Ex-minister slams Tinubu’s fuel subsidy removal, says decision showed “poverty of ideas and knowledge”

Former Minister of Youth and Sports Development, Solomon Dalung, has criticised President Bola Tinubu’s decision to end fuel subsidy, arguing that the policy was introduced without sufficient consultation or a proper grasp of governance processes.

Dalung made the remarks during an interview on Channels Television on Thursday, where he questioned the rationale behind the policy, describing the government’s justification as a reflection of “poverty of ideas and knowledge.”

“The admission that subsidy removal was the only option is a demonstration of poverty of ideas and knowledge because in life, there are too many alternatives. For them to single out this issue defines the vested interest in the withdrawal of fuel subsidy,” Dalung said.

He contended that the removal of fuel subsidy was unnecessary at the time it was announced, stressing that the core issue lay not in the subsidy itself but in how it had been administered.

“I don’t see it as something that was necessary at that point in time. If we know as a fact that the subsidy regime has been investigated by the National Assembly, the fraud had been established, companies were indicted, meaning that the problem is not even the withdrawal of subsidy but the subsidy management itself,” he said.

The former minister accused the Federal Government of failing to prosecute those allegedly involved in subsidy-related fraud over the years, adding that the President’s decision to simply announce the policy rather than pursue those responsible amounted to an endorsement of wrongdoing.

“This government is not interested in holding those who have defrauded this country for many years but chose to make a sweeping statement, ‘subsidy has been withdrawn’. For me, it is an endorsement of fraud,” he stated.

While acknowledging that the policy has already been implemented, Dalung maintained that the manner of its execution exposed a lack of understanding of governance structures.

“Granted, it has been done, but it was done in a manner that demonstrated again that the President, as at that time, did not even understand the working of the government and the complex nature of the country called Nigeria,” he said.

According to him, the decision was taken without adequate consultation or institutional input, noting that the government was not fully constituted at the time.

“He needed consultation. As at that time he made the statement, there was no government. It was only the President and the Vice President that had been sworn in, and that wasn’t government,” Dalung said.

“A government means a cabinet, advisers, and policy makers taking a decision like that,” he added.