No matter how we pare it, the 2012 #OccupyNigeria protests will remain pivotal in our sociopolitical history. Its significance lies in how much the pushback against government insensitivity resounded nationwide and even among the Nigerians in the Diaspora. It started as protests against the fuel subsidies removal, but it soon culminated in other disquieting issues such as government profligacy. #OccupyNigeria was the crucial juncture where the “breath of fresh air” that supposedly ushered in the Goodluck Jonathan administration—elected less than a year then—was putrefied. Nothing else he did afterward could stop the doomsday clock of his administration that started ticking. He got stuck with the label of corruption, and it defined his image all through.

In light of the present administration of Bola Tinubu’s removal of the same fuel subsidies, but with far less dramatic effects, it is understandable that people would question why the public intellectuals, social advocates, labour unions, and other third-sector activists who turned the tables against Jonathan have been nearly mute this time. How did it happen that Jonathan was “wicked,” but Tinubu’s doing the same in the tardiest manner is an exhibition of “leadership”?

While the difference in the responses then and now can be easily chalked down to factors such as tribalism, a sheer dislike for Jonathan, or even the benefit of hindsight, the critics make a strong case by raising the issue of the moral contents of public advocacy. Do the class of opinion entrepreneurs—from the public intellectuals, social advocates, social commentators, and even the so-called influencers—even have a moral anchor, or do they merely speak just so they too can be heard? Given that Tinubu himself was one of the several opportunists who hijacked the mood of dissatisfaction driving that protest to flaunt his own populist credentials, what does it say about his character that he would be the one to eventually remove the fuel subsidies without as much as creating a cushioning effect for the people who would expectedly be diminished by the multiplier effects of higher fuel prices? Tinubu, by writing that infamous letter to Jonathan to criticise him on the fuel subsidies, created a document that now testifies to his moral unscrupulousness.

But it has become typical that when the history of that moment is told in recent times, people redact the larger context and allege that the whole #OccupyNigeria affair was sponsored by politicians like Tinubu. That misattribution is unsurprising because our society does not put enough premium on memory, whether personal, collective, or even institutional. The #OccupyNigeria protests were far more spontaneous. They were instigated by reports of parliamentary investigations that revealed startling corruption in the payments between 2009 and 2011 (about $6.8bn). It was also the era of the Arab Spring and the Occupy Protests where protesters in different regions of the world were taking on their governments.

For us in Nigeria, it also seemed like the right time to question our government on its profligacy. The fuel subsidy issue under Jonathan could not have evaded the unrest that was roiling the rest of the world (just like the former President Muhammadu Buhari administration that succeeded him also took a hit from the #BlackLivesMatter protests that became #EndSARS in Nigeria). Each time someone points out to me that nobody has tried to organise another fuel subsidy protest like #OccupyNigeria since then, the question I ask them is if they would join such a gathering. If we were asked to go to Ojota now and protest, would you go? So much water has passed under the bridge of Nigerian sociopolitics since 2012; even the bridge has been carried away. What will be the point of investing energies into protests when the best the last one achieved was to catapult the same politicians who routinely suck Nigeria dry into Aso Rock?

Merely writing off the chicanery of the 2012 players as part of the game of politics will not do. The seeds of discontent that those dissemblers sow eventually grow into distrust and disquiet. The manner some elements in the South-West and the northern regions of the country were quick to opt out of any planned protests of the fuel subsidy removal itself was also disturbing. I should also recall that in 2012, those who opted out of the #OccupyNigeria protests were groups from the South-East and the South-South. That people could persuade themselves to suppress any dissent that threatens their kinsman’s political legitimacy shows how much Nigerians overly invested in the symbolism of the presidency. People will give up on advocating their own interests just so their tribesman in Aso Rock can survive. Getting Nigerians to form a multi-ethnic and multi-religious coalition and insist on the government working for us will require another level of political savviness.

That said, whatever is wrong with the implementation of the fuel subsidies removal is no argument for their retention. Whatever hypocrisy Tinubu and his minions in the so-called civil society might have manifested on this issue does not justify the payments. Outing these people as charlatans does not vindicate escalating the error of retaining the fuel subsidies. It is not worth matching hypocrisy for hypocrisy simply to point out the crookedness of our social commentators.

For one, it does not take much to see that every description of dystopia that will be occasioned if the fuel subsidies were ever removed happened even when it was sustained. We were told that the costs of goods and services would shoot up if they ever removed fuel subsidies, and the prices of everything did so immensely even without the removal. They said many people will fall into poverty if fuel subsidies were to be removed, but Nigerians fell into multi-dimensional poverty even though the costs of fuel subsidies rose astronomically. So what else can possibly go wrong that has not, many times and over?

Those who argue that even the USA gives fuel subsidies tend to overlook that what that country subsidises is production, not mere consumption. Besides, one cannot glibly compare an economy that is diversified, productive, and coherent with Nigeria’s voodoo capitalism that produces nothing yet consumes everything! As for those who argue that Tinubu should fight corruption in the sector instead of ending the subsidies, I hope they know how ridiculous that proposal sounds? If Buhari, who got into power by pretending to be the very embodiment of incorruptibility could not fight corruption, how do you expect Tinubu to fare better? How?

Tinubu himself knows he does not have the moral legitimacy to challenge anyone on corruption. The few times he opened his mouth to talk about corruption, he induced serious laughter. I am sure he is smart enough to not overreach himself by pursuing his fellow politicians on corruption. Doing so quickly opens him up to many vulnerabilities. He will promptly face another battle from those who have his dossier. They will not hesitate to tank whatever moral legitimacy he still has by producing the sordid revelations of his untoward affairs. He cannot fight the corruption in the fuel subsidies. The best he can afford is to seize the opening between two government transitions and cut off that umbilical cord forever.

If there is an important lesson to take away from the moral clarity that defined the fuel subsidy protests in 2012 and which is now hazy in post-Jonathan Nigeria, it is how much even the enterprise of truth-telling through social commentary is tainted with ethnic and religious sentiments. Going forward, some people will rightly be more cynical while others will show more circumspection in listening to the class of public intellectuals, activists, and the so-called social advocates, especially those whose ideas of right and wrong are dictated by how closer their opinions can get them to Aso Rock.