Opinion
What Zuma’s Trial Signifies
Democratic practice in South Africa assumed wider dimensions with the arraignment of the country’s immediate past President, Jacob Zuma in court. The former South African leader faces corruption and money laundering charges, among others.
This is not the first time he is being hauled into court for similar offences. He was first arraigned in 2009, but because of intense politicking and intrigues that played out then, the matter was crippled and set aside. That situation happened before his election as president of the country.
Zuma was, however, expected to turn a new leaf while he was in office, but the contrary was the case. He allegedly engaged in serial corrupt practices which rejuvenated memories of the former trial. To make matters worse, the Supreme Court ordered his trial to commence in an appeal he filed to stop his arraignment.
Prior to his exit, there were multiple calls by South Africans for his resignation, but the demands were ineffective. Not even the several no-confidence votes passed by the South African parliament could ease him out of office. He was finally compelled to quit following impeachment threats by parliament and intense pressure from the African National Congress (ANC), his own political party.
Zuma’s trial is an indication that South Africa has gone far ahead of other African countries in imbibing democratic norms and practices. The fact that his travails began while he was still president is evidence that there are no sacred cows in that country. it also suggests that there is accountability in governance else Zuma’s case would have been interred while he was in the saddle. Would this have been the case in Nigeria?
The scenario in most African countries is entirely different. Putting a former African president on criminal trial is a more difficult task to accomplish than the responsibility of getting a cow to pass through the eye of a needle. Apart from South Africa, Zambia and Egypt are so far the only African countries that have acted in similar fashion. Zambia prosecuted Frederick Chiluba though he was eventually acquitted. Conversely, former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, was tried in 2015 and handed three years jail term for corruption.
Brazil, Israel, France and Italy are other countries that have put their former leaders on trial. Immediate past France president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is being prosecuted for accepting $50 million from the late Libyan leader, Col. Muammer Gaddafi, to finance his election. Then as well, a former president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, was jailed of late for accepting a bribe.
In Nigeria, there has been sustained crusade for former presidents to account for their misdeeds while they were in office, but such calls have always floundered because the leaders deploy their looted funds to obstruct moves to bring them to justice. Despite the numerous corruption trials in Nigeria, has a former president ever been arraigned in court?
Nigerians are still wondering what has happened to the many corruption issues and why the leaders in whose regimes the infractions were committed have been left unpunished. And even when investigations point to such leaders, they are never questioned; rather, security agents go after the small fries.
The Haliburton matter is one case which demonstrates that past Nigerian leaders are indeed untouchable. Haliburton is about a bribery scandal involving approximately $180 million with over 70 suspects of different nationalities on the list.
While everyone involved in the bribery case had been identified, tried, convicted and jailed by their home governments, (some of whom have completed their jail terms) the Nigerian government is yet to begin the trial of suspects because former leaders are indicted.
If nothing is done to bring corrupt Nigerian leaders to justice, including past presidents of the country, proceeds of corruption and moral decadence will remain monuments which the civilised world will continually use to jeer or ridicule the country.
Therefore, in the ongoing anti-graft war, all Nigerians must be considered equal before the law regardless of their status. Even if it takes the prosecution of past leaders for the war to be successful, so be it. After all, no nation can attain development through such characteristic treachery.
Arnold Alalibo
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