FUEL SUBSIDY PROBE REPORT
(From unconfirmed source)
Following the removal of subsidy on PMS on the 1
day of January, 2012
by the Federal Government of Nigeria and the attendant spontaneous
social and political upheavals that greeted the policy, the House of
Representatives in an Emergency Session on the 8
of January, 2012 set
up an Ad-hoc Committee to verify and determine the actual subsidy
requirements and monitor the implementation of the subsidy regime in
The Federal Government had informed the nation of its inability to
continue to pump endless amount of money into the seemingly
bottomless pit that was referred to as petroleum products subsidy. It
explained that the annual subsidy payment was huge, endless and
unsustainable. Nigerians were led to believe that the colossal payments
made were solely on PMS and HHK actually consumed by Nigerians.
Government ascribed the quoted figures to upsurge in international crude
price, high exchange rate, smuggling, increase in population and vehicles
etc. However, a large section of the population faulted the premise of the
Government subsidy figures, maintaining that unbridled corruption and an
inefficient and wasteful process accounted for a large part of the
payments. To avert a clear and present danger of descent into
lawlessness, the leadership of the House of Representatives took the 4
bold and decisive action of convening the first ever Emergency Session
on a Sunday (8
January, 2012), and set up the Ad-hoc Committee to
verify the actual subsidy requirements of the country.
The Committee decided that the scope of this investigation should be for
three years 2009 -2011 for the following reasons:
The actual budget expenditure on subsidy for both PMS and HHK
was tolerable, being N261.1b in 2006, N278.8b in 2007 and
N346.7b in 2008. 5 companies including NNPC were involved in
2006, 10 in 2007 and 19 in 2008 contrasted to 140 in 2011.
Secondly, in line with accounting practice, the Committee decided to
investigate three years activities of the scheme.
The Committee could have chosen to limit the investigation to 2011
alone given the scale of escalation of subsidy in that year alone but
decided to take three years to establish a trend.