Editorial

Fuel Subsidy: Need For Caution

Published

14 years ago

October 12, 2011

Since the Federal Government of Nigeria re-visited the need to remove subsidy from petrol, the organised labour and sections of the civil society have not stopped reacting. Incidentally, there does not seem to be enough caution in responding to this matter that enjoys superlative national interest.

While the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) threatens to organise protests and even strike, a particular trade union only a couple of days ago threatened to shut down Nigeria. The effect hostile words like these can have on the nation can be regrettable.

Suggestions for the removal of subsidy from fuel, is not new to the discourse on the Nigerian Project. Even more surprising is the fear that Nigeria which survived the removal of subsidy on the other petroleum products, may not do the same with the removal of subsidy on fuel alone.

Even so, we cannot mis-understand the position of both the organized labour and the civil society. Already, the Nigerian worker faces about the worst conditions of service in the civilized world. Even when the government finds it profitable to implement the law on the new national minimum wage, the remuneration regime remain pitiable.

For the masses, there would be no need to enumerate what a higher pump price of petrol would do to them. Clearly, there would be widespread suffering as cost of everything would rise in response to higher cost on transportation. Indeed, some people would say subsidy should remain because cheaper fuel is about the only thing they enjoy in Nigeria.

On the other hand, government believes that the removal of subsidy on petrol would be in the best interest of every Nigerian in the long run. The government says the N760bn it subsidises petrol with every year could revolutionise agriculture, power and the employment situation in the country.

From our stand point, we see the legitimacy of both positions. What is at play is the conflict between short run and long run effect of the issue. These are what the various stakeholders should be able to sit down and discuss responsibly instead of throwing brick bats and raising the blood pressure of innocent citizens.

We cannot believe that government would bring up the issue of subsidy because it wants to see the generality of Nigerians suffer. What would be their gain? In fact, if they were selfish, they could leave the matter alone and safeguard their political positions like other governments before them. But Nigeria cannot continue to do things the same way and expect better results.

The subject of fuel subsidy is well understood. The issue is that many Nigerians want the country to make omelette without breaking eggs. Those who also canvass the idea that every nation in the world subsidises aspects of their economy also fail to mention that it is agriculture and health care that take the lead, not fuel.

Besides, the subsidy had been made meaningless by a few Nigerians who keep the product from the rest of the country. It is common knowledge that until the emergence of the present government, fuel was scarce across the country. Apart from the difficulty of getting some to buy, amidst fears of adulteration, many bought at un-imaginable prices.

This is because, a few Nigerians divert the subsidised fuel to neighbouring countries, where they sell at higher prices. Therefore, while these people make money Nigeria and its citizens bear the brunt. Yet, these are the people who would incite other Nigerians to kick against the removal of subsidy, even shut down the country because of their petty interest.

Perhaps of more concern is the understanding that investors who have received licence to build refineries in the country could not do so because of the subsidy. Of course, they cannot make profit or even get to the market if the Federal Government continues to pump cheaper fuel into the market. This, perhaps also justifies the construction of refineries by Nigerians outside the country, even in neighbouring countries.

From the foregoing, the question every Nigerian ought to ask is, “for how long should Nigeria continue to import fuel? Or for how long should the Federal Government subsidise fuel and compromise the health of the economy? The answer is obvious, and Nigerians must take courage and bite the bullet because the pain would be but for a short time.

We can only insist that the Federal Government makes the sacrifice worthwhile. Nigerians will need to see the greater benefit the N760bn would deployed to. Nigerians would want to see the development of agriculture and other sources of income for the country. They would want to see electricity, roads and security.

Interestingly, some labour groups have also accepted the need for the removal of fuel subsidy. They say they are not 100% against deregulation, but it should not be import driven. They want to see specifics on how government hopes to increase local capacity for refining petrol and achieving 100% supply from local refineries in five years.

They also fear that government could remove subsidy only to share the proceeds to the three tiers of government. But that they need to see how the decision would reduce poverty, un-employment and suffering of the masses because the Nigerian state appears to be short on implementing reforms and policies that would benefit the masses.

Therefore, the platform should be provided for meaningful inter-face of the stakeholding groups to enrich the quality of governance in the country, rather than the un-guarded threats that always pitch the government against some interest groups.

Editorial

In Support of Ogoni 9 Pardon

Published

17 hours ago

November 3, 2025

The Tide

The posthumous pardon granted to the Ogoni 9 on the 1st of October, along with the national honours conferred on the Ogoni 4 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is commendable. It is a bold and humane initiative that signals a readiness to confront the difficult truths of Nigeria’s past. It also speaks to a willingness to mend fractured relationships and begin the process of national healing. This decision, though long overdue, has been widely welcomed and recognised as a considerable gesture of reconciliation.

For the Ogoni people, the development holds profound emotional meaning. Many families lost loved ones to the crisis that engulfed Ogoniland in the 1990s. To see the Nigerian state finally acknowledge that these individuals were wronged is a source of solace. This act affirms that the nation remembers the pain and sacrifices of its citizens, even when they are long gone.

It is widely accepted that the crisis divided the Ogoni people considerably. The internal fractures that emerged during the struggle for environmental justice prevented the area from realising its developmental aspirations. Communities were split, brothers turned against one another, and the collective strength of the Ogoni nation weakened. Despite various interventions from government, non-governmental organisations and international agencies, the deep wounds remained largely unhealed.

Past administrations, particularly at the federal level, failed to demonstrate the political will required to meaningfully address the grievances of the Ogoni people. While statements of sympathy were made and committees were set up, concrete steps were too often absent. The sense of abandonment festered and deepened. In contrast, President Tinubu’s action represents a recognition that a grave error was committed, one that cost lives and damaged a people’s connection to the Nigerian state.

The concerns of the Ogonis, especially regarding environmental pollution and land degradation, remain pressing. The establishment of Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) was intended to address these concerns, yet progress has been slow and uneven. It is time to ensure that the clean-up and environmental restoration are treated as matters of urgency. In equal measure, the Ogoni people must also give peace a fair chance. They have suffered greatly and lost many illustrious sons. A cycle of distrust cannot be allowed to define their future.

Reconciliation requires both justice and forward-looking commitment. Therefore, the Ogoni people must embrace unity and abandon practices that perpetuate division. They must consider the development opportunities available when they work together with the government. For Ogoniland to thrive, both sides must show willingness to move forward.

Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, deserves acclaim for his contributions toward restoring peace among the Ogonis. His efforts to encourage dialogue and his support for the newly established Federal university in the area reflect a practical commitment to development. We urge him to sustain this approach and continue to stand as a bridge between the state and the Ogonis.

The pardon and the posthumous honours must now create avenues for deeper engagement between Ogoni leaders and the Nigerian state. The proposed return of oil exploration in Ogoniland must be approached inclusively and transparently, ensuring that the people benefit meaningfully from their resources. Economic development must not come at the expense of dignity or community welfare.

However, unity among the Ogoni people themselves is an essential condition for progress. It is disheartening that some have rejected the President’s gesture. This moment should serve as a rallying point rather than a trigger for further division. If Ogoniland is to progress, it must speak with one voice on matters of collective interest.

It is worth noting that several Presidents have come and gone since the execution of the Ogoni 9. Yet it is President Tinubu who chose to take this courageous step. In doing so, he has attempted to correct one of Nigeria’s darkest and most shameful episodes. He has also sent a clear message that the state can, indeed, admit when it has erred.

The pardon signals a broader preparedness to redress past injustices. For too long, Nigeria has professed the intention to build equity while failing to address historical grievances. If national unity is to be genuine, it must be grounded in accountability. President Tinubu’s gesture marks a momentous shift in that direction.

For the Ogoni people, the pardon provides a measure of comfort. It affirms that voices long stifled can still be heard. It also offers hope to other marginalised communities still waiting for justice. Nigeria’s diversity will only become a strength if all groups are assured that they matter.

To ensure that this gesture is not dismissed as mere political theatre, the Federal Government must make good its commitment to the Ogoni clean-up exercise. Words must translate into sustained action. The Ogoni environment must be restored, livelihoods must be rebuilt, and trust must be re-established. Only then will the pardon and posthumous national awards become a true foundation for peace and renewal.

Editorial

Strike: Heeding ASUU’s Demands

Published

1 week ago

October 27, 2025

The Tide

The recent warning strike declared by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) on October 13, though short-lived, has once again drawn national attention to the lingering crisis in Nigeria’s tertiary education sector. The strike was intended to last two weeks, but was suspended after appeals by eminent Nigerians. However, ASUU has warned that if the Federal Government fails to take concrete steps in addressing the issues, the union may have no option but to embark on an indefinite strike. This is a fearful prospect.

At the heart of this recurring crisis is the non-implementation of the 2009 agreement that the Federal Government willingly signed with the union. It is disheartening and embarrassing that more than a decade after that pact was reached, it remains a subject of dispute. The failure to uphold the terms of the agreement reflects a deeper malaise in the country’s governance culture: the inability to honour commitments.

That students and parents had begun to believe that ASUU strikes were gradually becoming a relic of the past makes the situation more regrettable. There was a general sense of relief after previous strikes ended, with many hoping that meaningful progress had been made. Unfortunately, the old cycle appears to be repeating itself. This latest action represents a huge setback for the education sector.

Historical records show that ASUU strikes have seldom benefited anyone. For students, the consequences are painful and lasting. Academic calendars are disrupted; graduation timelines become uncertain; careers are stalled before they even begin. Research activities, many of which are time-sensitive and tied to grants or international collaborations, are abruptly halted.

It is all the more lamentable that this impasse concerns a long-concluded agreement on the welfare of lecturers and the funding of universities. That successive governments have failed to honour commitments they voluntarily undertook raises questions about the seriousness of Nigeria’s leadership regarding education. Why should an agreement take over a decade to fully implement?

The constant resort to industrial action also highlights the plight of students, who remain the innocent casualties in this tussle. Many of them come from struggling homes, and their futures hang precariously in the balance each time universities are shut down. The insensitivity displayed by authorities in allowing matters to deteriorate to this level is deeply troubling.

Indeed, this development raises broader concerns about the Federal Government’s crisis management capability. The perception is that government officials are unbothered because their children are not affected by strikes; many school abroad or attend expensive private universities locally. This is a sad reflection of the decline in confidence in public institutions.

University lecturers should ideally be devoting their time to research, mentorship, publications and innovation. Instead, many are forced to expend creative energy on survival. It is no secret that some lecturers, faced with poor remuneration and harsh economic conditions, resort to unethical means such as demanding payment from students. When the system fails, moral decay becomes inevitable.

The salary disparity between Nigerian lecturers and their counterparts in other African countries is glaring. A Nigerian lecturer reportedly earns the equivalent of between $300 and $600 per month depending on rank, while a lecturer in Ghana earns about $1,200 on average. In Kenya, salaries range around $1,000 monthly, and in South Africa, they are higher, with lecturers earning between $2,000 and $3,500 monthly. Such disparities contribute to brain drain and low morale among Nigerian academics.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government has continued to expend enormous sums on non-essential ventures. Billions have been spent on luxury vehicles for political office holders, frequent foreign trips, inflated contracts and poorly managed subsidy schemes. These funds, if redirected, could strengthen university infrastructure, boost research grants and improve staff welfare.

It is therefore crucial for the government to adopt a more proactive approach. The usual threat of “no work, no pay” will not resolve the crisis; rather, it deepens mistrust. ASUU has demonstrated time and again that it cannot be cowed into submission. Genuine dialogue, not intimidation, is the only path forward.

The union’s persistence is fuelled by the government’s perceived insincerity. ASUU is not asking for anything new; it is simply requesting that promises already made be fulfilled. This scenario mirrors the broader challenge of governance in Nigeria, where stakeholders grow tired of endless promises and little delivery.

If this situation is allowed to escalate, the consequences could be dire. Students forced out of academic activity for long periods may become vulnerable to crime, drug abuse and social vices. The nation can ill afford another contributing factor to youth restiveness at this delicate time.

The Minister of Education must handle this matter with urgency and diplomacy. Nigeria is already grappling with economic distress, insecurity and political tension. A full-scale ASUU strike would only deepen national instability. The authorities must act now—honour agreements, restore trust, and place education where it truly belongs: at the centre of national development priorities.

Editorial

Making Rivers’ Seaports Work

Published

3 weeks ago

October 17, 2025

The Tide

When Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, received the Board and Management of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), led by its Chairman, Senator Adeyeye Adedayo Clement, his message was unmistakable: Rivers’ seaports remain underutilised, and Nigeria is poorer for it. The governor’s lament was a sad reminder of how neglect and centralisation continue to choke the nation’s economic arteries.
The governor, in his remarks at Government House, Port Harcourt, expressed concern that the twin seaports — the NPA in Port Harcourt and the Onne Seaport — have not been operating at their full potential. He underscored that seaports are vital engines of national development, pointing out that no prosperous nation thrives without efficient ports and airports. His position aligns with global realities that maritime trade remains the backbone of industrial expansion and international commerce.
Indeed, the case of Rivers State is peculiar. It hosts two major ports strategically located along the Bonny River axis, yet cargo throughput has remained dismally low compared to Lagos. According to NPA’s 2023 statistics, Lagos ports (Apapa and Tin Can Island) handled over 75 per cent of Nigeria’s container traffic, while Onne managed less than 10 per cent. Such a lopsided distribution is neither efficient nor sustainable.
Governor Fubara rightly observed that the full capacity operation of Onne Port would be transformative. The area’s vast land mass and industrial potential make it ideal for ancillary businesses — warehousing, logistics, ship repair, and manufacturing. A revitalised Onne would attract investors, create jobs, and stimulate economic growth, not only in Rivers State but across the Niger Delta.
The multiplier effect cannot be overstated. The port’s expansion would boost clearing and forwarding services, strengthen local transport networks, and revitalise the moribund manufacturing sector. It would also expand opportunities for youth employment — a pressing concern in a state where unemployment reportedly hovers around 32 per cent, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
Yet, the challenge lies not in capacity but in policy. For years, Nigeria’s maritime economy has been suffocated by excessive centralisation. Successive governments have prioritised Lagos at the expense of other viable ports, creating a traffic nightmare and logistical bottlenecks that cost importers and exporters billions annually. The governor’s call, therefore, is a plea for fairness and pragmatism.
Making Lagos the exclusive maritime gateway is counter productive. Congestion at Tin Can Island and Apapa has become legendary — ships often wait weeks to berth, while truck queues stretch for kilometres. The result is avoidable demurrage, product delays, and business frustration. A more decentralised port system would spread economic opportunities and reduce the burden on Lagos’ overstretched infrastructure.
Importers continue to face severe difficulties clearing goods in Lagos, with bureaucratic delays and poor road networks compounding their woes. The World Bank’s Doing Business Report estimates that Nigerian ports experience average clearance times of 20 days — compared to just 5 days in neighbouring Ghana. Such inefficiency undermines competitiveness and discourages foreign investment.
Worse still, goods transported from Lagos to other regions are often lost to accidents or criminal attacks along the nation’s perilous highways. Reports from the Federal Road Safety Corps indicate that over 5,000 road crashes involving heavy-duty trucks occurred in 2023, many en route from Lagos. By contrast, activating seaports in Rivers, Warri, and Calabar would shorten cargo routes and save lives.
The economic rationale is clear: making all seaports operational will create jobs, enhance trade efficiency, and boost national revenue. It will also help diversify economic activity away from the overburdened South West, spreading prosperity more evenly across the federation.
Decentralisation is both an economic strategy and an act of national renewal. When Onne, Warri, and Calabar ports operate optimally, hinterland states benefit through increased trade and infrastructure development. The federal purse, too, gains through taxes, duties, and improved productivity.
Tin Can Island, already bursting at the seams, exemplifies the perils of over-centralisation. Ships face berthing delays, containers stack up, and port users lose valuable hours navigating chaos. The result is higher operational costs and lower competitiveness. Allowing states like Rivers to fully harness their maritime assets would reverse this trend.
Compelling all importers to use Lagos ports is an anachronistic policy that stifles innovation and local enterprise. Nigeria cannot achieve its industrial ambitions by chaining its logistics system to one congested city. The path to prosperity lies in empowering every state to develop and utilise its natural advantages — and for Rivers, that means functional seaports.
Fubara’s call should not go unheeded. The Federal Government must embrace decentralisation as a strategic necessity for national growth. Making Rivers’ seaports work is not just about reviving dormant infrastructure; it is about unlocking the full maritime potential of a nation yearning for balance, productivity, and shared prosperity.