The mass protests against hunger and hardship, tagged ‘August Protests’ with the hashtag #EndBadGovernance, may have been bungled by its organisers or sabotaged by security agencies, but it must not be ignored by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. As today marks the 10th day of the protests, it was apparent that the focal objective of the civil action was to stimulate government’s intervention in the unbearable cost of living. The ‘TakeItBackMovement’ would not be the first to protest against this hardship. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) had on several occasions raised the same issue, culminating in the campaign for a substantial increase in the minimum wage. Though looting, arson, and violence deflated the momentum of the protest, its objectives resonate with the people, from rural areas to our big cities.
In every democracy, protests are legitimate as a means of expressing dissatisfaction or objections towards actions taken by the authorities. For a system like Nigeria where the Legislature appears subservient to the Executive, protests against hunger and hardship are an expression of the populace’s objections to some of the policies implemented by the Tinubu administration in the last 14 months. They are anchored on the cardinal principles of democracy that guarantee freedom of expression, speech, association, peaceful assembly, the right to life, right to sharing of one’s opinions, and the right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention.
Nigerians are not the first to protest against hunger and hardship. There have been precedents. In Greece and Ireland, there were the anti-austerity protests in 2016. There were similar movements in Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom in 2013. The Lebanese also protested over a period of three years, from 2019 to 2021, over inflation, hunger and hardship. Canada also experienced similar protests in 2016. In contemporary history, there were the Arab Spring and Arab Winter protests over unemployment, hardship, and against authoritarian governments, which led to some significant changes in the Middle East.
For Nigerians to raise their voices against this administration’s policies, which have spread hunger and hardship without genuine amelioration, is not only legitimate but important. The civil action was supposed to be a genuine feedback to the government that the Nigerian people are pressed beyond endurance, and that policy changes have become imperative for the survival of the people. Unfortunately, the government’s attitude has been to push back.
Our security agencies, from the first day of the protest, demonstrated that they were not prepared to maintain safety and peace during the action. In Abuja, for instance, they sprayed teargas at protesters and brutalised journalists who went out to cover the events. The violence that broke out in a part of Nasarawa State was also instigated by the police who sprayed teargas on the protesters while they were marching peacefully, and escorted by the military. Many of the deaths that occurred during the protests were linked to the police’s use of force on peaceful protesters. This is condemnable.
The dastard turn of events during the protest was caused by unruly persons who penetrated the protesters and went against the rule of the game by engaging in looting, stealing, causing arson, or engaging in other acts that disturbed public peace. The standard forms of peaceful protests include the distribution of leaflets, flyers or other literature on approved property or on public sidewalks, parks and plazas. Such are carried out through picketing on public sidewalks, parks and plazas, so long as sidewalks and building entrances are not blocked; or chanting, singing protest songs on public sidewalks, parks and plazas. We unreservedly condemn all acts of arson, killing and violence by protesters, especially in the Northern part of Nigeria, where the protests apparently went out of hand.
Their activities undermined the objectives of the protests, as they gave government the impression that the protesters were tools in the hands of the ruling government’s political detractors. Worse still, the strange dimension to the protest, the sewing and brandishing of Russian flags, in some states, were definitely not in line with the objectives of the protests. As far as we know, the civil action was against hunger and general hardship, not regime change. Security operatives must investigate and bring those behind introduction of Russian flags into the protests to book.
Though the protests went awry, we call on President Tinubu to separate the seed from the chaff and put in place policies that will ameliorate the sufferings of the Nigerian people. In the last 14 months of this government, the people have been exposed to untold hardship, as evident in the steady rise in inflation indicators, according to the monthly reports of the Nigerian Bureau of Statistics (NBS). The removal of subsidy on petrol and the floating of the Naira have put a lot of resources at the disposal of government. The Tinubu government must, in conjunction with the sub-national governments, find creative way of applying the excess funds to bring down the prices of food and essential commodities. If the government uses the gains from its policies to tackle hunger and hardship, the people would have no cause to embark on protest.
