Politics

See How Lawyers and SERAP Criticize Tinubu’s Policies on Fuel Price Increases

Published by Tope Fakinlede on September 7th, 2024.

See How Lawyers and SERAP Criticize Tinubu’s Policies on Fuel Price Increases

Legal experts and the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) have expressed strong objections to President Bola Tinubu’s recent policy decisions, particularly the hikes in fuel prices, electricity tariffs, and tuition fees. They argue that these changes have placed significant hardship on Nigerians, potentially violating constitutional principles.

The critics assert that Tinubu’s policies infringe upon Chapter 2 of the Nigerian Constitution, which underscores the government’s duty to safeguard the welfare of its citizens. SERAP has specifically condemned the increase in fuel prices, claiming it is inconsistent with both the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended) and Nigeria’s international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Recently, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) instructed its retail outlets to raise petrol prices from ₦580 to ₦855 per litre, igniting public discontent. Human rights lawyer Supo Ojo highlighted that such economic mismanagement breaches constitutional provisions related to citizen welfare and security. He emphasized that Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which deals with these issues, is often overlooked due to its non-enforceable nature.

Constitutional lawyer Akin Bajepade also criticized Tinubu’s economic policies, arguing they are at odds with Sections 14 and 16 of Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which focus on national welfare and government responsibilities. He lamented that despite the global recognition of these responsibilities, Nigerian courts have not made this chapter enforceable.

However, Dr. Misbau Lateef, a UK-based Nigerian lawyer, contends that it is inaccurate to claim that the President has violated Chapter 2 of the Constitution. He argues that the chapter’s provisions are aspirational rather than legally binding, and thus not subject to judicial enforcement.