Opinion
Re-Elections On Nigeria’s Leadership Question
Nigeria became an independent sovereign state on 1st October, 1960. On that date, in a solemn and colourful ceremony, there were inspiring speeches about hard work, duty to our country, sacrifice to our great nation and other such lofty themes, and naturally the people, surging with innocent enthusiasm, braced themselves for the honourable citizenship of the wonderful and prosperous nation which the nationalists had promised.
As the Union Jack was lowered and the Nigerian flag hoisted, which is the pride and symbol of dignity, buffeting in the wind were clinking of glasses ushering a new dawn.
By this act, Nigeria became the 16th African state to achieve nationhood in 1960. Because of her comparatively peaceful progress to independence and her large population and size, it was generally hoped that she would play the role of a leader-nation among the emerging state of Africa, an example of a functioning democracy.
Having got independence on October 1, 1960, it was assumed that the enthusiasm with which the country was launched into nationhood would sustain the Nigerian Federation and help her people to develop a sense of common destiny and a common nationality. The nationalists who had engaged directly and actively in the independence struggle had always insisted that, independence would make a lot of difference.
Now that they had gained power, the masses naturally expected a lot from them. They expected the emergence of a new social order in which oppression resulting from the colonial rule would cease and prosperity and progress ushered in.
But events after this date were soon to prove that Nigeria’s most vexing, most basic problems were tribalism, sectionalism and leadership. Because there were no answers to these problems, Nigeria, between 1962 and 1966, was to be launched into series of crises which brought the country to the brink of disintengration and ultimately led to the take-over of the government by the Army on January 15, 1966. As a result of Athese crises, the hope of the Nigerian people for leadership in African politics and for maximisation of progress was frustrated. Indeed, Nigeria became the laughing stock of the world.
Tribalism had always been a potent factor in Nigeria’s history. In 1951, it was exploited by Nigerian politicians in their political campaigns, and there started a campaign of hate and calumny against politicians who came from particular ethnic or tribal areas. It was in 1951, Nigerians heard the name Action Group. The Action Group was tribalistic because it metamorphosed from a Yoruba organisation and barred its membership to those who were not of the Yoruba extraction. This fact was exploited by the NCNC.
Politicians became shamelessly mean and unscrupulous in their appeal to the baser loyalties of their tribesmen, and all considerations of principles and ideology were thrown to the winds. The whole political equilibrium became dislodged by centrifugal forces-not only tribalism, but nepotism, greed and political jobbery, signifying a sharp deviation from the ideals that make for nationhood.
Perhaps, with the right kind of leadership, Nigeria might have been saved from the nightmares and turbulence of her post independence days. The lever of tribalism and sectionalism was used to deny Nigerians the right kind of leadership, while the country was at the threshold of independence, the question of leadership became a vexed problem for many well-meaning Nigerians, particularly the youth and intellectuals. Many thought leadership should be conceded to Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, because of his moral qualities.
However, as political parties were based on regions, the NPC of Northern Nigeria won the 1959 general elections, and took advantage of the population and size of the north. Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, a vice President of the NPC, was appointed Nigeria’s Prime Minister by Sir James Robertson, the then Governor General, while Dr. Azikiwe was made Governor-General.
Two years after independence, it became clear that the leadership was weak and uninspiring. The leadership question which arose then without answer and still stares us in the face today, was what the emerging nation needed to stabilise. A country like ours needs to settle the leadership question before it can play a decisive role in African politics.
African leaders like, Kwame Nkerumah of Ghana, Sekou Toure of Guinea, Senghor of Senegal, Abdul Gamel Nasser of Egypt etc, took their countries to greater heights because they were true statesmen and were patriotic. These leaders laid the foundation for development in their respective countries which their citizens enjoy today.
Our leaders obviously miss these qualities. They are corrupt, lack vision, ethnically prejudiced and selfish. No wonder 51 years after independence, we seem to be starting our nationhood.
President Jonathan must sit up and make a difference in governance, no Nigerian leader has ever made. He must be charismatic in his leadership style and be firm.
Jonathan’s administration may be the last, Nigerians expect to change the country. It must not fail.
Briggs writes from Port Harcourt.
Edward Briggs
From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.
Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.
The Subsidy Question
The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.
While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.
A Critical Economic View
As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.
- Structural Miscalculation
Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.
- Neglect of Social Safety Nets
Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.
- Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives
Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.
Political and Public Concerns
Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.
This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.
Broader Implications
The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:
- Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
- Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
- Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
- Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
- Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.
In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.
Missed Opportunities
Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:
- Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
- Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
- Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
- Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.
Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.
Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face
Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.
Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.
Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.
Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.
References
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
- National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
- World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
- OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.
By: Amarachi Amaugo