How Tinubu should have addressed hunger protests  —  CSOs

Four days after Nigerians had hit the streets protesting against bad governance — with casualties recorded in some parts of the country — President Bola Tinubu came on television to address the nation.

The ongoing protest, triggered by the excruciating cost of living occasioned by his economic policies started on Thursday, August 1, 2024.

But what started as a peaceful demonstration soon turned into a looting spree; destruction of public properties; attacks on protesters; and extreme use of force by security agencies.

To douse tensions and placate the protesting citizens, President Tinubu in a nationwide broadcast sued for peace and condemned the killing of protesters during violent demonstrations that erupted in the northern parts of the country.

He also rolled out several initiatives targeted at empowering the youth which include the student loan and Digital and Creative Enterprises (IDiCE) programme.

However, the president’s speech has been faulted as many Nigerians believed Tinubu should have addressed much more pressing issues, especially protesters’ demands instead of reiterating his administration's programmes.

CSOs reactions to Tinubu's speech

In the estimation of Civil Society Organisations, Tinubu’s address was mere political rhetoric while opposition parties said the speech was empty.

According to Paul James, the Election Programme Manager, YIAGA Africa, Tinubu’s speech “failed to address the demands by the citizens.”

He said the address “should have happened even before the protests started,” adding that the broadcast was a regurgitation of the ruling party’s manifestoes.

“If you analyse the speech critically, it looks like the usual political rhetoric. It is more like addressing a party’s manifestoes without necessarily addressing the germane issues the protesters are bringing forward,” Paul told Pulse.

He said the protests would not have lingered on if the president had shown a genuine intent to address insecurity and food crisis in the country.

Instead of reiterating his campaign promises, Paul said the president’s speech should have in concrete terms addressed the demands of the protesters, the plight of Nigerians, and the palliatives his government is putting in place to cushion the effects of his economic policies.

“One of the protesters’ demands is that the government should revert to the old price. I would not expect that the government would necessarily go back to the old price due to the corruption that exists in that sector. But again, what is the government doing to bridge the gap? You expect the idea of palliatives to ease of transpiration and all that. Those were the sort of things you expect the president to talk about,” he submitted.

He added that “being dismissive or evasive about those issues does not speak well to the quality of leadership the citizens had expected.”

In his submission, Auwal Rafsanjani, the Chair of the Board of Trustees Amnesty International Nigeria and Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre said the president’s plea for dialogue would not make any sense if it does not lead to “the amelioration and redemption of the suffering Nigerians.”

Rafsanjani maintained that Tinubu should not only call for a dialogue with the protesters but also set up a platform for the conversation to take place with relevant stakeholders.

“It is important that President Tinubu comes out to condemn the brutal and excessive use of force to kill so many innocent protesters in Kano. It also important for the president to dissociate himself from those who allegedly mobilised thugs to disrupt the protests in Kano,” the activist said.

According to him, if the president’s address “stopped at his campaign’s agenda, Nigerians would not appreciate the value of the speech.”

He concluded that Nigerians want the president to be honest and sincere about his policies.