Former Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi, has raised concerns over President Bola Tinubu’s decision to remove the fuel subsidy on his first day in office, arguing that the move lacked critical supporting measures that would have cushioned its impact on Nigerians.
Speaking at a two-day event, Amaechi, who also served as the governor of Rivers State, questioned the timing and preparedness of the government in implementing such a significant policy. He noted that while the removal of the subsidy was inevitable for any Nigerian president, it should have been accompanied by urgent steps to address housing shortages and create jobs to help citizens adjust to the economic shifts.
“Removing the subsidy was something no president could avoid,” Amaechi remarked. “What I don’t know is what time was appropriate for the removal. How prepared was the Tinubu government when it was announced?”
He emphasized that before taking such a drastic measure, there should have been a comprehensive social safety net to help citizens adapt. According to Amaechi, addressing Nigeria’s housing deficit could have served as a powerful buffer, offering both immediate and long-term benefits to the economy.
“If I were president, I would have removed the subsidy, but not without social housing,” he stated. “The money saved from subsidy removal and the devaluation of the naira could have been used to build between 200,000 and 300,000 houses. With each of those homes, we could create jobs for 300,000 bricklayers, carpenters, and plumbers.”
Read More: Rivers State to Revive Fire Stations After 12 Years of Neglect
Obio/Akpor Chairman Unveils Key Development Initiatives in First 100 Days
Amaechi argued that such an initiative would have put money in the hands of citizens, particularly those in the informal sector, and helped stimulate economic activity at the grassroots level. He stressed that the removal of the subsidy alone, without a broader plan for economic support, was too abrupt and left many vulnerable Nigerians without the necessary resources to cope with the transition.
It bears mentioning that his remarks, though critical, were grounded in a broader concern for the nation’s welfare, as he suggested a more strategic approach to subsidy removal, one that prioritizes both immediate relief and sustainable economic development.
