Opinion
The Fuel Subsidy Removal Plan
The contract between the estate where I live and the facility manager will expire in a couple of days. The manager is interested in having the contract renewed but the executive members of the estate’s residents’ association wouldn’t unilaterally decide on whether to renew the contract or not. The opinion of all the residents must be sought before such an important decision is taken. In view of that, an online questionnaire was created to enable the residents to assess the performance of the facility manager and decide whether the estate should continue with its services or not.
Hardly anything is done in the estate without the opinion and support of the residents being sought and, that way, there is cooperation of virtually everyone in developing the estate and solving whatever challenge the community may face. I have no doubt that a similar scenario plays out in many other estates in different parts of the country.
Looking at what happens in the larger society, especially in the political sphere, one wonders why our political leaders cannot adopt this democratic way of doing things in the administration of our local government areas, states and the nation. Why are Nigerian citizens rarely given the opportunity to have a say on how things are done in the country?
Often, projects or programmes are initiated without first feeling the pores of the people for whom those projects are meant. Many times the government’s mindset towards certain issues in the country or some government plans are made known either during interviews outside the shores of the country or at other public functions.
Let’s take a look at the current controversy over the government’s plan to remove fuel subsidy and payment of N5,000 transport grant to poor citizens of the country. The Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning, Zainab Ahmed, released the bombshell during the launch of the World Bank Nigeria Development Update (NDU) last week. The reactions that have trailed the disclosure indicate that the necessary consultation and reaching out were not done before the announcement.
Otherwise, how can the National Assembly, the representatives of the people, not be aware of the proposal? The Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance, who described it as a rumour, told newsmen: “if there is something like that, a document needs to come to the National Assembly and how do they want to identify the beneficiaries. This is not provided for in the 2022 budget proposal, which is N2.4 trillion”.
The Nigerian labour leaders also expressed shock over the minister’s announcement because according to them, it was a unilateral decision without the input of Labour. In the words of the Secretary-General of the Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC), Musa Lawal, ”We are surprised and shocked with the government’s pronouncement. We do not know how the government came about it. The government is calling for trouble if they think they can go ahead with subsidy removal without labour. The Presidential Committee made up of government representatives and Labour has not concluded its assignment. Our last meeting was in April. This new position is totally unacceptable to us”.
My point is that governments at various levels in Nigeria should begin to make deliberate efforts in carrying the people along in whatever they do. Opinion of the people should count. This will reduce a lot of friction between the leaders and the led and help in building trust between the two parties and a better nation.
Why can’t the government use every means possible to sensitise and educate the citizens on the benefits or otherwise of fuel subsidy removal. A lot of people are asking the criteria that will be used to determine who the ‘poor citizens’ are; how the decision to give payment of N5,000 each to about 40 million citizens came about and others; and it is the duty of those in power to provide sincere answers to these questions before going ahead with the project.
It is the responsibility of the leaders to convince Nigerians that the proposed N5000 monthly stipend will not go the way of other social intervention schemes of the government like conditional cash transfer, tradermoni, COVID-19 palliative, free school feeding and many others.
Some useful suggestions have been made on how to cushion the effect of subsidy removal should it materialise instead of the paltry sum of N5,000 which, by the way, the Minister of Finance said is not going to last for more than a year. One of them is that the government should deploy such funds to free medical services and free transport schemes for the target category of citizens. Nothing could be as reliving to a poor farmer for instance, as knowing that there is free movement of his goods from the farm to the locations where they will be sold and that he is sure to receive free, quality medical attention when faced with a health challenge. Government must listen to this strong view.
That being said, one thinks the labour unions, the students’ union and other bodies and individuals kicking against the total removal of subsidy should try to engage properly and consider the long term benefit of the removal. Many business men, economic experts and players in the oil sector have posited that the gains of the removal far outweigh its retention, that though the initial hardship will be inevitable, in the long run, Nigerians will be better off just as it is currently happening in the telecommunications industry.
The Director of Green Zeal Oil and Gas Ltd, Mr. Christian Wigwe in a chat noted that as long as the government continues to subsidize the importation of fuel, the Nigerian oil sector will never develop. He observed that none of the International Oil Companies (IOCs) licensed to operate in Nigeria has been able to build refineries in the country because it is not profitable owing to the fact that the government subsidises the importation of fuel from other countries.
He opined that if we do not take the bull by the horn now, stop the subsidy and grow our economy, if we keep borrowing money from all corners of the planet to run the country while also collateralising the loans with public infrastructure, a time will come when our creditors will take over the railways, the airports and other collateralised infrastructures and the cost of transportation we are running away from will be ten times what it is today.
By: Calista Ezeaku
Opinion
Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Unfinished Struggle (I)
On November 10, 1995, the Nigerian military government of General Sani Abacha executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders after a deeply controversial trial. Their deaths marked one of the darkest chapters in Nigeria’s history. At a time when fear silenced citizens and sycophancy flourished around military power, Saro-Wiwa chose to confront tyranny. Many Nigerians retreated into silence, while others praised the regime to secure favour. He knew the risks, yet refused to abandon a people whose land had been devastated by oil exploration and whose lives remained trapped in poverty. His courage arose from the conviction that public responsibility sometimes demands resistance to authority. Saro-Wiwa understood that speaking against a military government could lead to imprisonment or death.
Nonetheless, he believed the suffering of the Ogoni people demanded a courageous response. While oil was extracted from their land, they were left with polluted rivers, damaged farmland, declining livelihoods and an environment hostile to human survival. Fishing grounds and sources of livelihood were threatened, while the people struggled to secure basic amenities. The wealth beneath their soil brought neither adequate development nor a fair share of national resources. For him, silence in the face of injustice would have amounted to complicity. Through the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), he organised a peaceful campaign that took the Ogoni question to the international community. MOSOP gave ordinary people an organised platform through which to express their grievances and insist on recognition.
The Ogoni Bill of Rights, presented to the Federal Government in 1990, demanded political autonomy, economic justice, environmental protection and control over the people’s resources. The campaign exposed the human and ecological costs of oil operations, particularly those associated with Shell, and challenged the apparent alliance between corporate interests and an unresponsive State. The Ogoni struggle became a defining expression of minority rights and environmental justice in Nigeria and Africa. Saro-Wiwa’s writings and mobilisation drew attention to communities treated as expendable because of their limited population and political influence. He argued that numerical strength should never determine a people’s value or rights.
A minority community does not become less deserving of justice because it cannot command electoral numbers or political power. In Nigeria, every ethnic group deserves dignity, protection and a fair opportunity to benefit from the commonwealth. Rather than respond to peaceful agitation with dialogue, the Abacha regime resorted to repression. Ogoni leaders were harassed, detained and killed; others fled into exile. The crisis intensified after four Ogoni chiefs were killed in May 1994. Saro-Wiwa and other MOSOP leaders were arrested, tried by a special tribunal and executed despite international appeals for clemency and serious concerns about the trial’s fairness. The executions drew worldwide condemnation and intensified scrutiny of Nigeria’s human-rights record and oil companies in the Niger Delta.
They demonstrated the danger of using State institutions to suppress peaceful demands. The proceedings remain a reminder of the need for judicial independence and due process. Saro-Wiwa’s courage rested on the conviction that justice must be pursued despite the cost. His method combined non-violent resistance, public education and grassroots organisation. His struggle recalled the civil-rights campaign of Martin Luther King Jr. and the power of peaceful mobilisation against injustice. Saro-Wiwa linked environmental degradation to political exclusion, economic exploitation and the denial of democratic rights. Oil-producing communities, he insisted, should not remain zones from which wealth is removed to develop other parts of the country.
Their people must benefit through roads, schools, healthcare, jobs and clean water. Resource extraction carries a duty to protect host communities. His argument extended to the structure of the Nigerian federation. He challenged a revenue-allocation system that made oil-producing communities bear the environmental and social costs of extraction without commensurate benefits. Like advocates of fiscal federalism, he believed resources should be managed and shared equitably. He envisaged a society in which no community would be disadvantaged by its size, ethnicity, political affiliation, culture or religion. His vision was a country bound together by justice and equal citizenship. Saro-Wiwa was also a gifted writer, dramatist and public intellectual.
Through books, essays, plays and television, he documented Nigerian society’s contradictions and challenged abuses of power. His popular television series, Basi and Company, demonstrated his creative range, while his leadership of the Association of Nigerian Authors encouraged writers to engage national questions. He believed literature should not be detached from society’s struggles. His pen exposed environmental injustice, political repression and the dangers of silencing courageous voices. He used storytelling, satire and drama to shape public consciousness and expose social contradictions. His literary achievements gave his activism wider reach and made the Ogoni experience part of national conversation. His commitment to the Ogoni people extended beyond the oil question.
During the Civil War, he worked to protect his vulnerable community. He urged younger generations to reject subservience and complacency and pursue change through lawful, peaceful means. Citizens, he believed, must not surrender their responsibility to challenge wrong doing. An injury to one community threatens the rights and security of all. The return to democratic government in 1999 and the establishment of the Niger Delta Development Commission, the Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs and the Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) are among developments that have kept the region’s demands in public view. Saro-Wiwa did not create these institutions, but his movement helped expose the urgency of intervention and sustain pressure for redress.
His death made it harder to ignore the Niger Delta’s environmental and political grievances. Yet, interventionist institutions do not prove that the original demands have been met. Their effectiveness depends on competent leadership, transparent spending, measurable outcomes and community participation. Yet, thirty-one years after his execution, the central concerns of the Ogoni struggle remain unresolved. The HYPREP-led clean-up has offered hope, but many residents await meaningful improvements. Questions persist about the programme’s pace, quality and transparency, and whether its benefits reach ordinary people. A clean-up should be judged not by ceremonies or contracts, but by restored land and waterways, safe drinking water, improved livelihoods and better public health.
It must include long-term monitoring to ensure treated sites remain safe. Residents deserve information about contamination, remediation methods and completion timelines. Reports that water projects in Gwara and Ebubu Communities, in Khana and Eleme Local Government Areas respectively, failed weeks after commissioning have raised further concerns. If confirmed, the failures would indicate weaknesses in supervision, procurement and quality control.
To be continued in our next edition.
Taneh Beemene
Opinion
Reforming NYSC For Practical National Service
The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) was established in 1973, after the Nigerian Civil War, to promote national unity, reconciliation and integration. By deploying graduates beyond their States of origin, its founders hoped to encourage understanding among Nigeria’s diverse peoples and help rebuild a divided country. However, the difficulties confronting corps members and their families now demand a comprehensive review. For many graduates, national service has become a period of uncertainty, financial pressure and exposure to risks. Parents who have spent years financing their children’s education must still find money for transportation, camp necessities, accommodation, feeding and other expenses. The monthly allowance may provide some relief, but often cannot meet the cost of living, especially where the place of primary assignment offers no accommodation or support.
Security is another serious concern. Corps members may be posted to communities affected by kidnapping, communal violence, insurgency or other threats. Government cannot eliminate every danger, but it must assess locations, provide reliable security information and avoid deployments where safety cannot reasonably be assured. National service should promote patriotism, not expose graduates to preventable harm. There is also the problem of securing meaningful places of primary assignment. A graduate trained in engineering may perform duties unrelated to engineering; a journalist may spend the year in an office with no opportunity to practise journalism. Graduates in agriculture, health, education and other specialised fields may likewise be assigned routine tasks that contribute little or nothing to their professional growth. Some depend on personal contacts or incur expenses to obtain suitable placements.
A year is significant for a young graduate entering a competitive labour market. National service should not be merely a compulsory waiting period before the search for employment begins. It should help bridge the gap between academic learning and practical work. The time has therefore come to review the structure of NYSC, not necessarily abolish it. I propose that the one-year programme should become vocational and professionally oriented. Graduates should, as far as practicable, be posted to institutions where they can gain supervised experience in their fields of study. Teachers should serve in schools; health graduates in suitable health facilities; engineers in technical organisations and public works departments; agricultural graduates in farms and extension services; and communication graduates in media and public information establishments.
NYSC should partner with ministries, state and local governments, private companies, professional bodies, universities, hospitals, schools and credible organisations to identify genuine training opportunities. Each member should have defined duties, a supervisor and clear learning objectives. At the end of the year, each should receive a record of duties performed and competencies acquired. The reform must also address remuneration and welfare. Corps members should receive fair pay that reflects the demands of their placements, while host organisations should provide reasonable support where possible. Government must establish transparent funding arrangements so that the new system does not become another burden imposed on employers or parents. Transport or accommodation assistance should be considered for difficult postings.
Graduates seeking jobs after service would have more than a discharge certificate: they would possess practical experience, workplace discipline and demonstrable skills. Employers would gain access to young people who have received supervised preparation. However, professional relevance should not erase the scheme’s founding objective of national integration. Inter-State deployment can remain, provided it is balanced with security, suitable placements and the availability of basic facilities. Where a safe and meaningful placement cannot be guaranteed outside a graduate’s State, an alternative should be considered. Orientation and community development activities can continue to promote cultural exchange, citizenship and service.
The Federal Government and NYSC management should convene consultations involving corps members, parents, universities, employers, security agencies and State Governments. Decisions should be based on evidence and the experiences of serving and former corps members. NYSC was created to help rebuild a nation divided by war. Its ideals remain important, but institutions must adapt to changing realities. Success should not be measured only by the number of graduates mobilised or certificates issued. It should also be measured by the skills acquired, the contribution made and whether young Nigerians complete their service safely and with dignity. It can better preserve the scheme’s founding ideals while meeting today’s economic and professional needs. A vocationally driven; adequately remunerated NYSC would turn national service from a costly obligation into a bridge between education, employment and national development. The purpose should not simply be to occupy graduates for twelve months, but to prepare them to work, serve and contribute meaningfully to Nigeria’s future.
Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
Opinion
Protecting Nigeria’s Democratic Space
Quote: “Democracy is not
As the 2027 general elections
Organisers said they had
Police intervention
In Kaduna, the ADC accused
These claims require prompt
These rights apply equally to
No ambition, party or
By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
-
Politics4 days agoLG CITY BOY COORDINATOR HAILS WIKE’S SUPPORT FOR ONYESOH, TINUBU
-
Politics4 days ago
DIRI INAUGURATES APC CAMPAIGN COUNCIL, SETS MILLION VOTES TARGET FOR TINUBU
-
Politics4 days agoNDC Candidate Urges Oborevwori To Probe Asaba Political Violence
-
News4 days agoArmy Recovers X Account After Hack Attempt
-
Business9 hours ago
‘NUJ, NPA’s Partnership Would Boost Port Producrivity, Economic Growth’
-
Politics4 days ago
2027: Oborevwori Tasks Media On Fair, Accurate Reporting
-
Politics4 days ago
2027: AKPABIO ENVISAGES TINUBU’S VICTORY IN SOUTH SOUTH REGION
-
Business4 days agoNigeria Loses N17tr Yearly To Abandoned Projects
