Opinion
Travesty Of Justice
It is often regarded as an act of unpatriotism to cast aspersion on one’s country, let alone showing pessimism about its future. Like a popular Yoruba saying, only a bastard points at the direction of his father’s house with his left hand. It is obviously on the crest of this adage that former President Olusegun Obasanjo, in his usual native demeanour, threw bricks bats at the musician who went wild to render the popular song, Nigeria jagajaga.
But in a country where rogues rule over the princely, where known criminals are the major beneficiaries of the nation’s economic enterprise, where saints roast to hell and sinners smile to heaven, it will not be too unprincely for any man with good conscience to share a pessimistic view about a better tomorrow or lose hope n the future of this country. This appears to be the case with the geographical entity called Nigeria.
Like the James Ibori’s case which had earlier been dismissed by a supposedly competent Nigerian court, but which later landed the former Delta State governor in London prison, the recent two year jail term with an option of N750,000 fine handed down to Mr. John Yakubu Yusuf, a former Assistant Director in the Police Pension Office by Abuja High Court for stealing N23.3billion has further reiterated the pessimistic view that there must be something fundamentally wrong with Nigeria as a nation. It is either we are deficient in reasoning or that we have lost our moral compass.
I often come to this conclusion each time I muse about Nigeria as a political and economic enterprise. But it becomes more agonizsing to realise that the nation’s judiciary which is regarded as the nation’s bastion of hope or the last hope of the common man has equally been compromised. The court’s judgement about Yusuf has not only advertised us as a nation whose judicial system is on trial, but also as people who are burdened with leaders without conscience or morals.
It is a common parlance that justice must not only be done, but must be manifestly seen to have been done. But in Yusuf’s case, can any man with morals and good conscience proudly say that justice has been manifestly done in all legal and moral terms?
What the judgement suggests is that any rogue, after cheating his country to as much as about N23.3 billion, can look justice straight in the face, dare his victims to go to hell, mock his prosecutors, and then walk out of the courtroom majestically in wild jubilation into the arms of his cronies who are anxiously waiting to throw a party for him in his illegally-acquired mansion, just because he has stolen enough to pay a paltry sum of N750,000 fine in exchange for a jail sentence.
I believe this can only happen in a country where known criminals and public treasury looters pride themselves as government’s contractors and friends and supporters of political leaders. But for the British Court in London which exposed the caricature of what we call justice in Nigeria and convicted Ibori, he would have been a free man looming large in the country today, and perhaps dictating who becomes what in his State and Nigeria. Even at that, the thieving governor who is now serving a jail term in London is still being paid pension by the same State he has ruthlessly and shamelessly robbed of billions of naira. What a shame!
Those who advance the argument in favour of Yusuf that the pension thief has, after all, forfeited 32 properties to the State and has returned parts of the loot must be men and women of little or no conscience at all, just as those who argue that the court’s judgement was a reflection of the Nigerian law that prescribes a two-year jail sentence with an option of fine for a thieving public official must be suffering from moral migraine. The same law leaves the judge with the option and discretion of jailing a convict with or without an option of fine, or jailing him in addition to payment of fine. A reasonable judge with good conscience would have opted for the latter in Yusuf’s case considering the magnitude of the offence and the sum of money involved. How convenient then is it for our judges to hand down a six-month jail sentence to a man who stole an ordinary goat for lack of better things to live on?
Anywhere in the world, the administration of criminal justice system is rooted in punishing both the ‘men rea’ i.e. intention and the ‘actors rens’ i.e. act of an offence so as to serve as a punitive measure to the criminal as well as a deterrent to others who may want to ride on the crest of his fraudulent success.
It is therefore not enough for any man with good morals, good conscience and good intention for Nigeria to argue or presume that a mere return of the loot or parts of it by a man who was found guilty for a charge of N23.3 billion fraud or the payment of N750,000 fine in exchange for a two-year jail sentence, has served the course of justice.
Doing so will amount to a travesty of justice and a mockery of our judicial system. And until the court’s judgement is reversed by an appellate court and justice is manifestly seen to be done, the Abuja High Court’s judgement would forever remain a huge debt on our collective conscience, as well as a bad precedence in our judicial system. We only hope that the re-arrest and re-arraignment of the pension thief by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for fresh charges would produce a good judgement and serve as a relief to people with good conscience.
Boye Salau
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