Opinion
That Demand For Sacrifice
Recently, a video clip of Zambia’s President, Hakainde Hichilema, rejecting a proposal to buy cars worth $1.8 million for his entourage, after he won the election in August 2021, trended on the social media. In the short video, the president was seen questioning the rationale behind the purchase of pricey vehicles for political office holders when there are other important needs of the people to be addressed with such a huge amount. “Why are you using money to buy a VX for the Mayor? Why do you want a car costing $200,000? That VX for the Mayor can put toilets in all the markets in your constituency. A Mayor can still drive a nice car but it does not have to be a VX …, whose money are you using? he asked. Back here in Nigeria, the Governor of Abia State, Dr Alex Otti, a few days ago declared that he will not collect his salary for the next four years. “The speaker reminded me that I have not taken a salary for four months, and I will not take it for four years. I have only one wife and three children, and we can take care of ourselves”, he was quoted as saying.
Meanwhile, in the face of the current economic hardship in the country, when citizens are finding it difficult to survive on a daily meal, some people are milking the country dry just because they were fortunate to have been elected to represent the people at the national assembly. If they are not receiving “tokens” in their bank accounts to enjoy unearned vacations while other Nigerians are struggling to survive, they are being given brand new 2023 Land Cruiser SUVs said to be valued at N160 million to N200 million each, procured with foreign loans or enjoying other largesse. The spokesperson of the House of Representatives, Akin Rotimi, was quick to tell newsmen that the vehicles soon to be distributed to the 360 members are official vehicles and not for personal use and that they are assigned to members during their tenure and must be returned after their term ends. As if all of us are not in Nigeria and know not what happens to such vehicles at the end of the day.
It is also not peculiar to the Legislature, as unelected government officials in the Executive arm of government from the Assistant Director level and above, in most cases, have official vehicles attached to their office.”
That may not be far from the truth. Certain things are still being done in the country as if we are still in the oil boom days when we know that the nation’s purse is very lean and that the nation’s debt profile has been on a steady rise in recent years. What is most difficult to understand is the economic sense in the government’s penchant for securing foreign loans to be used to maintain such opulent lifestyles and to be shared to some citizens to feed. It is no news that the Federal Government recently approached the World Bank for a fresh loan of $400 million for the conditional cash transfer to 15 million households as one of the measures to cushion the effects of petrol subsidy removal on Nigerians. The government had earlier borrowed $800 million from the same source for the same purpose. That is, a $1.2 billion loan within five months in office.
At the launch of the “Renewed Hope Conditional Cash Transfer” for 15 million vulnerable Nigerian households on Tuesday, President Bola Tinubu, represented by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), George Akume, said it was in fulfilment of his Independence Day broadcast to Nigerians on October 1, where he announced the cash transfer programme which would target vulnerable citizens. The question now is, how can you alleviate poverty and suffering in the land by taking foreign loans to share to the citizens to feed – N75,000 in three months? What can N25,000 do for a household in the present-day Nigeria and what happens to these families after the stipulated three months? What are the criteria in selecting the 15 million households and what is the assurance that the money will get to them at the end of the day? It is high time Nigerian leaders came down from their high horses and face the challenges in the country sincerely and committedly.
They must start by cutting the over bloated cost of governance and showing leadership by example through moderate expenditure of the taxpayers’ money like Hichilema. A good number of the federal legislators have been in the corridors of power either as governors, deputy governors, ministers, law makers, heads of agencies and what have you. So, they can afford to toe Governor Otti’s line by foregoing certain pleasures and acquisitions for the benefit of the poor people who elected them. This goes across party lines. Reducing the cost of governance is a crucial step in improving economic efficiency and freeing up resources for developmental projects in the country. The government must assess and possibly reduce the salaries and allowances of public officials, including political officeholders, to align them with economic realities.
Of course, this goes with the consolidation of Ministries, Departments and Agencies. Instead of appointing 50 ministers and numerous personal assistants, advisers with their own legion of assistants, the government was expected to have merged or consolidated overlapping ministries, departments, and agencies to eliminate duplication of functions. Government structures should have been streamlined to make them more efficient as recommended in Steve Oronsaye’s report. People have always said that those in authority know what to do to make Nigeria better and that is the truth. The president boasts of having prepared for the office for over thirty years. And within these years he had held several key positions both in the public and private sectors. He is said to be one of the richest persons in Nigeria.Can he then keep his selfish interest, tribal, political and other sentiments behind and give the country the much-needed leadership?
Can the government be deliberate and committed towards enforcing fiscal responsibility laws and hold public officials accountable for financial mismanagement and also implement measures to curb corruption and ensure that public funds are used judiciously? New heads of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and that of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) have just been appointed by Tinubu. Will they be given the freedom to carry out their duties unbiasedly or will they be required to do the bidding of the person who put them in those positions and that of the ruling political party, thereby being selective as was seen in the past? Practical steps towards poverty alleviation in the country are needed. Government should encourage the growth of industries and small businesses to create more job opportunities; bring the nation’s refineries back to life and possibly build new ones; support entrepreneurship through training, access to credit, and business development services; fight insecurity so that people can go back to their farms and ensure adequate food production for the country.
Nigerians have seen and appreciated Tinubu’s 8-Point Agenda which encompass critical areas like food security, ending poverty, economic growth, job creation, access to capital, improved security, a fair playing field, rule of law, and the fight against corruption but people want to urgent see these agenda reflect on the quality of lives of the citizens. As an analyst said, the time for campaign is over, let there be more actions than words. Let the leaders compliment the sacrifices of the masses towards making Nigeria great again.
By: Calista Ezeaku
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