Fuel Subsidy Removal and the Economic Implications for Nigerians

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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