The most fundamental question, which the discourse and widespread concerns within the poor strata of the Nigerian society over the issue of removal or non-removal of oil subsidy raises, is whether or not President Jonathan deserves to continue to rule? [In this paper, the expression, ‘President Jonathan’ is used as a symbol for both the parties and all public officers from the ruling parties who support removal of ‘petroleum subsidy’].

The question, in my opinion, has gone beyond merely demanding retention of ‘oil subsidy’. The options now are resignation by the President himself or constitutional impeachment by the National Assembly, if the President goes ahead to remove ‘oil subsidy’ without the sanction of the legislature. Where these two peaceful options fail and the President persists in removing ‘oil subsidy’, then the President will be provoking series of mass actions, strikes, protests and rallies that may likely remove him from power. Where the mass actions are temporarily suppressed, it may provide justification for undemocratic forces in the armed forces to seek to strike, no matter how detestable that scenario may appear. Only pro-people governance, which guarantees the welfare of the people can prevent the coming back of undemocratic military dictatorship. If military rule, which is an aberration, appears to be the only way to ensure the security of foreign investment and control of access to oil, in the face of social earthquakes, the so called international community will embrace it. This is the lesson of Nigeria’s history. Thus, from whichever class’ point of view it is assessed, the continued rule of President Jonathan who is bent on removing ‘oil subsidy’ even in spite of opposition by the National Assembly is capable of endangering the survival of Nigerian bourgeois civil rule, just as it may be the harbinger for a welcome successful popular revolt by the downtrodden.

Any person, any party, any social class automatically loses the right to continue to rule the moment it cannot guarantee the welfare and security of the people. This is the implication of S. 14 (2) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which states that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. Section 16 (1) (b) goes further to prescribe that government shall control the (national) economy in such manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of status and opportunity.

The kernel of the argument of President Jonathan is that he simply cannot govern Nigeria without removing ‘oil subsidy’. He is so pathologically committed to satisfying his foreign masters in the IMF and World Bank than serving the interests of ordinary Nigerian folks. He prefers a handshake from the IMF Managing Director, Ms. Lagarde, rather than the full embrace of Nigerian masses. The President acknowledges there will be pains for ordinary people in the event of removal of ‘oil subsidy’, but he throws up his hands in surrender that there is no alternative to removing ‘subsidy’. He declares he is prepared to take the revolt of Nigerian masses rather than retain ‘oil subsidy’. No mature, wise and cautious President of a nation anywhere in the world will so openly and brazenly declare policy war against the citizenry, if elections were truly determining who rules.

President Jonathan is perhaps unaware or prefers to ignore the provisions of Section 14 (2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that ‘sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government derives all its powers and authority’. Instead of listening to the voice of the downtrodden who constitute the majority, President Jonathan prefers to carry out the directive of the IMF and World Bank that ‘oil subsidy’ should be removed. Some undemocratic forces, including some Governors and a few members of the National Assembly are encouraging the President along the path of doom, that he has executive powers to implement removal of ‘oil subsidy’ if the National Assembly does not support it. We need to sound a note of warning: Nigeria is no longer under military dictatorship; Nigeria is under civil rule and no President or Governor has powers to implement a policy that runs counter to the appropriated budget by the legislature.

We contend that the ultimate measure for determining whether or not a policy subsists is not whether it emanates from Ngozi Okonjo iweala, the representative of the World Bank/IMF in the Nigerian Federal cabinet, but whether it promotes or ensures ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’. President Jonathan prefers the social Darwinist principle that there is no rationale for government supporting the poor and disadvantaged. If anyone cannot compete and survive, the person may die. The Nigerian masses should not allow the neo-liberal social Darwinist idea to take root in Nigeria. The purpose of government is the protection of the poor and the vulnerable members of the society. Beyond this, there is no justification for the existence of the social institution called ‘Government’. This protective function of government is in the nature of a trust, a contract. As long as this obligation is fulfilled by government, whatever law or policy made by government is binding. However, the moment government fails to protect the wellbeing of ordinary people, then the people have the right to oppose the government and its policies. Such policies automatically lose validity and lack legitimacy, worthy of being observed only in the breach. This is the essence of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution – the right of association and peaceful action to protect interests. Section 40 of the Constitution is the only constitutional safeguard against governmental tyranny, state terrorism and despotism. It is therefore a constitutional right to protest peacefully. The Nigerian masses will need to reinvent and adopt the elements of the 1776 American Declaration of Independence when the revolting colonies which later on constituted the USA broke away from the suzerainty (hegemony) of Britain declared, inter alia, as follows:

“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these aims, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers on such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness”

Does President Jonathan Deserve To Continue To Rule? By Femi Aborisade