Speaking at the University of Nigeria's 63rd Founders’ Day lecture in Nsukka, Enugu State, Dr. Otti suggested that the Federal Government should have executed more strategic planning and communication before subsidy removal to shield the public from expected shocks. He believed that eliminating the subsidy a decade ago would have put the nation on the path to sustainable development.

Dr. Otti contended that the previous subsidy system only permitted payments for imported petrol, mainly benefiting wealthy businessmen capable of importing fuel. This setup, he argued, fostered arbitrage, waste, and corruption due to a lack of effective monitoring, manipulation by influential individuals, and dishonest officials.

The governor also mentioned that the subsidy regime's complexities encouraged unethical practices, ultimately leading to the poor subsidizing the lavish lifestyles of the wealthy and well-connected, contrary to the original intent.

“One thing I have learnt in communicating policies and plans is that you can never get everyone to agree with your proposals. However, sincere and clear communication, using various channels would help on two fronts: buy you genuine public support and give your audience an opportunity to understand your intentions better.

 “The removal of fuel subsidy was clearly the right decision and should have been done about ten years ago or earlier but even then, I am of the considered opinion that more could have been done to insulate the public from the anticipated shocks.

“Being a policy that would introduce shock into the system, I believe it should have been communicated better. I do not think that much was done to properly educate the public on the issues at stake,” he said.

He also pointed out instances from other countries, such as Angola and Senegal, where governments kept subsidies on necessary items for the benefit of the less privileged.

He argued for a broader policy framework to improve specific areas, as suggested by the World Bank. He said that actions like discounted public transportation, cash aid, food help, and low-interest farming loans should have been taken into account to assist both city and countryside underprivileged citizens.