Labor Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, on Wednesday returned to his analytical mood.
He said Nigeria has spent $40bn on fuel subsidy – but spent $20bn on education in a decade.
To him, it is a thoughtless idea that no sane leader or nation should promote.
Obi has been spicing the political terrain with cool figures, throwing him up as the best-thinking candidate.
This has further nurtured his love in his fans, especially youths, though opponents have been using it as a weapon against him, picking holes in the data he churns out.
Speaking yesterday during a live interview on Arise TV, the presidential candidate said petrol subsidy was not beneficial to the country’s economy, promising that he would not squander $40 billion on subsidy as currently being done by the All Progressives Congress, APC-led Federal Government.
He said, “We have spent over $40 billion on subsidy. Our total education expenditure in the past 10 years is about N8 trillion (about $20 billion on $400/$1). This is 50 percent of it,” Obi said.
“If we spent $20 billion on power, we would have been generating and distributing 20,000 megawatts of electricity today.
“It means subsidy alone would have solved a lot of issues in our education, health and power. If we have 20,000mw, we will be growing at more than 4 percent and add over $100 billion to our GDP.
“Within the same period, we have borrowed $90 billion, which we are servicing. With this, you could see total mismanagement of resources that could have changed the entire North… that vast land would have been huge farmland,” he said
On whether or not he would remove subsidy, Obi said: “We have to study and look at it critically. Yes and No, because I would remove it, but I have to offer them what would be equivalent to what we are removing.
“Yes, I am going to use the resources to do something that would benefit, but if I am not going to do that I am not going to remove it. You must be able to offer something in replacement for what you are going to do.
“I cannot spend $40 billion on subsidy and expend 50 percent of it on education and health even security. Are you saying [petrol] subsidy is more important than the security of lives and property?
“I have been saying subsidy is a scam, and I will continue to say it. There are so many scams all over the place, including the cost of governance.”
