustained attention, both for effectiveness and in content analysis. My primary concern, quite predictably, is the continuing deterioration of the state’s seizure of protest management, an area in which the presidential address fell conspicuously short,” Soyinka said.

He also emphasised that the nation’s security agencies should be aware of more civilised models of intervention. He argued that the state’s violent response to peaceful protests only fuels further resentment and reprisals.

 “Live bullets as a state response to civic protest—that becomes the core issue. Even teargas remains questionable in most circumstances (and is) certainly an abuse in situations of clearly peaceful protest. Hunger marches constitute a universal S.O.S., not peculiar to the Nigerian nation,” he said.

Soyinka compared the current response to pre-independence colonial acts of disdain, referencing the historical play “Bread and Bullets” by nationalist Hubert Ogunde, which highlighted similar issues and led to persecution by the colonial government.

An analyst and a politician in the president’s All Progressives Congress (APC), who asked not to be named, opined that the president’s speech appeared to be targeted at another audience.

“The speech felt like it was directed at an international audience and not the Nigerian masses because it did not reflect the realities of the last 14 months and especially the last four days,” he said.