Opinion
Nigeria’s Budget And Fundamental Incompatibility
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,as amended, imposed on the people by military juntas preceding the on-going democracy made general election a quadrennial event similar to that of the United States of America, and specifically pegs inauguration of governments on May 29 every four years too.
Incidentally, it pre-arranged appropriation bill or budget after the civil year calendar; reckoned from January 1 to December 31 according to Gregorian calendar. By this conflicting arrangement, the federal and state governments present budgets to their respective legislative bodies at the end of every year for passage.
By synchronizing the civil year pattern rather than the nation’s or respective democratic calendar, most incoming administrations may continuously encounter crisis in the first year in office with usual laments of empty-treasury against outgoing administrations as witnessed over times,on account of continuum in government.
This notion imperatively accounts for the strict reliance on independent financial-year calendar by financial and other corporate bodies for operations distinctive from civil year merely observed for record purposes.
Emphatically, any government that is scheduled to round off its tenure in May 29 has no business with appropriation bill for the residual periods of the year. A well-structured government should logically, correspondingly run its calendar alongside the year’s budget from inauguration date and not necessarily adopting a civil calendar except if fittingly inaugurated in January. Apparently, this is a mismatch which over the years has frustrated new governments from starting strong after inauguration.The endless wailings by newly-inaugurated governments over empty-treasuries and consequently, patching up till the passage of another year’s budget, patriotically calls for sober reflection.
At the moment, the only government expediently albeit uncalculatingly designed to possibly escape the constitutional abnormality is the government of Anambra State on account that by its present democratic template, perhaps providentially, a new administration or democratic calendar begins in February. Thus, a new governor controls the budget from day one unlike many others alongside the federal government where outgoing incumbents get a full year appropriation bill despite few months left to sign out.
Then, where the incumbent too ran but lost out, the rest will be history. The weird blow has always produced unchanged consequence; squandermania. Possibly, this accounted for President Muhammadu Buhari’s dirge on assumption of office over empty-treasury and couldn’t appoint ministers till end of that year. Ditto on some state governors. The arrangement unknowingly, buoy up re-contesting and outgoing governments operate profligately, diverting and writing off allocations earmarked for new administration’s capital votes munificently than Father Christmas.
The remedy is simple. Appropriation bill should synchronically run as financial year based on respective inauguration dates as a substitute to civil year calendar. With the variation, no elected leader could trespass to allocation earmarked for incoming administration, be it at state or federal level. As long as May 29 remains the nation’s democratic calendar whilst appropriation bill runs in a civil year, it will continuously lead to catastrophe. The gaffe has depressingly affected both incoming governments from opposition and ruling parties but usually covered-up under ‘party-affairs’ especially where outgoing government contributed to the election victory of the incoming one. Incidentally, the helpless society at large suffers it in the long run.
Undeniably, any scenario where an administration secures a year’s appropriation bill but plunders it in its remaining five months, incidentally, the fifth month of the whole year will certainly not augur well but put the incoming government in a tight corner in the remaining months except, to bank on supplementary budgets, that’s if the treasury is not in red. The political system should provide a template with realistic protective mechanism to public funds.
To conclude, it is absurd and incompatible for a government to run a civil year against the democratic calendar. The political system had better adopt protective strategies than remedial approaches which impede developments and service delivery. As the legal regime is characterized by sundry lacunas and inconsistencies that make prosecution of corruption cases cumbersome, preventive mechanisms remain the pragmatic options in checkmating the shortfalls.
Umegboro, a public affairs analyst, wrote from Lagos.
Carl Umegboro
Opinion
A Renewing Optimism For Naira
Opinion
Don’t Kill Tam David-West
Opinion
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.
- 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
-
Business2 days agoNDDC Unveils Naval Facilities To Boost Region’s Security
-
News2 days agoRIVERS PEACE EFFORTS YIELDING RESULTS, SAYS FUBARA ….Promises Rehabilitation Of Internal Roads, GSS Akabuka
-
Sports2 days ago“Nigeria will go to World Cup”
-
Niger Delta2 days ago
Partnership With Security Chiefs’ Excites Ogbuku … As NDDC Unveils Naval Outpost In Bayelsa
-
News2 days agoN’Assembly Committee Approves New State ForS’East
-
Maritime2 days agoNIWA Launches Operations To Tackle Water Hyacinth Menace
-
Rivers2 days agoReps’ Committee On Health Lauds RSG On Primary Healthcare Delivery
-
Sports2 days agoLagos Women Race set to empower participants
