The decision of the Federal Government to distribute basic food items such as rice, garri and beans to very poor Nigerians as a measure of moderating the harsh effects of the downturn in the country’s economy is certainly laced with good intentions; but weeks of implementing the policy have shown lapses of very serious nature in the scheme, which have occasioned disillusionment among the generality of Nigerians.

First, the distribution, even though on-going, has excluded many citizens manifestly in need of such intervention. Two, the procedure of distribution has been clumsy, and largely unsatisfactory; and thirdly; either due to the sheer huge number of impoverished Nigerians, or a gross inadequacy of food items estimated and provided; or for both or even more reasons, the quantity of food ultimately reaching those billed to receive them is so small as to be inconsequential; even demeaning.

Even as many families are thereby excluded, many others barely get what they would consume within a day or two. Certainly, this cannot be the intendment of the government. Going forward, therefore, there is a need for the government to revisit the palliative distribution policy, in consideration of more viable and more result-oriented intervention for the people.

The Federal Government, in August 2023, commenced the disbursement of N5 billion to each of the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory for the procurement of food items for distribution to vulnerable citizens as part of measures to cushion the effect of subsidy removal on premium motor spirit. There should be no denying that the intervention was desirable and justifiable considering that a good number of citizens were in dire need of reliefs, as means of livelihoods were disrupted by increase in fuel price, which triggered hike in fare and prices of household essentials. However, reports from across the country revealed deep-seated discontentment among Nigerians, who have labelled the intervention as mere tokenism, as the palliative package fell below expectations. As seen in some of the footage that trended on the social media, the quantity of food items allotted for distribution in the neighbourhoods could barely offer the much-needed succour to no more than a handful of households. The mood of dissatisfaction that attended the distribution of the palliatives thus indicated that the panacea to the wide-scale poverty occasioned by the prevailing economic downturn in the country is beyond distribution of palliatives on a periodic basis.

While it may be desirable for the government to, as situation demands, respond to the needs of vulnerable citizens faced with existential challenge and threats of hunger, there is the need to rethink the idea of palliatives on account of huge cost implication, which will continue to create gaps that bother on effectiveness and inclusiveness. It should be evident now that the deployment of palliatives or any form of bailout should ideally not be a permanent feature of the policy of government at both the federal and state levels. While the option of palliatives as a short-term measure was understandable, the shortcomings and misgivings that attended the distribution of the food items across the country call for reassessment of the programme so as to guide against the reoccurrence of the inadequacies and, more importantly, to evolve a more impactful and fitting alternative. Even if the distributions of palliatives were to be adjudged robustly inclusive and satisfactory, the ultimate priority should be investment in critical sectors of the economy as well as massive infrastructural transformation to enhance productivity and gainful employment.

Public resources committed to palliative ought to have been channelled into engaging citizens in productive activities to stimulate job creation, which will in turn translate into sustainable economic growth. As an alternative to palliative, the government should overhaul the National Social Investment Programme (N-SIP) to reflect an inclusive and verifiable database that captures Nigerians living in extreme poverty and who are genuinely qualified to be beneficiaries of social support.

Considering that provision of palliatives or any sort of bailout is not sustainable on a medium or long-term basis, priority attention should be on revitalising the economy. First and foremost, necessary steps need to be taken to reduce the astronomic costs of production which have rendered most of the country’s hitherto viable industries including listed companies comatose, shot up prices of goods; particularly stable foods and led to increased demand in foreign exchange for importation with consequences on the economy.

It cannot be overemphasised that social investment policy should consider provision of incentives and enhanced access to low interest credit facilities in support of small and medium scale enterprises, some of which are fast asphyxiating or becoming moribund. Unfortunately, deployment of palliatives as occasional handouts to select individuals amongst a huge population made up of low-income households and large number of unemployed citizens who are dependants would only come across as a drop in the ocean. The proposed six-month duration of dispensing post-subsidy removal palliatives should be enough for the government to activate a detailed plan of action for economic rejuvenation; focusing on stimulating productivity and massive job-creation. We cannot overemphasize the long-term positive impacts of investing in the power sector on the socio-economic transformation and shared propriety for the country. Access to regular power supply in the rural areas would stimulate productivity and open the hinterlands to economic activities with prospects of mobilising investment in post-harvest storage activities and rural industrialization; thereby closing the gaps of economic marginalization and dependency amongst the rural populace.

Prioritizing investment in productivity to drive the economy for sustainable growth should be the ultimate focus with deliberate targets on employment creation to imbue the GDP. Government should consider substantial investment economic stimulus to incentivize the private sector and to encourage production activities and boost economic activities towards employment creation. Social investment should be channeled for wealth creation and redistribution as the ultimate goal in the quest to banish multidimensional poverty and enhance social security. It is incontrovertible that most Nigerians, particularly the youth, would prefer gainful employment that offers moderate monthly income rather than relying on palliative or handout which often come across as gratuitous. Going forward, therefore, it has become imperative to properly weigh the option of palliative in view of recent experiences and compelling reality. The country and the citizens stand to be the ultimate beneficiaries of conscious investment in initiatives that promote productivity, employment opportunities, economic growth, and sustainable development.

Update news