Nationwide protests: Nigerians have spoken, govt should listen

Nigerians who trooped to the streets in protest against hunger and hardship have spoken. Their message to those in the corridors of power is clear that there is discontent in the land, occasioned by government policies; that governance is not inclusive in the country, and that the leadership is insensitive to the plight of the masses.

Unfortunately, the protest was marred in some places with violence that resulted in loss of precious lives and property. That is a minus for the protesters, who ordinarily exercised their right to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly. Notably too, the response of the government through a broadcast on the protest by President Bola Tinubu fell short of the expectations of the protesters, and indeed many Nigerians who felt that government missed the opportunity to sufficiently empathise with the people in their hour of travail. Beyond that, not a few well-meaning Nigerians believed that the government could have done better by making firm, identifiable commitments to relieving hapless citizens of their economic adversity.  A strong commitment by President Tinubu and indeed, all governors, is imperative to rekindle the hope of Nigerians. They should take potent, sustainable, and practical steps to address the real issues.

In other climes where the leaders listen to the led and are sensitive to their plight, the 10-day protest in Nigeria would be immortalised with certain actions of the government that will substantially mitigate the hardship. It is not about giving palliatives while the problem degenerates; it is about applying practical solutions to the problems at hand. It is about doing the needful. Indeed, for peace, the authorities must swing into action and take concrete steps, not making deceitful political statements and promises, to ensure that Nigerians do not become hungrier and consequently angrier to the extent of returning to the streets in another round of protests. It may have dire consequences for the country.

For some years now, Nigerians have been suffering hardship caused by multifaceted and complex factors that contributed to economic challenges, poverty, and social inequality. The situation has become worse since last year when President Tinubu removed subsidy on petrol, provoking high inflation rate in all commodities particularly food items, astronomical rise in the cost of living, foreign exchange rate volatility, unprecedented level of unemployment, and worsening insecurity.

Despite warnings, even threats by law enforcement agencies that expressed fear of possible hijacking of the protest by miscreants, the planned 10-day protest began on August 1, 2024 as scheduled by the planners. Initially it was peaceful in most states, including Lagos and environs. Later, the media reported cases of violence, particularly in some northern states, including Borno and Kano; to the extent that curfew was imposed in many states. Governor Babagana Zulum of Borno State imposed a 24-hour curfew after protesters destroyed government facilities at the state traffic maintenance agency. The Police also alleged that Boko Haram terrorists infiltrated the protesters along Baga Road in Maiduguri, killing four persons and injuring 34 others. In Kano State, Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf directed security agencies to enforce total restriction on human and vehicular movement to halt looting and destruction of public property. Governor Mai Bala Buni of Yobe State imposed curfew when protesters abandoned civility and set fire to the Potiskum Local Government Secretariat and six buses.

There were similar reports from some other locations, amid calls on President Tinubu to address the nation on the crisis. And when Tinubu made a broadcast, 72 hours after the protest started, he alluded to the fact that the mass action was caused by the pain and frustration the people suffer. He said: “My dear Nigerians, especially our youths, I have heard you loud and clear. I understand the pain and frustration that drive these protests. I want to assure you that our government is committed to listening and addressing the concerns of our citizens.” But the broadcast was considered inadequate by the protesters and some eminent citizens. They claimed that the broadcast, instead of addressing the cause of the protests, was rather a rehash of old policies that failed to soothe Nigerians. Some voices of the protests and notable Nigerians said President Tinubu disappointingly failed to address the demands of protesters regarding fuel subsidy and high electricity tariffs, for instance.

Nevertheless, the nationwide action affirmed the right of Nigerians to protest against any perceived anti-people policy, law, programme or action of the government at any time. In an earlier editorial, we stated that protest is fundamental in democracy. It is a way of giving effect to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution. But the violence that characterised the protest in some parts of the country should be condemned. A protest is simply to show or express strong, and in most cases open, disapproval of something.

But the mentality of associating protest with violence is wrong and unfortunate. Perpetrating violence in the course of exercising freedom of expression by way of protest is unreasonable and criminal. It demeans the very purpose of the protest. We condemn the destruction of lives and properties as well as looting of shops. Does it make sense that while we protest that some things are not enough, we also destroy the few that are available? It is absurd. It should not be allowed to happen.

By the same token, we deplore the crackdown on the protesters by security personnel. Though fear of the protest turning violent, which was confirmed, is one of the reasons the government was initially opposed to the action, the brutality unleashed on some protesters as reported in the media is sad and unacceptable.
To be continued tomorrow.