BY DAPO AKINREFON

SENATOR Ganiyu Olawale Solomon fondly referred to as GOS is the Minority Whip in the Senate. In this interview with Vanguard, he called on President Goodluck Jonathan to rescind his decision on the planned removal of fuel subsidy.

On the proposed 2012 budget, the lawmaker faulted the large chunk of allocation given to security. Besides, he argued that rather than remove subsidy on oil, it was imperative for the Federal government to proffer a lasting solution to importation of refined crude oil. Excerpts:

What is your position on the proposed 2012 budget which has been generating reactions from Nigerians?

While one will want to commend the effort in trying to solve some of our problems in Nigeria, one would want to say that the budget does not have enough to drive the nation’s desires. One should commend the allocation given to agriculture, particularly, with the aim of ensuring that we don’t spend as much as we currently do in the importation of food items.

Spending on agriculture will invariably reduce our dependence on importation of food. It will also boost the rate of food production. There will also be diversification especially as it relates to our revenue.

If we handle the issue of agriculture very well, we may have a situation where it will contribute significantly to the nation’s foreign exchange rate. So, one should commend government in that regard too. We should also commend them on trying to attract investors, particularly as far as the issue of energy is concerned. It is planning reduction in import duties and machineries that relate to power production and the real sector.

The budget in that regard should be commended. But the fundamental issues concerning some of these proposals, if eventually passed into law, will still have the issue of implementation to contend with. And so, to make them effective, there must be proper and full implementation of every aspect.

It is not just the issue of how we are spending. Implementation as regards policies inherent in the budget too, is as important as the implementation of spending. Not all the issues in the proposed budget have to do with spending, some are policy making, but government must ensure there is full implementation.

I still believe that the ratio of 72 to 28 between the current and capital expenditure should not be acceptable. The ratio is too high. We have been seeing the rate at which our infrastructure have been in despair and if you have to bring them to an acceptable standard, we should not have such a ratio. By the time the National Assembly starts looking into the budget, I believe these are some of the issues that would be addressed.

A large chunk of the proposed budget has been allocated for security; will this address the issue of the growing insecurity in the land?

I still do not know the components of the security item. What it means is that we are allocating almost one quarter of the budget to security. I don’t know what we want to do with the one trillion naira for security. I am deliberately reserving my comments on that for now because we want to know the details of the security allocation in the budget.

Sen. Solomon

Like some of my colleagues said, this is not a war situation; we are not going to war with another country. People might say that security is supposed to be secretive, but when it comes to appropriation, it must not be placed under any guise. Government must come to explain what it intends to do with it. I believe that by the time the budget is passed to the various committees, they will know the components and be able to situate it appropriately. But I think the allocation for security is too much.

But what is the position of ACN Senators in the Senate regarding the proposed budget?

We have always come up with our position on issues and I believe the budget will not be an exception. We will study the budget and come up with our position. The party will also come up with its position on the budget but we can only do that after a thorough study of the budget which is what we are currently doing.

The Federal government’s plan to remove oil subsidy is currently generating heat in the polity. Do you think the subsidy should be removed?

If anybody conducts a survey on the position of Nigerians on fuel subsidy, it will show that Nigerians don’t want the removal of fuel subsidy. That is the position of Nigerians.

If government wants to do anything to the contrary, they have to put Nigerians into consideration because at the end of the day, we are representatives of Nigerians and we are bound to take cognizance of their position. What are the issues concerning fuel subsidy? Questions have been asked as what we are really subsidizing and we must put it straight, we must know what we are subsidizing, after which we can address the issues involved.

Successive governments have done subsidy removal in various shades; no sooner they do that, they usually return to square one. We must identify the problems so as to be able to find a lasting solution to it.

In my opinion, the major problem there is the importation of fuel, if we refine our oil here some of the issues will be addressed, there won’t be any reason for demurrage, we will not be talking of exchange rate fluctuation because we produce the crude here, we will not be talking of importation and insurance on the high sea and the activities of pirates. A lot of issues will be resolved if we refine our crude oil here.

A lot of people will be employed, industries will spring up as a result of refining our oil here in Nigeria and you know the multiplier effect that will have on our economy? The benefits are so enormous and that is what I think we should be pursuing with all rigour because the advantages are so many. If we pursue this, Nigeria will be better off.

But to say removing the fuel subsidy is the only way out and pass it on to Nigerians is like government shelving its responsibilities. We are not doing what we ought to do; we should endeavour to refine our products here because it has so many advantages. I will support whatever that will enable us have our refineries work in Nigeria.

But the President has insisted that there is no going back on the removal. What position is the Senate likely to take on this?

I am sure he has a mechanism through which he listens to Nigerians. He was voted into office by Nigerians and he has the mandate of Nigerians; but he cannot ignore the feelings of Nigerians. What matters is getting a way of getting the right position of Nigerians and I am sure he will put into consideration the feelings of Nigerians in his own feedback mechanism before arriving at such position.

We know our role in the Senate, we know the expectation of the people from us and we have, before now, risen to such occasions. And if need be, we will also rise to the occasion.

There is growing tension in the country especially with the activities of the Boko Haram sect. While some have called for force to be met with force, others have called for truce between the sect and the Federal government. How can government tackle this issue?

It is the duty and responsibility of government to provide security for Nigerians and the government cannot jettison such a responsibility. It cannot transfer the responsibility to someone else. Once they have identified those involved, they have to find a way of solving such problems; it is not a straight jacket thing.

Without intelligence gathering, you cannot rule out the possibility of dialogue and the possibility of force. You will have to determine first the issues on ground and the people involved, then you apply appropriate solution.

That is the essence of intelligence gathering. When militants were operating in the creeks, the final solution to tackle their activities was the amnesty programme. The Federal Government must study the situation very well and then apply appropriate measures to curb it. Government should be several steps ahead of any individual or group of individuals because it has access to unhindered information.

It is now left to government to gather information and intelligence on who it is dealing with and apply it appropriately. Though some of us make comments, but we don’t have the information government has at its disposal.

For example, if there is a body which intends to bring down the country, the solution will be different from a body that wants to attract attention to it. It is left for government address this issue. Government cannot claim it is helpless when it comes to such issues; it has to rise to the occasion.

The President has set up a panel to review the 1999 Constitution, but some analysts have opined that what the country needs is a new constitution instead of a review. Do you support this view?

The truth is that it will be difficult drafting a new constitution for the country. If you look at the history of constitution making in Nigeria, the government had always set up committees or commissions to look at the constitution. At this stage that we are in a full fledged democracy, the composition of such committees is going to be contentious.

The only opportunity we have is to amend the constitution because it was foisted on us by the military in 1999. At any point in time, we will have elected representatives at the National and State Houses of Assembly and they can jointly come up with a position on different clauses of the constitution. That, to me, is more appropriate. Any other thing outside that is a nullity.

I am not saying anything about the membership of the committee but they will come with a position and the executive will come up with a White Paper, but that is as far as it goes. It cannot have the force of law and it needs to come to the National Assembly. Whatever position the National Assembly reaches on the issue, will also have to be consented or not by two thirds majority of the State Houses of Assembly.

So, whatever the Presidential panel is doing will be a position sent because it cannot have the force of law. They are only to assist the executive in trying to r each a position; after all, this will not be the first one.

Do you think the agitation for creation of more states is justifiable?

By virtue of my position as a member of the Sixth Senate, there is one demand for state creation from each state. If we are meeting the demands, what that means is that we are going to have 72 states in all. But it will not be possible to have 72 states; it is not just enough to think we have enough population to make so much number of states. It is not enough to think that the land mass can be carved out and there will be more states.

The most important thing is viability. We still have more than two thirds of the states, and that is being very conservative, depending on the revenue allocation every month for sustenance. So, you can imagine what will happen if we have more state.

Mind you, the more the states, the more the burden and responsibility. Creating more states should not be our priority. I recognize the right of everybody to agitate but we must look at the viability before we delve into that. My considered opinion is that we can make do with what we have.

Let us make sure that the lives of the average Nigeria is better, that should be our priority.