TO most analysts, the on-going general strike by the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) was avoidable and could have been averted if only President Umaru Musa Yar‘Adua had not tried to claim paternity of the policies of the President Olusegun Obasanjo administration.

With the conversation reduced to no more than Obasanjo, to this popular school of thought, all that Yar‘Adua should do to stop the strike and earn popular acclaim is simply to disown the former President, beginning with the specific demands of Labour which initially were three before they became four. I have received several mails and SMS messages along that line: ‘Why don‘t you advise your oga to accede to the demands of labour and free himself of the Obasanjo yoke? If he does that, Nigerians would hail him.‘

That has been the thrust of most of the messages but the tragedy of it really is that given the nature of our society, the President could indeed become an instant hero today by simply announcing the abrogation of the decisions of Obasanjo, who, (as former Presidents go) is now very unpopular, regardless of the consequences. Of course, those proposing this line of action have justification for it.

In 1999, the first thing President Obasanjo did was to cancel all the appointments and commitments of the military regime he succeeded. So, as the argument goes, the fact that Yar‘Adua has refused to yield wholesale to Labour demands amounts to tying himself to the ‘apron string‘ of the former President, who, if we are to believe some commentators, still controls events from his Otta farm. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

At the heart of this struggle is the economic reform programme of the government founded on the removal of inefficiencies in public institutions on one hand and introduction of genuine and durable improvements on the other. To achieve these objectives, some people are bound to get hurt. In the current battle, which on the face value is over N5 per litre differential in the pump price of petrol, the argument of the President is that in the difficult times that we are in as a nation, a leader must be prepared to take the hard decisions in the sincere belief that they would be in the long-time interest of the people.

Furthermore, he is of the firm conviction that to reduce the fundamental problems plaguing our nation to Obasanjo is not only self-serving, it is the usual recourse to such opportunism in the past that has landed us where we are today. While he is, however, of the MKO Abiola School that if you are running and looking back you will fall, he is also of the view that any government policy that impacts directly on the welfare of the people must meet the criteria of the rule of law and public morality.

To this end, even before Labour sent in a letter of ultimatum, he had already requested for information on some of the key issues which they are raising based on the controversy that had started raging in the public arena. Certain officials were directed to look into some of these issues and report back with recommendations on the way forward. The first issue was that of Value Added Tax which the business community considered rather crippling given the already high cost of doing business in Nigeria. The question was: Could it be sustained on the basis of legality?

I recall that the Federal Inland Revenue Service Chairman, Ms Ifueko Omoigui, spent considerable time in her briefing on the issue. While her arguments were persuasive and logical, the President still sought legal opinion from the office of the Solicitor-General of the Federation. As is typical of lawyers, the response was Yes and No. Yes, according to the lawyers, because the enabling Act empowers the Minister of Finance to review upward or downward the percentage. No, because the 2007 Appropriation Act, the law governing the implementation of this year‘s budget, is based on 5 per cent VAT and so long as it has not been amended by the National Assembly, it is in breach of the law.

The President sided with this latter position reinforced by the fact that the VAT element was taken out of a comprehensive tax regime proposal before the National Assembly that would have seen personal income tax coming down. To the President, VAT cannot be legally sustained under the current dispensation which makes upholding the rule of law a cardinal principle. On that score, labour had already won one victory even before any agitation.

The second issue was 15 per cent increase in the salary of Federal Government workers effective January 2007. This was a promise made last year by President Obasanjo. Apparently after assessing the financial implications, he decided to shift the commencement period to April while the unions insisted government‘s word must be its bond. That was the point at which everything was stalled before he left office. After the facts of the matter had been presented to President Yar‘Adua, there was no debate. He directed the Ministry of Finance and Office of the Accountant General to go and work out the details. He was later to be informed that the promise had a proviso: that there would be right-sizing (euphemism for retrenchment) in the Federal Civil Service. Notwithstanding, to the President, government just has to honour its obligations. Another point won by labour without any hassle.

Now to the issue of fuel price hike done shortly before the administration came in. There were presentations by PPPRA, NNPC and other stakeholders on all the indices that informed the decision. There is no point repeating them because they are the same arguments even though they are germane to the development of the oil and gas sector. What should government do in the face of the harsh economic realities?

The consensus remains that in a democracy, the people have to be widely consulted and the relevant stakeholders carried along on important decisions that would affect their welfare. Taking into account the hardship that normally goes with fuel price hike which has been rather evident across the nation, the President decided that since kerosene and diesel are more essential for the vulnerable elements of our society, prices of such products should be reversed to the old rates. As for petrol, having factored in the economic indices, a reduction of N5 was also approved even though this would go against the projections of NNPC and PPPRA.

Of course, it is politically expedient to just reverse everything but one fact often ignored is that Nigeria is a poor country with the potentials for changing our fortunes if we do the correct things though the problem remains that the people, for good reasons, do not trust those in power as acting in their interest. That explains why public opinion is today against government on the vexatious issue of petrol pricing. The position of President Yar‘Adua, however, remains that it is the responsibility of government to take the hard decisions, however painful, provided they are in the long-term interest of the people.

That exactly was what Obasanjo did at a time when it was ordinarily convenient for him not to touch the issue. What this translates into is that the former President wanted to help the in-coming administration by taking the flak for the unpopular but necessary decision, certain that time will vindicate him. Sadly, he is being vilified today as acting deliberately to ‘punish Nigerians‘.

What is even more unfortunate about the whole negotiations between the government and labour is the attempt to paint the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Ambassador Babagana Kingibe, as unbending. That is not what has transpired. Before the negotiations commenced, those who were involved in previous such exercises had recommended to government an incremental approach in the offer of concessions to Labour until a final one was finally agreed upon when everyone would have been strike-weary. This time, the position of the President, canvassed by Kingibe, was that a strike could be averted if government showed sufficient good faith by putting its cards clearly on the table.

As an experienced diplomat, Kingibe was further buoyed by the fact that since a negotiation presupposes that every party should go away with something, more so when the issues in contention were inherited ‘problems‘, Labour would be willing to give that ‘little‘ to government while accepting all the major concessions which would have been given anyway by way of reversal (in VAT) and 15 per cent salary increase.

There was also the assumption that since the government is just coming in with a cabinet not in place, Labour would be also willing to agree on common grounds so that, working together, the whole price mechanism in the downstream sector could be jointly agreed upon. It did not turn out that way because, once the labour leaders were offered the concessions, the biggest they ever got under any government, it decided to raise the stakes and that explains where we are today.

The impression one got from the negotiations is that labour was already primed for a general strike and nothing would have averted it, not even if government had actually acceded to all the demands. It must, however, be noted that the labour leaders exhibited a high sense of responsibility and patriotism in the timing of their action by allowing the transition process to complete its course before making their demands. The fact should also not be lost that government has equally been restrained in its response with a clear understanding of its responsibility to public sensitivity. Unfortunately, the Labour leaders have not reciprocated this gesture in their actions since the strike action commenced on Wednesday.

The pundits who argue that the contending issues on ground can be resolved simply by Yar‘Adua disowning Obasanjo clearly miss the point. Even if he does that to please the mob, it would still not obliterate the fact that the April elections were messed up, a fact to which he has admitted and made a solemn commitment to redressing by reforming the electoral process so as to bring integrity to the ballot box. It would also not address the Niger Delta crisis for which concerted efforts are being made and the power sector reform that form the kernel of his agenda for change. YarAdua is not a man who would take the short-cut. He would rather face the problems squarely as he has been doing. Almost single-handedly, he is now on the verge on resolving the contentious issues that lead to perennial strike with his last meeting with the lecturers ending 2am Thursday.

Interestingly, one of the major undercurrents in the on-going strike saga is the sale of Kaduna and Port Harcourt refineries. The position of Labour is that there was no transparency in the whole process. There are other vested interests who also have issues with the buyers and the timing of the sale. But the Bureau for Public Enterprise, the body statutorily set up to conduct such exercise, has been defending the sale with facts and figures that thus far remain incontrovertible even if public perception is totally different.

The guiding principle for the President is that the Privatisation exercise should be as transparent. Because, if this does not happen in our peculiar atmosphere beclouded by a lack of trust in the conduct of public officials, then a relatively straightforward disagreement can blow up into a full-fledged controversy, with accusations of bad faith, corruption, and so on as is now evident. Even at that, the position of the President is that genuine concerns from the sales of Port Harcourt and Kaduna Refineries raised by Labour can be resolved within the ambit of the law.

The point, however, is that if we must follow the due process and the rule of law, those who oppose the sales or have issues associated with the exercise must be prepared to use the appropriate channels to seek redress rather than expect the President to announce a whimsical cancellation of a completed process on the basis of rumour and insinuations. Such recourse to arbitrariness will not promote investment, either of local businessmen or that of foreigners.

Aside the explanation by BPE that 10 per cent of the shares are reserved for workers and another 10 per cent for the host communities, Labour has even been given the power to do its own independent due diligence on the sale of 51 per cent shares (to the core investors) and examine other related matters on the issues. If at any point it is discovered that the sale was not done in public interest, the President is ready to take appropriate actions in promotion (or defence) of transparency and the rule of law.

It is, however, unfortunate that a serious national conversation has been reduced to no more than a conflict between Obasanjo‘s former government and Yar‘Adua‘s new one. That is not the case. Besides, if the whole idea is that Obasanjo‘s legacies are bad and Yar‘adua should do away with them, why then should he be made to pay the 15 per cent increase in salary, a commitment also made by the former President?

One should, however, not lose sight of the fact that like any government that has just left, or is leaving, power (whether in the UK, US or Nigeria), Obasanjo is very unpopular today. But we should wait for the judgement of history. Personally, I believe he made his mistakes, as we all make ours, but he did well considering where he met Nigeria and where he left her. All factors considered, he was a great leader. That much I wrote as a practicing journalist. Even in matters that now generate serious controversy in Abuja, there are examples to show of how things have changed.

One thing most people may not know now which would soon begin to manifest is that it is becoming increasingly unattractive to hold public office. In the past, for instance, someone in my position would have a big house, retinue of cars and aides at the expense of government. Now, I do not have, and will not get, an official car. I have no official residence and not entitled to one. That is the situation for everyone. While it is convenient to blame Obasanjo for selling all government houses as many now do (including this writer, in frustration), he has in the process cut a lot of waste that goes with public office and with time, people would begin to count the cost before taking government appointments.

Whatever may be our disposition towards Obasanjo and his stewardship, he is no longer an issue. While government accepts responsibility for the current hardship in the land and is working towards ameliorating the situation, public commentators should also be courageous enough to lay the blame where it belongs: Labour and not government is the rigid party in this negotiation. For inexplicable reasons, it is their leaders that are unwilling to shift any ground even when out of four demands, they won three and a half. If in an examination, one scores 87.5 per cent, is that not a major achievement?

I am, however, not surprised that the President is being criticised for his stance which some see as ‘insensitive‘. Yet, I have heard some respected senior colleagues asking: ‘where is Segun and why is he not talking?‘

In a season where public discourse has been so debased by bombast, and hot air is sometimes packaged and sold to the ‘informed‘ public as insight, I am not surprised that some people expect me to be making noise on the airwaves at a time when constructive engagement would be more productive.

As for the analysts boxed into the cocoon of ”correct” versus ”incorrect” and ”good” versus ”evil” in this struggle, they also must realise some disputes are about ”right” versus ”wrong” as this one clearly is even while those words can also have double meanings, leaning alternately toward one or the other end of the spectrum. What times like this therefore demand is the ability of leaders at both ends of the spectrum (Labour and government) to be flexible enough to take into account the greater interest of the Nigerian people. That exactly is what President Umaru Musa Yar‘Adua has been doing. Unfortunately, on the other side of the spectrum, NLC‘s Comrade Omar and my brother, Peter Esele of TUC have not shown that capacity.