Opinion
The Rising Cost Of Petrol
In the last few months,
Nigerians have not ceased from fussing over the ever rising cost of premium motor spirit, PMS, popularly called petrol. Millions of Nigerians groan as the product sells above N110 while queues by motorists have continued to grow across filling stations. The escalating situation has forced motorists and consumers to patronize the black market.
The current price regime of PMS is far and above the official price of N87 per litre. Latest figure from the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency had it that the federal government subsidizes the product with N45.28. Since this is the case Nigerians deserve explanation on why petrol is getting out of reach of the commoner.
In most filling stations across the country fuel is bought between N130 and N170 despite the federal government’s avowed commitment and assurances that fuel subsidy would remain. President Buhari has always told Nigerians that he would not remove petrol subsidy because of the effect such action would have on the citizens.
But the current development denies every pronouncement of the government on its position on subsidy. For instance, in Port Harcourt most filling stations sell petrol between N100 and N130. Reports from Abia State indicate that the commodity is purchased at astronomical cost. Also in Imo State it is stated that the product is sold above the official pump price.
Most filling stations in Kano sell fuel for between N110 and N130 per litre. In Calabar, Osogbo, Bauchi, Ilorin and Ekiti the product is sold at between N110 and N150. In Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, 95 percent of the filling stations no longer sell petrol because they cannot get the commodity at a cost that would enable them sell the product at the official pump price. The position is the same in other states.
The decadence in the petroleum sector has been attributed to the price disparity of fuel. Whereas the major marketers sell at N87 per litre, independent marketers vend it for between N103 and N110. Added to this predicament is the fact that the fuel depots that would have eased the transportation of petrol are not functional.
Nigerians are unhappy with the situation as many of them have expressed disappointment with the present administration over the dogged fuel crisis and the blame game that has characterized it. Given the tough stand and seriousness of the government on virtually every issue in the country, they expect Buhari to tackle the menace frontally.
I agree with them. If there is anything the president has to do to stabilise the country, it is first to ensure regular power and stability of petroleum pump price at N87 per litre. The current situation is not abating because the president has failed to sanction dealers that have been defaulting on the regulated price. The silence of the federal government on this salient issue gives the impression that it is completely ignorant of the problem.
What is even more agitating is the claim by experts in the industry that the petrol subsidy arrears have been increasing by geometric proportion in spite of the raise in the price of the commodity by marketers. It is said that subsidy arrears now remain at N291 billion.
Recently, the Executive Secretary, Depot and Petroleum Products Marketers Association, Mr. Femi Adewole, confirmed to the media that the subsidy arrears had been on the increase. He also confirmed that some cargoes containing fuel had been imported into the country.
If marketers still import fuel and sell at the price of their choice, why is the commodity unavailable at most filling stations across the country? Is the product in short supply? While the issues to interrogate are many, the federal government must understand that fuel is an essential commodity globally and that is why the price has to be stable. A situation where major marketers sell the product at a price greatly different from what independent marketers sell it is unacceptable.
It is for this reason the Department of Petroleum Resources and other relevant agencies have to ensure that all marketers comply with government’s directive. If fuel depots in the country are not functional, what stops the authorities from making them work to reduce the cost incurred in transporting the commodity?
It remains to be seen how the government would tackle this problem. All we want is that a firm stance has to be taken on the issue to give succor to the people. Nigerians are waiting to see whether the Buhari’s administration will handle the problem differently and bring about a solution. If in spite of the current subsidy regime the problem persists, then something is wrong somewhere that requires a thorough examination.
Arnold Alalibo
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
