Opinion
Talibani Nigerian
With the fall of Kabul on 15 August, 2021, the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan, after many years of insurgency and clamour for a total sway of Sharia Islamic Law and political system. Afghanistan is a landlocked country in southern Asia; a mountainous nation with less than 15% of the land suitable for farming. Over 90% of its natural gas produced in the northern part of the country was piped across long distance into the former USSR. There was a civil war with the Soviet.
The Taliban emerged in 1994, after the Afghan civil war with the Soviet, whose membership consisted of Afghan students (Talib means students). Operating first as an advocacy group, the Talibans pursued the goal of strict interpretation and enforcement of Islamic Sharia Law, with increasing militancy. Four major ethic groups in the country (Pushtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks) are not all Moslem; rather, Budhism has a history of about 2,000 years in Afghanistan.
Long-standing ethnic conflicts have made it difficult to exploit the country’s large oil reserves; neither would the Pushtun ethnic group which is the strongest, create room for peaceful co-existence with other groups. Ethnic conflicts and animosities are not peculiar to Afghanistan alone, but what is sad is the refusal to shift group in terms of mutual tolerance and understanding which can foster expanded awareness. With bigotry, conceit and dogmatism, especially where mutual tolerance is lacking, then development would be hampered.
From Afghanistan comes this message for Nigeria that bigotry, conceit and dogmatic interpretations of the scriptures usually give rise to conflicts and animosities among various groups who share a common nationality. Religious ideological learnings which refuse to accommodate, examine or benefit from other different worldviews, rarely build an ideal humanity. Yet, human well-being and perception expand and improve better with a mind that is not hampered by bigotry, conceit and dogmatism.
Sadly, political and religious leaders, for the sake of expansion of power or fear of losing support, do foster dogmatic adherence to ideologies, thus fueling divisions and animosities among people. As a group of militant advocates and strict interpreters and enforcers of Islamic Sharia Law, the Talibans of Afghanistan since 1994, did not want to shift any ground or make concessions, but under the leadership of Mohammed Omar, the movement spread out, with a missionary zeal of total conquest. By 1996 the group transferred the nation’s capital to Kandahar from Kabul.
Situation changed with an American-led intervention force in December 2000, following the September 11 attack on USA. The Talibans were accorded diplomatic recognition by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Insurgency movements began again to fight the USA-backed Karzai administration and NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The Talibans had been condemned globally for their extremist interpretations and enforcement of Sharia Law. They were called terrorists, not bandits!
Between 1996-2001 the Talibans and their allies had massacred thousands of people, denied UN food supplies to over 160,000 starving refugees and children and engaged in shocking public flogging of people for minor infractions. Specifically, girls and women were restricted from attending schools and engaging in certain jobs, except healthcare. Public whipping of girls and women sparked outrage among foreigners in Afghanisan, neither would journalists be allowed to photograph cases of abuses or publish any of such cases. It was a reign of terror!
Religious and ethnic minorities were heavily discriminated against during Taliban rule, with several unreported cases of genocide, destruction of other religious movements or sects, except Islam. The Pushtun ethnic group is the strongest and leading advocate of Sharia law, based on Deobandi fundamentalism, which adopts strict devotion to the Sharia. Since Russia withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the country’s ethnic groups had had no peace among themselves, largely because of religious conflicts. Neither did USA-intervention efforts change the situation much.
There had been intelligence reports alleging that the military and security services provided support which kept the Talibans active for so long, especially during the founding stage. It was also reported that over 2,500 Arabs under the command of Al Qaeda leader ,Osama bin Laden, fought for the Talibans. But allegations about the Talibans having established cells or units in various African countries, including Nigeria, may not be taken quite seriously for now. There were reports of university students being indoctrinated.
During the tenure of President Olusegun Obasanjo, there was a large-scale clamour all over Northern Nigeria for the adoption and implementation of Sharia Law. Tactfully, that clamour was not allowed to plunge Nigeria into a state of large-scale instability, but there was more to the Sharia Law movement than met the eye. There were security allegations that several Islamic countries, including Afghanistan, brought serious pressure on the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) to declare Nigeria as an Islamic state. Whether such allegation can be taken seriously or not, what is incontrovertible is that aggressive Boko Haram insurgency increased with the clamour for Sharia Law in Nigeria.
More specifically, the pattern which insurgency, militancy, banditory and killings by unknown gunmen took in Nigeria in the past 20 years, is similar to the Afghan scenario. Talibani movement may have started with students as the advocates for Sharia law as a better alternative to Western democracy and education. Northern Governors during Obasanjo’s Presidency mobilised Northern youths to raise the song of Sharia Law, in a secular state!
We cannot deny the fact that the Taliban credo and philosophy are similar to the Boko Haram posture. Neither are bigotry, conceit, dogmatism and the zeal to spread impact lacking in what we observe here. Kidnapping of school children, demands for ransom and discouragement of women education also featured in Afghanistan. Do we need banditry to have a united and peaceful Nigeria? What is truly at stake?
By: Bright Amirize
Dr Amirize is a retired lecturer from the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.
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
- 
																	   Niger Delta4 days ago Niger Delta4 days agoOando Recommits To Education …Assures Continuous Partnership With RSU 
- 
																	   Sports1 day ago Sports1 day agoFBN, C’River gov partner to boost tourism 
- 
																	   Oil & Energy1 day ago Oil & Energy1 day agoFG Pledges Solar Power Hospitals, Varsities 
- 
																	   News1 day ago News1 day agoNigeria Records $50bn Cryptocurrency Transactions In One Year 
- 
																	   Business1 day ago Business1 day agoNCAA To Enforce Zero-debt Rule By 2026 ……….As Airlines Face Compliance Sanctions 
- 
																	   Politics4 days ago Politics4 days agoReps Ask FG To Curb Arbitrary Rent Hike Nationwide 
- 
																Rivers1 day agoShippers Council moves To Enhance Service Delivery At Nigerian Ports 
- 
																	   Oil & Energy1 day ago Oil & Energy1 day agoEkpo, , Mshelbila Elected Gas Exporting Countries Forum Chiefs 

