In this interview with EMMA OKEREH, Hon. Ini Udoka speaks on issues of national importance. The ranking lawmaker, who represents Ini/Ikono federal constituency in the House of Representatives, says that a gradual deregulation of the oil sector and the re-investment of its proceeds transparently, will restore confidence in the people. He also explained why the Petroleum Industrial Bill (PIB) may probably continue to gather dust. Excerpts:
You are largely seen as a pro-subsidy lawmaker. It is even said that if you had your way, the emergency session that was convened to tackle the oil subsidy protest wouldn’t have held. How true is this?
No, that was a misconception on the part of the media. First of all, I did not back the removal of subsidy 100 per cent. I believe in the gradual deregulation of the down- stream sector of the petroleum industry.
My position is that removing fuel subsidy completely at the first instance would create a lot of hardship for the common people of the country; not for the privileged because, I don’t see the real effect a total removal of oil subsidy would have on them.
For the poor masses of this country, a total deregulation at the first instance will have a severe negative impact on their living condition.
That is why, on the day we convened to look at the fuel subsidy issue, I spoke very passionately that I did not support the House of Representatives asking the president or the executive arm of government to suspend the removal of fuel subsidy. I spoke against; but I agreed with the other prayers of that motion, one of which was that we have the power to introduce fuel subsidy into the appropriation bill.
And if I supported that we had the power to do that, it means I support the retention of subsidy to some extent.
I also said on the floor of the House that I would prefer a gradual removal. You remove probably 50 per cent and utilise the proceeds of that removal in areas that will create confidence in the citizenry that you mean well; that you can be trusted. After the people’s confidence has been restored in governance, then you can go ahead and take additional 25 per cent, and once they see that you have utilised the proceeds well, you can go ahead to completely stop funding the subsidy. That is my position.
Some people believe that the passage of the Petroleum Industrial Bill (PIB) is a gate way to? solving the deregulation problem. What is your take?
It is right to say that, but the same people who say that the passage of the PIB would hasten the deregulation of the downstream sector of the petroleum industry are the people that fought against its passage. I was here when the bill came to the House.
So many external forces worked against the passage of the bill because its passage means that somebody will go without a single petrol station, without?? tankers, will not be able to have a licence to the product to manipulate and do whatever he likes.
People who do not have expertise in the oil industry will not carry their portfolios and collect oil blocs. People who have seen crude oil as their personal visa would lose that privilege. They are the people who fought against the passage of that bill. The same people who fought it are the people who want to key into it.
A section of the PIB says that communities where we take this oil from must be compensated. It is part of the bill. There are certain percentages that must accrue to the communities but people fought against it.
How does it relate to pricing?
The PIB is a compendium of laws, policies. It touches on the upstream and down- stream sectors of the industry. It is meant to deregulate the upstream as well as the downstream. It is going to open up the petroleum industry to people who have the expertise and financial muscle to invest. It is going to create a lot of opportunities; it is going to help people to come in and develop refineries and petro-chemical industries.
Once the downstream sector is deregulated, you have the opportunity to buy the product at market forces; that will give people the opportunity to invest.
The federal government issued licences for the development of refineries,? nobody has been able to build one because the policies in the sector works against it.
Do you think the PIB would resurrect?
It only requires the political will of the government. The government brought the bill to the National Assembly, dumped it and went away. We know how bills are passed in the parliament all over the world. You don’t just bring bills, dump and go away; you lobby.
In fact, the body language of the executive shows that they don’t want the bill passed in the first place. So if they now realise the importance of that bill, that Nigerians? want that bill to be passed, not the privileged people who carry briefcases to the NNPC to get allocation to bring in fuel when they don’t have the expertise and all that. Those are the people who blocked the PIB.
So, if government has woken up from its slumber to want the bill passed, then it will be passed. If government had lobbied members of the National Assembly for the passage of that bill and they had their channels, that bill would have been passed.?
That bill is going to be resuscitated by the parliament because the House of Representatives supported the masses when the subsidy was removed. It must also be ready to do what the masses want with the PIB because one of the conditions for calling off the strike was that the bill must be passed and implemented.
So the NASS that says it is on the side of the people must pass the bill. I think the executive created confusion because there were more than two versions of that bill in the NASS flying about.
But thank God for the minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke who has set up a task force headed by Senator Udoma Udoma and other former legislators, to assist the ministry come up with bills that can pass through the NASS. I believe in that calibre of people and technical team.
I’m sure they will come up with a reasonable bill that will be passed into law by the National Assembly.
?