Elder statesman and ex-Scribe of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), Anthony Sani, has blamed the federal government for the poor management of the protest against hardship and bad governance, which eventually became violent in some states.
Sani, in an interview at the weekend, said poor management of the protest by the government gave hoodlums and other criminals the opportunity to embark on looting and destruction of properties in parts of the country, and also led to the death of some people. 
He said, “Those of us who advised against the protests hinged our advice on the fact that Mr. President said he was aware of the hardship which caused the pains and the underlying causes.
“He even asked for more time needed for him to address the people’s concerns. To that extent, one can say the protests were superfluous in so far as drawing the attention of the government to the issues is concerned. This was more so that the leaders of the protests could not locate the courage of their conviction to let Nigerians know them. As a result, many patriotic Nigerians viewed their actions with suspicion.”
The immediate past General Secretary of ACF explained that since the protests still took place and became violent in some states, it stands to reason that the approach by the government is less than perfect.
He said, “The shortcomings of the government on this matter were managerial in the sense that since the government had foreknowledge about the protests for quite some time, and given the proclivity of protests to go violent, the government should have prepared on how best to prevent the protests from becoming violent through massive mobilisation of security to protect both the protesters and citizens who were not part of the protesters.”
However, reacting to the president’s broadcast, Sani agreed that the President had no choice but to remove the subsidy.
He said, “This is precisely because the level of production of crude oil and the price are less than half of what obtained in 2012 when some of us opposed the removal on the ground that the nation could afford it.”
“You know decision is a function of situation; and when the situation changes, decision changes accordingly. Since the level of production and price of crude oil have gone down south dramatically, the decision has to change.
“When people regard what they are going through, like pains from hardship, as evidence of bad governance, and refuse to proffer an alternative course of action, I find it hard to understand.
“This is because, as I have said, the production level of our crude oil and its price cannot sustain the subsidies. In the same way, what we earn from oil is not enough to sustain subsidies for the naira. So, the removal was not a matter of choice for the President.
“What should preoccupy our minds is how best to use any savings for productive activities instead of for consumption, which palliatives are all about. I had advised that the savings be paid into a TRUST FUND for the exclusive improvement of the quality and volume of education, health, and possibly agriculture. Education and health are germane in the development of human capital that surge up human capital, which reduces inequality.
“Mind you, the reduction of inequality is not only good economics but good politics as well. Those who have superior alternative actions should state it clearly in terms of uses and sources of the needed funds. They should also know that to revamp an economy is not a day’s job but through consciously directed efforts to make desires possible and then actual.”
