Fuel subsidy

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.

By Uzair Adam

The Edo State Government has indefinitely postponed the resumption of all schools in the state in response to the recent hike in fuel prices.

This decision was conveyed through a memo from Ojo Akin-Longe, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education, in Benin on Saturday.

According to the memo, schools, which were set to reopen on Monday, September 9, 2024, will remain closed until further notice.

“The Edo State Government announces the postponement of the resumption of all public and private schools, originally scheduled for September 9, 2024, until further notice,” stated Akin-Longe.

The statement explained that the rising tension stemming from the increase in fuel prices and the financial strain on parents and guardians prompted the government’s decision.

In light of this, the government urged parents and caregivers to closely monitor their children during this period of uncertainty.

By Zayyad I. Muhammad 

There is a massive call for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to restore the petroleum subsidy. The ongoing 10-day “End Bad Governance” protest and the high prices of commodities and services are the result of the removal of fuel subsidies.

If President Ahmed Bola Tinubu does not plan to restore petroleum subsidies, the government must find another way to reduce the price of petroleum products, especially premium motor spirit (PMS), popularly called petrol. Petrol is the lifeblood of any nation. The social problems arising from the aftermath of petroleum subsidy removal are purely local issues that require theoretical and practical solutions. 

Sometimes, the government relies solely on experts who understand the problem from a theoretical perspective, forgetting the real players in the petroleum industry who understand the problem from all its angles: importation, depot loading, haulage, retailing, and manpower management.

Apart from the subsidy, there are other ways to drastically reduce the price of petrol. Tinubu should critically consider restoring the Petroleum Equalisation Fund (PEF). Since it is a contributory fund, its source is principally the net surplus revenue recovered from oil marketing companies. The bridging claims paid to petroleum marketers automatically equalise petroleum prices throughout Nigeria while maintaining affordability.

Aquila’s innovative electronic business solution has eliminated any irregular distribution and claims of bridged regulated petroleum products. The Aquila project is an excellent electronic business solution designed to track the movement of petroleum products throughout Nigeria.

Though the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), budgetary provisions, and some economic reasons were the guiding principles that led Tinubu to remove subsidies and float the naira, sometimes national interests—security, economic, and social order—must be paramount. It’s purely a local problem that requires purely home-grown solutions.

Some countries painstakingly control the prices of petrol for national security. These countries often have uniform prices for petrol across the entire country. For example, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, India, Malaysia, Iran, and Venezuela. In most countries, national security overrides other considerations; the government has significant control over fuel pricing and distribution, often through subsidies or state-owned oil companies.

Take India, for instance. India controls petrol prices through market dynamics and government policies, such as daily price adjustments based on the international price of crude oil. The Indian government sometimes provides subsidies to control the prices of petroleum products. This helps keep the prices within a certain range and makes them more affordable for the general public.

The Indian government achieves this through the national oil companies Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). Another mechanism India uses in the price control measures to address inflation concerns, freight, and logistics is that the government can intervene directly by adjusting excise duties or providing relief to the oil marketers.

The Tinubu government should critically consider reintroducing the Petroleum Equalisation Fund. It would sharply reduce petrol prices, bring uniformity in prices throughout Nigeria, bring the 21 NNPC depots to life, restore many lost jobs, and double-check product quality.

Zayyad I. Muhammad writes from Abuja via zaymohd@yahoo.com.

By Lawan Bukar Maigana 

The sagacious former Governor of Kaduna State, Malam Nasir El-Rufai, is once again in the news with his usual controversial stance on government policies and decisions. 

Last week, after granting journalists an interview about his presentation at a capacity-building training for Borno’s top government officials in Maiduguri, he became the hot story on every national daily, both online and offline. 

According to him, the Nigerian government has reconsidered returning fuel subsidies, mentioning that President Tinubu’s administration secretly pays billions of Naira for fuel subsidies.

As a journalist specialising in fact-checking, I needed to investigate his claim because there were no credibility elements in his statements. I quickly ran a keyword search, and the result revealed that the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), Heineken Lokpobiri, has refuted the claim and described it as ‘wrong.’

The trouble with El-Rufai started when the Senate withheld his confirmation over security checks during the ministerial screening in August 2023, even though he is a seasoned politician who used to be a minister. 

Since then, he left Nigeria to go abroad, failing to attend his son’s wedding ceremony, Bello Nasir El-Rufai. After his return from abroad, he was seen visiting strong politicians from the opposition party, which was said to be a political plot against the 2027 presidential elections. 

This was justified by his son, Bello El-Rufai, in a podcast interview with Seun of Channels Television, where he mentioned that his father and the President have never been on good terms, citing exchanges of unfriendly remarks in the past.

It is human nature to leave when discomforted or offended; therefore, Malam has the right to not only leave the All Progressive Congress (APC) but also form a new party, let alone merge with cult-like parties like the Labour Party (LP). 

El-Rufai is an outspoken politician whose relevance has passed because he couldn’t deliver his state to the APC, indicating he is now politically weak. It’s clear that politics transcends outspokenness. 

Another trouble facing El-Rufai now is with his successor, Governor Uba Sani. At a town hall meeting, he said that he inherited a huge debt burden of $587m, N85bn, and 115 contractual liabilities from the immediate past administration of Nasir El-Rufai, complaining that the huge debt has eaten deep into the state’s federal allocation. 

This has necessitated the formation of a committee by the Kaduna State House Assembly to probe El-Rufai’s administration, even though he has always proudly challenged the people of Kaduna to uncover any financial wrongdoing by him.

Allegedly, Bello El-Rufai, who proudly identifies himself as a replica and a clone copy of his father in politics, has thrown the public into scepticism regarding his father’s integrity. He was said to have sent insulting words and threats to the Speaker of Kaduna State Assembly, Hon. Yusuf Liman, since the establishment of the committee to probe his father’s administration that drowned Kaduna in debts, amounting to billions of Naira.

If I were El-Rufai’s son, Bello, I would appreciate the Kaduna State Government’s efforts to uphold justice and accountability in the state. I would privately intervene respectfully, if necessary, without being jittery about the outcome of the investigation.

Lawan Bukar Maigana writes from Maiduguri and can be reached via lawanbukarmaigana@gmail.com.

By Sabiu Abdullahi 

The federal government has introduced two disbursement programmes, the Presidential Conditional Grant and the Presidential Palliative Loan, to inject a total of N150 billion into the economy. 

According to a statement from the Minister for Industry, Trade and Investment, Dr. Doris Uzoka-Anite, the programmes are strategically designed to support businesses grappling with the aftermath of the fuel subsidy removal implemented on June 1. 

Under the Presidential Conditional Grant Programme, the government plans to disburse a grant sum of N50,000.00 to nanobusinesses across all 774 local government areas in the country.

Collaborating with various stakeholders, including state and local governments, federal legislators, federal ministers, banks, and others, the programme aims to provide relief to the most grassroots-level enterprises.

Eligible nanobusiness owners are required to furnish proof of residence or business address in their local government area, along with personal and bank account details, for identity verification. 

The government has also earmarked N75 billion for Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) and an additional N75 billion specifically for manufacturers.

The loan facilities, offered at a single-digit interest rate of 9 percent per year, aim to stimulate growth and address financial challenges faced by businesses. 

MSMEs can access loans up to N1 million with a three-year repayment period, while manufacturers can secure up to N1 billion for working capital with repayment terms of one year for working capital or five years for machinery and equipment.

The application process for these loans involves submission through a dedicated portal, with access facilitated through participating banks.

Applicants are required to meet their respective banks’ risk assessment criteria. 

Noting its commitment to economic development and empowerment, the Federal Government believes these initiatives will foster entrepreneurship, spur job creation, and contribute to the overall economic recovery of the nation.

Interested parties can find more information and apply on the dedicated website for the programmes.

By Yusufu Musa

During his inaugural address, President Bola Tinubu made what appeared to be a bold statement – ‘fuel subsidy is gone’- which I received, as many people who advocate for channelling public resources to nation building,  in an inexpressible ecstasy. Though discontinuing subsidy payments made the list of his campaign promises, like his close rivals, the duo of Peter Obi of the LP and Atiku Abubakar of the PDP, the declaration came sooner than expected. 

After watching his debut speech as president, many people were unsure when the order would come into force. For instance, a news item made the rounds in the first quarter of this year, suggesting that the immediate past government had dropped its plans of removing the PMS subsidy. The then minister for finance, Zainab Ahmed, swiftly issued a release to discredit the story. She said the public misunderstood their stance.

According to her, the government only expanded the hitherto planned implementation of the subsidy removal team to allow for the participation of representatives of the incoming government. She insisted that the federal government made estimates for subsidy payments until June 30, and there would be no funds for that after this date. 

We gathered that Nigerians would continue buying fuel at the subsidised rate of N195 per litre. We misinterpreted it. A day later, the NNPCL raised its pump price to N550. But, had the company waited until July 1 to adjust, Nigerians would have spent long hours in petrol retail outlets. Marketers would have hoarded the fuel to create an artificial scarcity to ‘cash out’ after July 1.

It took Nigerians not long to feel the attendant effects of the policy. Transport fares immediately tripled, and prices of consumable goods have been on the increase. However, an average Nigerian is convinced that the action is necessary and is for our collective good. So, we are ready to make sacrifices for the nation. Two, a worker in Abuja who boards a cab to go to his workplace and visits his hometown only during festive thought that big men fuel their motorcades and the government only subsidises their ostentation.

From Jonathan to Buhari, corruption in the system is the loudest criticism against the subsidy. Critics of it argued, and still do that it benefits a handful of people, ‘the oil cabal’. For instance, Malam Isah Yuguda, a chieftain of the APC, disclosed that one of the cabal members approached President Buhari to say they were tired of making money [from subsidies]. Another reservation is that some marketers illegally export the product to our neighbours such as Niger, Cameroon and Benin, thus placing a heavier burden on our government to pay subsidies for what other countries enjoy. They told us that our daily consumption was not consummate with our needs. 

In 2012, Ngozi Iweala, the then coordinating minister of economy, was in Lagos to tell proponents of subsidies that the subsidy funds would reduce maternal deaths in the country and the infrastructural deficit. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi followed the same pattern of thought. Their articulate points could not help convince Nigerians that paying subsidies was evil.

President Buhari was the fiercest in putting forward arguments against subsidies. He is credited with a question he did not answer in his eight years as our president – ‘Who is subsidising who?’  One of those being subsidised was in his office, but he did not take the opportunity to ask him questions. Nonetheless, his administration undertook to let the subsidies go, but in phases. The plan was to go after the PMS subsidy in the final phase.

Governors, who budget billions of naira in the name of security votes whose details are never in the public space, were angry that Buhari was too slow in abolishing subsidies for the health of the country’s economy. 

With borrowing that became a ritual under the last government and the constant blame on the subsidy as the greatest impediment to our development as a nation, we were looking forward to departing from the tradition to set the economy on the path of prosperity.

Four months after making one sentence, which we believed ended the subsidy regime, several papers reported that the government paid about 162bn for subsidy in August.  Onlookers have a reason to ask whether this removal will answer its purpose. Despite the hardship in the country, this news is utterly bad for Nigerians.

If the system encouraged corruption in the past and the government did away with it, how does it intend to convince Nigerians that large-scale corruption would not continue now that the subsidy is back? What assurance would the Tinubu’s government give Nigerians that importing the product to other countries will no longer continue? 

Continuing to vote for such a big figure in enriching oil titans, it repeatedly pointed out they are the actual beneficiaries of subsidies, which means it has no satisfactory cause to starve the poor Nigerians any longer. The philosophy has been thrown out. The amount is not much different from what the previous governments were paying. It should unconditionally reverse the policy. 

Suffering is pronounced in towns and villages. Practical strategies to alleviate the hell are not forthcoming. The government, last month, considered distributing food items to the poor. It went as far as handing funds to state governors. That is not sustainable. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for one man to take more than a sack of grain home. This man has, say, five wards under his roof. There is another chapter of life after the palliative is gone. 

Yusufu Musa writes from Kaduna.