Fuel subsidy

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has pledged to restore the petrol subsidy if elected president in the 2027 general election.

Atiku, who is the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), made the declaration during an interview on Wednesday.

He said he did not oppose the removal of the subsidy but questioned how the funds saved from the policy had been used by the government.

“I did not oppose the removal of the oil subsidy, but where is the money? Where did it go? It was intended to reduce poverty and help children attend school. Where is the money now? It seems they are just stealing it,” Atiku said in Hausa.

He added, “If elected, I will bring back the oil subsidy, and whoever stole the money must refund it.”

According to Atiku, the removal of the subsidy would have been acceptable if the government had invested the resulting savings in projects that would improve the lives of Nigerians.

“The government successfully removed the subsidy, but we do not know where the money went. If they had used the money for development, to solve security problems, for education, and to create opportunities for the youth, it would be different. If elected, I can remove the subsidy and use the money to do all these properly.”

President Bola Tinubu announced the end of the petrol subsidy in his inaugural address on May 29, 2023.

The policy was followed by a sharp rise in the cost of living as petrol prices increased and the cost of goods and services rose across the country.

However, some state governors have said their monthly allocations from the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) increased considerably after the subsidy was removed.

The Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, said on Wednesday that the removal of the subsidy had generated N15.8 trillion in additional resources for the federation between June 2023 and December 2025.

Oyedele attributed the increase partly to higher revenue collections, particularly the naira value of transactions denominated in US dollars after the exchange-rate reforms.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Nasarawa State now receives between N14 billion and N16 billion monthly from federal allocations, compared with about N3.8 billion to N4.5 billion before the removal of the petrol subsidy, Governor Abdullahi Sule has said.

Sule made the disclosure on Saturday in Lafia, the state capital, when he received journalists and members of the presidential media team who were in the state to inspect federal and state government projects.

The governor attributed the increase in revenue available to the state to economic reforms introduced by President Bola Tinubu.

He said the reforms had created more fiscal space for state governments to implement projects without depending heavily on loans.

Sule said Tinubu “took bullets” for state governors after the removal of the petrol subsidy, which he said resulted in higher allocations to the states.

According to the governor, Nasarawa previously received between N3.8 billion and N4.5 billion monthly, while the state’s local governments received between N1.9 billion and N2.5 billion.

He said the state’s monthly allocation has since increased by more than twice its previous level.

“All the projects we are doing in Nasarawa state today, without borrowing from the bank, are as a result of president Bola and his support,” he said.

“So, you must give him the credit for that. Without the reforms, we would not have had the resources to do what we are doing. So, I can’t take credit for those projects.

“The office of the SSG is better than my own office. And there is nothing wrong with that because at the time they built my own office, Tinubu was not there. We didn’t have the resources that we have today. So, there is nothing wrong with me doing it better today because we are receiving the resources better today.

“I came from the private sector, so for every contract, I give the amount that we are spending on that contract so that people can make a difference with the kind of money we are receiving. I can tell you for free.

“You are right when you say that president Tinubu took the bullet on our behalf. In my first four years, everybody knows the federal government was sharing between maybe N590 billion to about N620 billion a month as the total FAAC allocation.

“For Nasarawa state, what we were getting was between maybe N3.8 billion and about N4.5 billion for the state. For the local government, it was between N1.9 billion and N2.5 billion every month.

“With the removal of the fuel subsidy, I can tell you for free that Nasarawa state today is receiving an average of N14 to N16 billion a month. But you have to go back and find out [about] our expenses. That is why Onanuga said president Tinubu took the bullet on our behalf.

“That is why they accused me of being very straightforward in criticising anything not right, arguing that I am no longer a straightforward person now that I am commending the government. So, anytime I tell the truth about the good thing happening, I am no longer a good person.”

Sule said his administration had undertaken several projects without obtaining bank loans. He maintained that the increased revenue had made it possible for the state to finance more development projects.

Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, also said state governments were benefiting from the removal of the petrol subsidy through the implementation of major projects across the country.

By Lawal Dahiru Mamman

On 29 May 2023, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu used his inaugural address to sever Nigeria’s decades-long dependence on fuel subsidies. It was a definitive end to a fiscal drain that had consumed trillions of naira annually, a broken system that long benefited smugglers, middlemen, and the elite far more than ordinary citizens.

Three years into this economic regime change, the ledger presents a duality. While the policy has successfully unlocked unprecedented nominal revenues for the Federation Account, its real-world impact remains polarising.

As the nation reflects on the administration’s third anniversary in 2026, the question changes from whether the subsidy needed to go to who is actually winning from its absence.

In reality, the elimination of the subsidy did not result in a dedicated, untouchable savings account. Instead, it stopped a bleeding artery by wiping out the ₦4–5 trillion annual “under-recovery” losses previously absorbed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL).

Consequently, direct remittances to the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) have increased to historic highs. In 2024, annual savings reached roughly $7.5 billion, which translates to approximately ₦12 trillion at prevailing rates. This drove a 79% jump in total FAAC disbursements, skyrocketing from ₦16.28 trillion in 2023 to ₦28.78 trillion in 2024, with sub-national governments swallowing ₦15.26 trillion of that pool.

The momentum carried firmly into 2025, yielding an estimated $7–8 billion in savings. In the first quarter of 2025 alone, federal petroleum savings surged by over 500%, leaping from ₦154 billion to ₦836 billion. State governments have been the primary beneficiaries of this windfall, utilising the massive inflows to clear ₦1.85 trillion in backlogged debts, stabilise payrolls, and kickstart stalled regional projects.

While a November 2025 National Orientation Agency (NOA) policy document claims that over $84 billion has been saved and channelled into 40 road projects, independent macroeconomic realities suggest that this cumulative figure is mathematically improbable over a two- to three-year window. The actual cumulative benefit more closely aligns with World Bank estimates ranging between ₦11 trillion and ₦20 trillion, heavily caveated by severe naira depreciation.

Because these funds flow directly into general revenue pools rather than a ring-fenced fund, precise tracking has become an administrative nightmare. This lack of transparency has triggered fierce pushback from civil society organisations such as SERAP and BudgIT, which demand that states account for their newfound wealth rather than sink it into urban aesthetics or overheads.

The federal government has defended the pain of the reform by pointing to vital interventions across key sectors. In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, an initial ₦5 billion per state and the FCT was deployed via grants and loans for food and fertiliser distribution to cushion the shock.

Social safety nets saw a modest boost, with ₦3.2 billion allocated to expand conditional cash transfers through the National Social Register.

On the human capital front, the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) has disbursed ₦206.29 billion to over 1.1 million student beneficiaries. While NELFUND is technically funded via the Development Levy, the subsidy removal created the fiscal breathing room necessary to establish it.

Massive shifts have also been targeted toward transit and structural development. Over ₦100 billion has been injected into the Presidential Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Initiative to build conversion centres and roll out mass transit buses.

Increased liquidity has sustained funding for critical federal projects, including the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway, the Abuja–Kano Road, the Kano–Maradi rail line, and a $1 billion modernisation commitment for key seaports like Apapa, Tin Can, and Calabar.

Furthermore, a massive portion of the savings has been absorbed by debt servicing, exceeding ₦15 trillion in recent budget cycles. While this aggressive rebalancing crowds out routine capital expenditure, it narrowed the fiscal deficit from roughly 5.4% to 3.0% of GDP, effectively averting a total sovereign bankruptcy.

Despite the triumphant-looking government balance sheets, the microeconomic reality for the average Nigerian is brutal. The savings on paper feel a world away from the hardships on the ground, creating a paradox between macro-stabilisation and micro-deprivation.

The most devastating blow has been the cost-of-living crisis. Fuel prices ballooned from under ₦200 to over ₦1,300 per litre across the federation, unleashing a wave of transportation and food inflation that has left millions of households financially insecure.

At the same time, citizens watch trillions of naira being unlocked, only to see it swallowed by prior borrowing patterns and rising interest costs, while the government’s appetite for fresh debt remains stubbornly high. This problem is compounded by severe currency depreciation and inflation.

In nominal terms, FAAC allocations are setting records at ₦2–3 trillion per month. In real terms, however, rampant inflation and a weakened naira mean this money buys far less infrastructure, healthcare, and education than it would have three years ago.

Bottom Line

Three years on, the structural necessity of President Tinubu’s May 2023 declaration is undeniable; it freed Nigeria from a fiscal death trap and dismantled an unsustainable system. Yet, the victory remains largely confined to government ledgers.

For the man on the street, the benefits of the reform have been thoroughly muted by inflation, currency devaluations, and execution gaps.

The fundamental challenge of Nigerian governance remains unresolved: the inability to translate state wealth into public welfare efficiently. As the calendar turns deeper into 2026, public trust is running thin.

If this reform is to be remembered as a historic transformation rather than just a massive tax hike on the poor, the government must shift from celebrating nominal revenue milestones to delivering tangible, unmistakable improvements in its citizens’ daily lives. The sacrifices have been made; it is time for the dividends to appear.

Lawal Dahiru Mamman writes from Abuja, and he can be reached via: dahirulawal90@gmail.com.

By Lawan Bukar Maigana

At a birthday lecture titled “Weaponisation of Poverty as a Means of Underdevelopment: A Case Study of Nigeria,” organised in honour of former Governor Rotimi Amaechi at the Continental Hotel in Abuja, the Emir of Kano, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, bitterly complained about the unprecedented hardship Nigerians face today. 

According to him, the inflation and poverty gripping the nation are the direct consequences of loving to rule over people rather than loving them through developing favourable policies. That’s what I understand from his statement. But isn’t the fuel subsidy removal connected mainly to the realities he pointed out? 

Many might forget, or conveniently overlook, that this same Sanusi Lamido Sanusi has been one of the strongest advocates for removing fuel subsidies since 2012. Years ago, I heard him proudly state on BBC Hausa that he had repeatedly advised President Muhammadu Buhari to remove subsidies and shut down Nigeria’s borders. 

Respectfully, Buhari granted only one of his two wishes—closing the borders while leaving fuel subsidies intact. The subsidies lingered for years, postponed amid fears of political backlash.

Under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the fuel subsidy has finally been removed. The impact on ordinary Nigerians has been brutal—prices for fuel and essential commodities have surged, sending inflation into uncharted territory. People are being hunted by hunger and economic hardship like never before.

In this context, I believe Sanusi’s recent criticisms miss the mark. If anyone deserves celebration, it is President Tinubu,who dares to implement what Sanusi himself recommended years ago. Blaming Tinubu alone, even though Sanusi didn’t mention his name, for the hardship is unfair because he and other elite policymakers never offered concrete solutions or mitigating measures to cushion the blow on the poor when pushing for subsidy removal.

It is important to remind Nigerians that the blame for this economic situation is shared, not the fault of any one individual or administration. As the former Governor of the Apex Bank, Sanusi is part of the problem he now publicly laments. He advocated for the policy without proposing corresponding safety nets or economic reforms to soften the impact. The failure to plan has cost Nigerians dearly.

At the Abuja event, Sanusi asked a question that cut to the heart of leadership in Nigeria: “Do we as leaders truly love Nigerians, or do we just like ruling over them?” The answer is painfully obvious: too many leaders are interested in power for power’s sake. They seek to rule over the masses rather than serve them by crafting policies that uplift the poor.

This question should prompt serious reflection. If policymakers want to see genuine progress, they must remember that leadership is more than advising harsh policies; it is about standing with the people during the painful transitions these policies cause. It is about preparing the ground and providing support systems before asking citizens to bear the burden of economic reforms.

Nigeria’s elites, including Sanusi, need to own their history, yesterday. They must remember their past advocacies and be willing to share responsibility when those policies create hardship. It is easy to blame the current government for long-advocated but poorly planned decisions. It is far harder to admit one’s role in the consequences.

The harsh reality is that many elites conveniently forget their yesterday—the positions they took and the policies they championed. When those policies are finally implemented, and Nigerians bear the consequences, those same elites criticise the outcomes as if they had no hand in shaping them.

The lesson here is clear: policymaking in Nigeria must be holistic. It must consider not only economic theories but also social realities. Removing subsidies may be necessary, but without effective mitigation strategies, it becomes a weapon of poverty, inflicting untold suffering on the most vulnerable.

So, as Nigerians struggle with inflation and hardship, we should remember the true colours of our elites. They must be held accountable—not only for the policies they recommend but also for the human cost of those policies.

Lastly, I ask again: Should those who recommend harsh policies also bear part of the responsibility for their outcomes? The answer is a resounding yes. True leadership demands not just bold ideas but also the courage to accept the consequences and work tirelessly to protect the people.

Lawan Bukar Maigana is a journalist, humanitarian, Pan-Africanist, and social commentator. He’s known as Ibn Maigana on Facebook.

By Muhammad Sulaiman

Abdulrasheed Bawa, former chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), has released a revealing new book that exposes the depth of corruption in Nigeria’s petroleum subsidy regime.

Titled The Shadow of Loot & Losses: Uncovering Nigeria’s Petroleum Subsidy Fraud, the book offers a detailed, insider account of one of the country’s most expensive financial scandals. Drawing from his experience as a lead investigator in the 2012 probe into fuel subsidy fraud, Bawa unveils how trillions of naira were siphoned through fraudulent schemes.

According to the book, corrupt practices ranged from ghost importing and over-invoicing to manipulating shipping documents and round-tripping—all of which were aimed at exploiting the subsidy payment system. 

Bawa also highlights the roles played by both complicit officials and private sector actors, citing systemic weaknesses and widespread collusion.

“This is not just a chronicle of fraud,” Bawa said. “It is a call to action — a demand for transparency, accountability, and reform in Nigeria’s public finance management, especially in the oil sector.”

Published by CableBooks, an imprint of Cable Media & Publishing Ltd, the book is now available nationwide through RovingHeights Bookstore. It is already being hailed as essential reading for policymakers, journalists, and anyone concerned with governance and accountability in Nigeria.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Constituency Affairs, Khadijat Omotayo, has appealed to Nigerians to refrain from criticizing the President over the removal of fuel subsidy.

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Jos, Plateau State, on Saturday, Omotayo emphasized that Tinubu’s decision was aimed at improving the country’s economy.

The gathering was attended by various stakeholders, including market women, youth groups, labor leaders, farmers, traditional rulers, government officials, and students.

She explained that the revenue generated from the subsidy removal had been allocated to all states, and the President had already approved an increase in workers’ salaries, with further increments expected during his tenure.

Omotayo highlighted Tinubu’s commitment to national unity, pointing to her presence in Plateau, a state governed by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as evidence of his willingness to work with all Nigerians.

She also praised Plateau State Governor Caleb Mutfwang for his efforts in fostering democracy and inclusivity.

She stated, “I don’t expect us at this point to keep attacking Mr. President, who wants dividends of democracy to go down the states. If Mr. President is a partisan politician, he won’t let me come to Plateau State, as we all know it is a PDP state. But I’m here to represent him just because he wants to carry everybody along.”

Defending the government’s policies, she noted that President Tinubu had introduced a student loan scheme benefiting all regions, allowing students to access loans without collateral.

“The students are talking about free education, and Mr. President has initiated free loans for the students. All regions are benefitting from this loan. Tell a friend to tell a friend; tell a mother to tell a brother, tell a father to tell a brother. There is a free student loan without collateral. What do you want again?” she asked.

Omotayo called on Nigerians to support the government’s initiatives and urged citizens to hold their representatives accountable rather than directing their frustrations at the President.

Governor Mutfwang, represented by the Plateau State Commissioner for Youths, Musa Ashoms, appreciated Tinubu’s support for Plateau and reiterated his administration’s commitment to development.

He stated, “Mr. President is doing a lot for us in Plateau, but like Oliver Twist, we are only asking for more. Like you said Emilokan, as Plateau State, it is our time for development.”

The town hall meeting provided an opportunity for citizens to engage with government representatives and discuss pressing national issues.

By Usman Abdullahi Koli

I read Professor Farooq A. Kperogi’s article “Emir Sanusi’s Quid Pro Quo for His Friends Turned Fiends” with keen interest. While it was well-written and rich in rhetorical flair, I believe it unfairly misrepresents the character and contributions of His Highness Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II and the broader context of his remarks. My intention here is not to disparage Mr. Kperogi or his intellectual depth but to offer a more nuanced perspective based on facts and a balanced understanding.

Sanusi’s commentary on economic reforms is not new, and it is not driven by self-interest, as the article implies. His economic positions, controversial as they may be, have always been rooted in his commitment to transparency, accountability, and fiscal prudence.

As governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Sanusi spearheaded reforms that stabilised the financial sector and exposed corruption, notably the mismanagement of funds in the petroleum industry. His leadership saved the Nigerian banking system during the 2009 global financial crisis. These efforts reflect a consistent commitment to economic pragmatism, not the “self-loving sadism” Mr. Kperogi ascribed to him.

At the Gani Fawehinmi Memorial Lecture, Emir Sanusi addressed Nigeria’s economic challenges within a historical framework, highlighting how years of poor management led to today’s difficulties. His statement about not defending the current government’s policies was not a quid pro quo demand but an expression of discontent over the failure of political leaders to reciprocate loyalty or act decisively for national progress.

Sanusi’s critique of governance has often transcended personal affiliations. For instance, he openly criticised the Goodluck Jonathan administration despite being part of the government apparatus, risking his career in the process. His comments in the lecture reflect this same principle: his loyalty is to ideas, not individuals.

The article unfairly caricatures Sanusi as an unrepentant neoliberal apologist indifferent to the suffering of the masses. While he has supported subsidy removal and exchange rate harmonisation, his positions are informed by Nigeria’s fiscal realities. Subsidy regimes, historically marred by corruption and inefficiency, drained trillions of naira from public coffers without addressing systemic energy sector challenges.

Critics often overlook the fact that subsidies disproportionately benefit the elite rather than the poor. Studies by organisations like the World Bank and Nigeria’s Budget Office have shown that wealthier Nigerians consume more fuel and thus benefit more from subsidies. Sanusi’s advocacy for subsidy removal aims to redirect these funds toward targeted interventions, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, which directly benefit the masses.

Contrary to the claim that Sanusi derives “delight from the misery of the masses,” he has consistently called for equitable resource allocation and the empowerment of marginalised communities. As emir, he launched initiatives to promote girl-child education, gender equity, and poverty alleviation in Kano State. His reforms in the Kano Emirate Council prioritised addressing social injustices that have long plagued Northern Nigeria.

For instance, his campaign against child marriage and his emphasis on the importance of education for girls drew both applause and backlash. These efforts single out his commitment to social progress and human dignity.

Mr Kperogi’s passionate critique of Sanusi’s remarks offers no clear alternative solutions to Nigeria’s economic woes. If we agree that Nigeria’s economy has suffered from decades of mismanagement, what is the path forward? Should we continue subsidising consumption at the expense of critical investments? Sanusi’s prescriptions, while debatable, are at least anchored in economic logic and long-term sustainability.

Nigeria’s challenges require a balanced, solutions-driven discourse. Reducing complex issues to personal attacks or dismissing individuals who have contributed significantly to national development is unproductive. Emir Sanusi’s positions are not beyond critique, but such critiques should engage with the substance of his arguments rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks or speculative interpretations of his motives.

Nigeria stands at a crossroads, and leadership—whether in government, traditional institutions, or civil society—must rise to the occasion. While Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II is not infallible, his track record of service, advocacy, and reform warrants a more balanced appraisal. Let us concentrate on fostering a Nigeria where ideas are debated with civility and respect, rather than transforming crucial national discussions into platforms for derision.

Usman Abdullahi Koli is a public relations expert, writer, and advocate for balanced public discourse. He can be reachedvia mernoukoli@gmail.com.

By Bashir Uba Ibrahim, Ph.D.

Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II’s recent remarks about the harsh economic policies of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s government, made during the 21st Memorial Lecture for the late Gani Fawehinmi organised by the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA Ikeja Branch in Lagos, themed ‘Bretton Woods and the African Economies: Can Nigeria Survive Another Structural Adjustment Programme’, have sparked a diverse range of reactions across social media. 

As the chairman of the occasion, when giving a microphone to comment, he remarked, “I can give a few points here about what we are going through and how it was predictable and avoidable. But I am not going to do that because I have chosen not to speak on the economic reforms or to explain anything because if I explain it, it will help this government. But I do not want to help this government. They are my friends, but if they do not behave like friends, I will not behave like a friend”. 

 These remarks received and continuously attracted fierce critical rebuttals and approbations from the government and Emir Sunusi’s perceived critics. On the other hand, his apologists are overtly in a tactical defence of such remarks on the pretence that the Emir is a victim of misperception by the public and misinterpretation by the media as they usually used to quote him out of context. Even the Emir himself is reported by the Leadership newspaper lamenting that his remarks were taken out of context, reducing the broader message of his speech to a single paragraph. But Emir and his media warriors fail to understand that linguistically, by the time a person makes an utterance, he no longer has control over it. 

To borrow a popular Hausa adage which says magana zarar bunu, idan ta fita ba ta dawowa or what Jean-Paul Sartre called “every word has its consequences” or in what Roland Barthes, the prominent French Structuralist and Post-structuralist literary theorist and critic called in his widely celebrated magnum opus “the death of the author is the rise of the reader”. Similarly, Barthes argues that “once the author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile. To give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified”. And the text here refers to both spoken discourse (phonocentrism) and written (logocentrism). The former is the spoken remarks by the Emir, while the latter is its interpretations or deconstructive reading(s). Thus, the latter supplements the former in what Derrida called “doubling critique”.

Meanwhile, concerning the above remarks by the Emir, the media houses have done what part of their job, i.e., deconstructive or interpretive journalism. Thus, by the time the Emir loses authority or control over his utterances, it is when the media and the general public have the right to interpret him the way they like. Thus, it forms the crux of their deconstructive readings of Emir Sunusi’s remarks. Therefore, the more remarks are enmeshed with aporia and entangled in contradiction, dislocation and disunity of words or, to borrow Jacques Derrida’s words, “play”, “decentering”, or “rupture” like the one made by Emir Sunusi, the more it attracts deconstructive readings or interpretation from various standpoints.    

For instance, Emir’s remarks, as widely reported by the media, sound contradictory if not antipodal or antithesis. Given his unflinching and uncompromising stand as an unrepentant neo-liberalist who always supports the removal of fuel subsidy and currency liberalisation, floating of the naira against the dollar, which ultimately leads to the devaluation of the former, how can you say the situation the Nigerian government find itself is “avoidable” while you are among those who advise the government to implement such policies for reforming the shrinking economy. As the popular social media influencer Aliyu Dahiru Aliyu (Sufi) argues, “…For years, Sanusi has been a vocal advocate of neo-liberal economic policies, including subsidy removal and currency liberalisation–policies now adopted by Tinubu’s administration. These were once touted by people like Sanusi as the perfect remedies for our economic woes, yet their implementation, according to his recent expression, hasn’t delivered the promised relief. So, what fresh ideas Sanusi hides that he can offer if the FG has been friendly towards him apart from the familiar intellectual manoeuvres?”. 

Finally, as opined by the father of modern linguistics, the popular Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, that language be spoken as the one used by the Emir or written, i.e., the one used by his deconstructive readers is a system of signs; that the sign (word) is the basic unit of meaning, and that the sign comprises a signifier (form) and signified (mental representation or meaning). Therefore, the signifiers uttered by Emir Sunusi carry variants of signifieds in what Derrida called “transcendental signified”, which are beyond the control of their owner (the Emir) and thus warrant such myriad deconstructive reading(s).

Bashir Uba Ibrahim, PhD, wrote from the Department of English and Literary Studies, Sule Lamido University, Kafin Hausa. He can be reached at bashirubaibrahim@gmail.com.

By Usman Abdullahi Koli

As 2025 begins, Nigeria is grappling with an unprecedented economic crisis. Inflation is at an all-time high, the cost of living continues to skyrocket, and millions of Nigerians struggle to make ends meet. Against this backdrop, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in his maiden media chat, aired on December 23, 2024, reaffirmed his commitment to the controversial reforms that have significantly reshaped the nation’s economic landscape. For many Nigerians, his steadfastness in the face of public outcry has been both perplexing and polarising.

During the televised chat, Tinubu made it clear that he has no regrets about the swift removal of the fuel subsidy, a decision he implemented on May 29, 2023, immediately after assuming office. “I made the swift decision to preserve Nigeria’s future and that of generations yet unborn,” he stated. The move, he argued, was necessary to redirect funds toward critical infrastructure and social investments. However, while the rationale may have been rooted in long-term sustainability, its immediate impact on ordinary Nigerians has been devastating.

The President also defended his administration’s tax reform bills, currently before the National Assembly, insisting they were essential to Nigeria’s economic recovery. Despite significant pushback, particularly from Northern leaders who feared the reforms could deepen regional disparities, Tinubu maintained that these policies were non-negotiable. “The tax reforms have come to stay,” he declared, further solidifying his reputation as a leader unwilling to waver, even in the face of widespread criticism.

For the average Nigerian, these reforms have translated into unbearable economic hardship. Inflation rose to an alarming 33.95% in November 2024, up from 22.41% in May 2023. The cost of basic commodities such as food, fuel, and transportation has nearly doubled, pushing millions below the poverty line. The removal of the fuel subsidy, intended to save the government trillions of naira annually, has led to an exponential increase in the cost of petrol, which now hovers around ₦1000 per litre.

The ripple effects are evident everywhere. Transport fares have tripled, food prices are beyond the reach of many families, and small businesses are folding under the weight of operating costs. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, unemployment rose from 33.3% in Q1 2023 to 40% in Q3 2024, leaving millions without a source of income. For many Nigerians, survival has become a daily struggle, with no immediate relief in sight.

While President Tinubu’s reforms undoubtedly aim to stabilise the economy and ensure fiscal responsibility, their execution has lacked a critical human element. Policy changes of this magnitude require technical precision, empathy, and strategic cushioning to mitigate their impact on vulnerable populations. Governments worldwide that have implemented subsidy removals or tax reforms have typically done so gradually, accompanied by robust social safety nets.

In Nigeria, the absence of significant palliatives has amplified the suffering of the masses. The promised conditional cash transfers and mass transit buses remain primarily theoretical, leaving citizens to bear the brunt of these reforms unaided. The government urgently needs to adopt a more holistic approach that balances fiscal discipline with the immediate needs of its people.

As a writer, it has been my habit to pen a year-in-review piece every December, reflecting on the highs and lows of the past year. This year, however, I chose to wait until President Tinubu’s address to the nation, hoping for a message of hope or at least a roadmap to alleviate the suffering of Nigerians. Unfortunately, his reaffirmation of policies exacerbating the economic crisis offers little comfort.

The government must urgently prioritise measures to ease Nigerians’ economic burden. Initiatives such as targeted subsidies for essential goods, tax relief for low-income earners, and the accelerated implementation of promised palliatives could provide immediate relief. Additionally, robust dialogue with stakeholders, particularly those from regions expressing concerns, is critical to fostering a sense of inclusion and national unity.

President Tinubu’s vision for a self-reliant Nigeria is commendable, but the path to achieving it cannot come at the expense of the people’s well-being. Economic reforms must be designed to stabilise numbers and improve lives. As the nation stands at a crossroads, the government has an opportunity to recalibrate its approach, demonstrating that it is not only fiscally responsible but also deeply empathetic to the struggles of its citizens.

Nigerians’ resilience is unmatched, but resilience alone cannot drive a nation forward. It is time for governance that is as humane as it is ambitious—leadership that listens, learns, and adapts. As 2025 approaches, the hope is that the lessons of the past year will inspire a more inclusive and compassionate governance style, ensuring that no Nigerian is left behind in the pursuit of progress.

Usman Abdullahi Koli wrote via mernoukoli@gmail.com. 

By Uzair Adam

During his inauguration at Eagle Square, Abuja, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu declared the end of the fuel subsidy, leading to a sharp increase in petrol prices from N198 to N540 per litre.

The president argued that the subsidy had become a hindrance to national progress, fueling corruption, and stated that funds previously allocated to it would be redirected to other sectors of the economy.

Tinubu explained the rationale behind the removal during a meeting with traditional rulers, as reported by The Daily Reality.

He stated, “We cannot continue to support smugglers and neighboring countries at our own expense.”

He described the subsidy as an economic burden that could bring Nigeria to its knees if not addressed.

However, this stance marks a significant departure from Tinubu’s previous criticism of the subsidy removal by former President Goodluck Jonathan in 2012.

As the national leader of the opposition Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) at the time, Tinubu had condemned the move, labeling it the “Jonathan tax” and accusing Jonathan of breaching his social contract with the Nigerian people.

In a strongly-worded piece, as gathered by Daily Trust on Sunday, Tinubu argued that the subsidy removal would plunge Nigerians into deeper hardship and criticized the economic policies driving the decision.

He had stated, “The people will become enslaved to greater misery. This crisis will bear Jonathan’s name and will be his legacy.”

Tinubu’s past opposition to the removal of fuel subsidies now stands in stark contrast to his own administration’s decision to abolish it.