By Duke of Shomolu

Now there is something every Government since Obasanjo has faced which is the growing cost of governance

The cost of running our democracy is one of the highest in the world gulping trillions of Naira

To service the three arms of Government, the many agencies under the Executives, the state Government and even up to the legislature requires humungous amounts that is serviced mainly by the Oil industry and IGR.

Every Government prior have found a way of servicing this monster.

Some have tried service reforms, others have tried blockages of leakages, yet others have printed money and still others had used the ways and means as its piggy bank. Most have despite these tried to shield the masses thru subsidies abd varying buffers.

This present government has taken the lazy approach – price increase.

From what we have seen so far, they have just allowed an increase in everything to mostly cover their running costs

From my point of view, every Government service have been increased from drivers license, to dues at the ports, to issuing International passports, its as if they see it as the only solution to everything

Withdraw subsidy, free up funds, ramping up price of fuel all in a bid to raise enough money to cover a growing monster which is Government expenditure.

We see spendings on travel and other logistics not easing up despite the announced restrictions in official travels.

We see huge donations by Government and people close to them, we see a Government expenditure in full flight like we are in an era of bouyance

Sacrifices being made by the people to cut their own running costs is not being replicated in governance.

All tiers of governance and its agencies are running expenditures that are off the hook being funded by the growing increases in their services and the almost total withdrawal of subsidies from almost every aspect of governance.

This has drastically reduced purchasing power which has impacted goods and services sold, hitting bottom lines and driving unemployment.

Obviously inflation will go up, damamging replacement cost and excarcebating an already horrendous cost of living and impoverishing the people.

This is driving crime, despondency deepening human misery ratio

Yet, the Government keeps pushing. It keeps increasing. cost of power which is already beyond affordability and yet we hear of an impending increase.

Fuel keeps going up with arguments that we are still buying cheaper fuel than the rest of the world or more recently, that it has nothing to do with them since its tied to international trade.

For the first time, the economic situation has hit the informal sector. The unbanked who formed the bulwark for economic stability.

The unbanked and cash driven retail economy ensured some form of stability cos they were not linked to the system and as such the import driven inflation did not really impact them making them serve as a buffer to the economy.

But as economic headwinds continue and with the aggressive financial inclusion of the last Government they have started being vulnerable to the vagaries of the economy and the errant policies of Government.

Much more importantly , is the fact that they are also being impacted by the effects of the fleeing middle class who have downshifted their economic needs to that of the informal sector thereby putting pressure on prices with an increased demand in those places.

Check out the prices of bread and pure water – informal sector stables. Check out house rents in suburbs, check out land prices in deep rural areas and you will see.

Government has to first remove personal interests in Government policy formulation to begin to tackle the economy

Then like we have all been shouting, it must as a matter if urgency block leakages, fight corruption, reduce cost of governance and free up funds that would now be deployed to buffering strategic areas in the economy.

It has to bring back some form of partial subsidy to hold down cost of power, fuel and things like fertiliser.

It cannot be taking away these subsidies only to be wasting the funds away on large Government spendings with little or no impact on the people

What we are seeing here now is a robbing peter to pay paul type scenario.

The only people who are making any sense of anything now are those in Government and those close to them.

Prices and cost of living can’t keep going one way-up, something has to give and something will give when we hit an economic threshold.

The time to act is now

Thanks

Duke of Shomolu

By John Egbeazien Oshodi

It is absolutely essential that the Rivers State government reclaims this battle, taking their case back to the people’s court, where justice can be genuinely served, starting with the state judges who understand the local context. They should not waste their time on judges like Justice Omotosho, who consistently render rulings outside their jurisdiction, further eroding public trust in the judiciary.

Justice Oyewole and his panel must understand that their actions are under scrutiny; the people are watching, and they will not tolerate a judiciary that prioritizes what many perceive as political manipulation over justice. The integrity of the legal system is at stake, and the people of Rivers State demand accountability and fairness—not the farcical judgments that have become all too common in Abuja.

This writer, a psychologist and not a lawyer, approaches the recent Court of Appeal ruling with an ethical, democratic, and societal perspective, particularly within the framework of Nigeria’s notoriously corrupt judicial system. In a nation where the judiciary is often viewed as compromised, many Nigerians laugh at judicial decisions, especially when high-profile politicians and Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) appear to wield undue influence over the courts. The intersection of political power and legal authority in Nigeria raises grave concerns about judicial integrity, fostering a widespread public perception that court rulings are more susceptible to political manipulation than to the pursuit of truth.

Within this unsettling context, the recent Court of Appeal ruling—affirming Martin Amaewhule as the legitimate Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly and nullifying Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s 2024 budget—demands profound scrutiny. Although the decision may appear constitutionally sound, it emerges from a judicial landscape that has long been criticized for politicization. The Nigerian judiciary is perceived by many as functioning not as a neutral institution but as a platform where political elites and legal heavyweights exert influence for personal and party gains.

Democratic Perspectives: Falana and Ajulo’s Critiques:

Femi Falana, SAN, a highly respected human rights lawyer, argues that members of the Rivers State House of Assembly who defected from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) should automatically lose their seats. His position is firmly grounded in the Nigerian Constitution, which explicitly states that lawmakers cannot retain their seats if they switch parties, except in cases of a verified division within their former party. Falana’s use of the term “political prostitution” serves as a stark reminder of the need for integrity in political representation, emphasizing the importance of lawmakers being accountable to the mandate given to them by voters.

Yet, the Court of Appeal’s ruling, particularly under the leadership of Justice Joseph Oyewole, seemingly disregards these fundamental constitutional principles. The three-member panel concluded that Martin Amaewhule and his faction remained legitimate, despite the fact that these lawmakers had publicly declared their defection to the APC—a reality even acknowledged by the national PDP. This glaring contradiction raises serious questions about the logic and foundation of the court’s ruling, especially in light of the clear constitutional guidelines regarding defections and the forfeiture of legislative seats.

In this context, Dr. Kayode Ajulo’s legal action resonates deeply with Falana’s perspective. It centers on the recent controversy surrounding Governor SiminalayiFubara’s 2024 budget. Ajulo argues that the defecting lawmakers, who have ignored the constitutional stipulations regarding their party switch, should not have any say in the legislative process. His lawsuit seeks to prevent Governor Fubara from re-presenting the 2024 budget to the House of Assembly until the matter is resolved. By doing so, Ajulo highlights the critical intersection between legal integrity and state governance, emphasizing that the budget’s presentation and the confirmation of appointed commissioners should be halted pending the hearing and determination of the ongoing suit.

This legal challenge underscores the urgency of upholding constitutional principles vital for maintaining democratic governance in Rivers State and Nigeria at large. By questioning the right of the defectors to participate in legislative processes, Ajulo not only advocates for accountability but also calls into question the legitimacy of a governance structure that allows political maneuvering to undermine the will of the electorate. The panel’s ruling, therefore, not only perpetuates a cycle of impunity but also reveals a troubling disregard for the principles of democracy, leaving the citizens of Rivers State to bear the painful consequences of such political intrigue.

Ethical Oversight in the Appellate Court’s Endorsement of Justice Omotosho’s Controversial Ruling:

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has faced persistent criticism for his politically sensitive rulings. Despite Falana’s and Ajulo’s assertions that these defectors could no longer retain their legislative seats, Justice Omotosho ruled to invalidate Governor Fubara’s N800 billion budget, claiming it was improperly presented to the full House.

The appellate judges’ endorsement of this ruling raises significant concerns about judicial oversight. They seemingly overlooked the fact that the non-defected lawmakers retained their seats and their constitutional right to participate in legislative matters, including the budget. This oversight not only compromises the integrity of the judiciary but also threatens its commitment to democratic principles.

Justice Oyewole’s critique of Governor Fubara is not only misguided; it is an appalling display of judicial ineffectiveness. By referencing a prior Federal High Court order that restrained the governor from engaging with the House, Oyewole condemned Fubara for acting “lawlessly” and treating the court order with “levity and disdain” for presenting the budget to a mere four lawmakers instead of the constitutionally mandated two-thirds. This simplistic view completely disregards the intricate political realities at play, particularly the mass defections that have been extensively reported.

While it is true that the issues of defection were not formally before the panel, it is astonishing that Oyewole and his two colleagues, fully aware of the ongoing legal battles regarding these defections in various courts, would still choose to rule in favor of the Amaewhule-led assembly—an assembly that is legally and politically homeless. To assert that this assembly is legitimate is not only tricky; it is also utterly absurd and reveals a shocking lack of reliable insight and ethical grounding on the part of the panel.

Such an oversight raises concerns about the prioritization of political considerations over justice. This is particularly troubling in light of the Nigerian judiciary’s reputation, which is often questioned due to ethical challenges and perceived lack of integrity. The actions of Oyewole and his colleagues seem to reflect not the pursuit of impartial justice, but a tendency toward decisions that may align with political interests. This situation inevitably leads to public skepticism about whether the legal system truly serves to protect the rights ofAs a psychologist, I must say it’s concerning (and maybe a little baffling) that Justice Oyewole and his two colleagues managed to dodge the glaring issue of defections in Rivers State, despite it not being the main matter before them.

It’s almost as if they were more interested in playing referee in a football match while ignoring the fact that half the players had switched teams! By criticizing Governor Fubara for “lawlessness” while sidestepping the deeper crisis of representation, the ruling raises serious ethical concerns about the judiciary’s role in upholding fairness and democratic values. This oversight not only undermines trust in the legal process but also weakens the judiciary’s responsibility to protect democracy.

As far as the Nigerian constitution is concerned, these defectors are no longer legitimate legislators, so it begs the question—what exactly is there to overlook here?

The political turmoil in Rivers State is quite the spectacle, especially with former Governor Nyesom Wike’s antics. One minute he’s firmly with the PDP, and the next, he’s cozying up to defecting lawmakers who can’t seem to decide if they’re in the PDP or the APC—it’s like they’re playing a game of political hopscotch! Wike is not only battling these defectors but also taking on the recognized legislators under Governor Fubara, another fellow PDP member. Is this man okay, or has he lost the plot in this political drama? It seems to be all about himself! Meanwhile, the National PDP’s rejection of these flip-flopping legislators raises even more eyebrows about the Court of Appeal’s ruling. With recent appeal decisions making waves, many esteemed lawyers are sharpening their pens, taking aim at the courts, and giving them a good public shaming. Talk about deep divisions in the political landscape—Rivers State is shaping up to be quite the political circus!

How could the appeals panel, led by Justice Oyewole, possibly arrive at this conclusion when the very group it backs can’t even decide which party they belong to? One day they’re APC, and the next, they’re PDP again! Most Nigerian legal experts, including the PDP itself, argue that Amaewhule and his group lost any legitimate claim to represent the party the moment they publicly defected. By upholding their claim, the Court of Appeal has effectively ignored the constitutional provision against defections, further adding to the political chaos in Rivers State.

The Precarious Future of Judicial and Political Integrity

From a psychological perspective, the ramifications of such judicial instability are painfully deep. A society that perceives its legal system as biased and politically compromised develops a pervasive sense of disillusionment and apathy toward civic engagement. The erosion of trust in public institutions, coupled with a detachment from the democratic process, further entrenches a cycle of disenfranchisement. When citizens lose faith in the judiciary, they may resort to extrajudicial means to seek justice, leading to increased societal unrest and a deterioration of public order. The psychological toll is heavy, as individuals internalize feelings of helplessness and frustration, feeling abandoned by the very systems designed to protect their rights.

Moreover, the ethical implications extend beyond the courtroom into the broader societal context. The failure of the judiciary to act as an impartial arbiter undermines the rule of law and diminishes the moral authority of the state. In a democracy, the judiciary is expected to serve as a bulwark against political overreach and to protect the rights of citizens. When this role is compromised, the consequences can be dire, resulting in a society marked by inequity, division, and disillusionment. The people’s faith in justice becomes a distant memory, replaced by a pervasive sense of betrayal.

Rivers State finds itself under siege from all angles—systematically pressed on by the entrenched powers that be, including the judiciary, the police, and even the presidency. This complex assault complicates the efforts of Governor Fubara and his administration as they navigate a landscape where the very institutions meant to protect democracy are wielded as instruments of oppression. Yet, amidst this oppressive atmosphere, there is a glimmer of hope: the unwavering spirit of the people and the enduring power of truth.

For Nigeria to progress, it must prioritize the establishment of an independent judiciary that can withstand political pressures. This necessitates a collective societal commitment to uphold the rule of law and to demand accountability from public officials. Only through concerted efforts can Nigeria hope to rebuild the trust necessary for a thriving democracy and a just society. In this context, the struggle for judicial integrity transcends a mere legal battle; it is a crucial step toward fostering a healthier, more equitable political landscape that aligns with the aspirations of its citizens for a better future.

The so-called “Abuja judge mentality,” epitomized by Justice Oyewole and his panel, stands as a grotesque mockery of judicial integrity. Their dismissive ruling not only strips the Rivers State government, led by the resilient Governor Fubara, of its legitimacy but also reveals a disturbing and alarming disregard for the democratic principles they are sworn to uphold. This ruling does not merely affect the politics of the moment; it strikes at the very heart of justice itself. The Rivers State government has endured relentless abuse and attacks from the entrenched powers; yet, it must rise to this challenge with unwavering determination and fierce resolve. In this uphill battle for justicethe indomitable Rivers people stand united against an oppressive tide that seeks to subvert their voices and erase their rights. Their struggle is not just against the ruling but against an entire system that has shown time and again its willingness to sacrifice integrity for political expedience.

While this matter may eventually reach the Supreme Court—a body itself marred by a history of scandals and ethical compromises—it is crucial that the justices do not succumb to fear, technicalities, or the insidious influences of power. They must look to the spirit and letter of the law, recognizing that the implications of their decisions extend far beyond legal technicalities; they touch the lives of ordinary citizens who seek justice in a system often riddled with corruption and betrayal.

The pressure to conform to political expectations can be overwhelming, but it is essential that the highest court reclaims its role as a defender of the Constitution. Should the highest court falter in its duty and surrender to the shadows, the Rivers people will remain the true victors in this struggle. They will not submit to the rule of man nor the dark machinations of the powerful. Their resilience, rooted in the pursuit of genuine justice and democratic integrity, will outlast the transient whims of those who seek to manipulate the system for their gain. In the end, it is the people who will rise, reminding the judiciary that their mandate is to serve justice, not the interests of the powerful.

It is absolutely essential that the Rivers State government reclaims this battle, taking their case back to the people’s court, where justice can be genuinely served, starting with the state judges who understand the local context. They should not waste their time on judges like Justice Omotosho, who consistently render rulings outside their jurisdiction, further eroding public trust in the judiciary. Justice Oyewole and his panel must understand that their actions are under scrutiny; the people are watching, and they will not tolerate a judiciary that prioritizes what many perceive as political manipulation over justice.

The integrity of the legal system is at stake, and the people of Rivers State demand accountability and fairness—not the farcical judgments that have become all too common in Abuja. Here lies the good news: in the battle for truth and justice, it is ultimately the people who will prevail. Their unwavering spirit and determination to hold their leaders accountable is the lifeblood of democracy. The struggle for judicial and political integrity in Rivers State is not merely an ideal; it is a reflection of a collective desire for a just society, a society where the truth reigns and democracy is fortified. Amid the challenges posed by those in power, the hope for a better future remains firmly anchored in the resolve of the people to fight for what is right.

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

In 1982, on the foothills of the road to Nigeria’s 1983 general elections, it was quite clear that the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) had no plans to declare a vacancy in any significant political office around the country. Instead, they seemed bent on consolidating power in order to avoid a remake of the judicial nail-biter that yielded the presidency to Shehu Shagari in 1979.

The essential party positions featured a stellar cast. Adisa Akinloye, the party chairman, was a veteran lawyer with political experience predating Nigeria’s independence. The energetic Suleiman Takuma ran the party secretariat and Trade Minister, Umaru Dikko, was the ruthless campaign strategist. The job of guaranteeing the outcome that the party sought to engineer, however, fell on Sunday Adewusi, the then Inspector-General of Police (IGP). The son of parents from Ogbomoso, Adewusi grew up around Keffi in what later became Nasarawa State. He graduated at the top of his cadet set in 1958 and, at 45 in 1981, he was appointed Nigeria’s youngest ever IGP.

As Inspector-General, Sunday Adewusi headed the armed and uniformed wing of the NPN. For the elections, his genius lay in his ability to depute just the right kind of officers to the places where the party needed to manufacture results. Then, as now, the ruling party felt called upon to claim the politically prodigal south-east of Nigeria as part of its realm, irrespective of the will of its people. For this purpose in 1983, the NPN desired to capture old Anambra State which happened also to be the home state of Nnamdi Azikiwe, Nigeria’s first post-colonial Head of State and at the time leader of the NPN’s estranged political partners, the Nigerian Peoples’ Party (NPP).

For the job of softening up Anambra State, Adewusi found just the right man in Bishop Eyitene. The “Bishop” in Eyitene’s name was not an ecclesiastical office nor was it a Pentecostal title. Bishop’s tenure as the Commissioner of Police in Anambra State was an extended bout of political Jiu Jitsu with then state governor, Jim Nwobodo. Their politically irreconcilable co-habitation became the subject of bitter litigation, all designed, it seemed, to open the political flanks of the governor and his party. It worked a treat.

On behalf of Adewusi, Eyitene won litigation before the Court of Appeal asserting the autonomy of the police on questions of personnel postings. For accomplishing his political task with aplomb, Adewusi rewarded Bishop with redeployment to Lagos ahead of the 1983 election. The new team he sent to Anambra State routed Jim Nwobodo and his NPP in the governorship election. It was left to the Supreme Court to certify the beauty of Adewusi’s handiwork and they duly obliged in December 1983 before the military sacked the lot of them.

37 years later, the Supreme Court relied on numbers confectioned by a rogue Commissioner of Police to declare in January 2020 that the man who came fourth in the governorship election in Imo State the previous year was in fact the winner. Today, the judge who rendered that judgment leads Nigeria’s judiciary.

This past week has offered up a rich advertisement of the convenient partnership between judges, the police, and politicians.

In Rivers State, the Inspector-General of Police clearly took sides in the political contest between incumbent governor and his immediate predecessor, who is now the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and who also desires to be known as the godfather-general of Rivers State. First, he sought to arrest scheduled Local Government elections in the state on the artifice of obeying a court order. The problem is that there were two court orders not one, from what lawyers would call courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The High Court of Rivers State in Port Harcourt had mandated that elections occur on 5 October. In requiring the police to withdraw from providing security cover for the vote, the Federal High Court in Abuja effectively ordered that they should not.

Thwarted by what appeared to be a spontaneous civic revolt, election day witnessed uniformed police officers under the command of the IGP going from station to polling unit to cart away ballot boxes and tear down the displayed rolls of voters. The day after voting, supposed winners having been sworn in, the IGP announced the withdrawal of his officers and men from the state. As if on cue, practiced arsonists descended on Local Government secretariats, burning and destroying them one after the other.

In neighbouring Edo State, meanwhile, the IGP’s situational commitment to obeying court orders failed him. Lawyers for the governorship candidate of the Peoples’ Democratic Party, (PDP), Asue Ighodalo, armed with the duly served order of a competent court to inspect election materials found their way into the state headquarters of INEC in Benin first blocked by a wall of uniformed police officers. When the police requested for reinforcement, they were joined not by units of more police assets but by thugs of the ruling party.

The Nigeria Police Force is the oldest institution in the country and also the largest single employer of labour. Its personnel just happen also to be both uniformed and armed. Under the Constitution, the president appoints the man who heads the Police and that appointee is also obliged to take operational orders from the president. Historically, therefore, the position of the IGP has always been fraught and successive incumbents have mostly been prepared – with a few exceptions – to manage this delicate relationship with skill and professionalism acquired through exposure to their predecessors and to high-level leadership training.

Much of this training was missed by the current incumbent, Kayode Egbetokun, while he spent much of his time in the Force as long-term Aide-de-camp (ADC) to the current president. His claim to the job therefore lies in personal fealty his benefactor. For this, he has been handsomely rewarded, first with expedited preferment to a role for which his preparation falls short and, second, with a targeted amendment of the law to extend his tenure in order that he will be around to pre-determine the 2027 elections.

In November 2009, Kayode Fayemi, then an opposition candidate, took temporary leave from the protracted legal tussle over the outcome of the governorship election in Ekiti State in south-west Nigeria two years earlier in which he was involved to travel to New Orleans in Louisiana, in the United States of America, to address the annual conference of the African Studies Association on “Electoral Politics and the Future of Electoral Reform in Nigeria.”

In a deeply thoughtful delivery, Dr. Fayemi feared that “the quest for consolidating our democracy is now in retreat and risks encountering outright reversals.” He explained that there are “five ‘minigods’ that one must pay significant attention to in any attempt to understand the nature of electoral politics in Nigeria”. These include the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), “which often acts like a Siamese twin of the ruling party….”; the security agencies – particularly Nigerian Police Force; “thugs and bandits”; the judiciary; the money god.

20 years ago, the late Innocent Chukwuma and I met with Tafa Balogun inside the office now occupied by Dr. Egbetokun to discuss a document he had commissioned from us. After reviewing our recommendations, Tafa looked at us with the full majesty of his corpulent authority and told us that he was inclined not to proceed with our suggestions. Almost wistfully, he added that when it was someone else’s turn, the person could do what they wanted. It is now Dr. Egbetokun’s turn and, as Inspector-General, he has turned Dr. Fayemi’s predictions of electoral dystopia supervised by the troika of the police, bandits, and crooked judges into a manual of policing. It just remains for police officers to be required to sing: “On your mandate we shall stand….!”

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]

Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde

Yesterday evening, I listened attentively to a panel of experts and stakeholders on the BBC program Ra’ayi Riga, anchored by Umaima Sani Abdulmumin. The program ended with a big doubt in my mind regarding a matter purported to be a provision of OPEC and crucial to the price of petrol in Nigeria.

Tyranny

I could not fathom how particularly the representatives of NNPC and IPMAN stressed that Nigerians will be at the mercy of two variables: the international market and the price of the US Dollar in Nigeria. They said OPEC agreement compels member countries to sell allocated domestic crude at international rate even if refined locally. One of them even said the Iran-Israel conflict can cause domestic price of petrol in Nigeria to rise.

So we should expect higher fuel prices anytime the rate of the dollar appreciates in Nigeria and also when, for any reason, there is a rise in the cost of crude in the international market. It is the rule, according to them. Our fate, they claim, is sealed, regardless of our OPEC membership and Dangote refinery. Nigerians will no longer have a stable fuel price.

Trust me, in Nigeria, the equation will be simultaneous. At any given moment, a reason will be found to use either or both parameters to increase pump price. The target of government is to extract more revenue from citizens while the businessmen in Dangote, Major Marketers, NNPCL and IPMAN continue to feed their greed for endless profit with our blood.

One would wonder why OPEC would be so oppressive in inflicting such tyranny on the citizens of its members. Senator Ndume, who was in the panel, said if he cannot understand why, how would they expect a commoner sitting under the tree to do so?

The truth

The truth is that there is no provision like that in OPEC agreements. In fact, the very idea of domestic crude quota arose in realization that citizens of member countries may need to enjoy cheaper oil than the international market price. That is why those citizens have been enjoying cheaper fuel for the past five decades in different countries. Many still do. Why not Nigerians?

If you ask ChatGPT whether OPEC agreement compels member countries to sell crude for domestic consumption at international market price only, this is the answer you get:

“OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) does not directly compel member countries to sell crude oil for domestic consumption at international market prices. OPEC’s primary role is to coordinate and unify petroleum policies among member countries to stabilize oil markets and secure a steady supply of oil.

“However, OPEC’s production quotas, agreements on output levels, and policies can indirectly influence domestic oil pricing. In practice, many OPEC members choose to sell crude oil domestically at subsidized rates or prices lower than the international market. This decision is made at the discretion of individual member countries, often as part of national energy policies aimed at supporting domestic economies and industries. Nonetheless, these policies may vary from one member country to another depending on domestic priorities and economic strategies.

“There is no formal OPEC rule that requires domestic sales to match international prices, though it can be influenced by international agreements and market pressures.”

The Truth

The truth is that the President and Minister of Petroleum can sell our 445,000 barrels a day to Dangote at even N50,000/barrel after taking into consideration the cost of extraction and OPEC will not raise any eyebrow. Dangote can charge the cost of refining, add his profit and sell to NNPCL and IPMAN at, say, N300/litre. On their part the marketers will add their cost of transportation, storage, profit, etc., and sell it to Nigerians at N400/litre. And—boom—we all will be happy.

It is entirely the discretion of the President and his government. So whoever wants to sell our locally produced fuel by that simultaneous equation is on his own. There is no OPEC in the equation.

The Squeeze

Also, among those who would fight against Nigerians enjoying affordable fuel rates are the IMF, World Bank and the West generally. They want the government to squeeze us the more such that we can service our debts and collect more loans from the Shylock. The age long philosophy is: our poverty, their wealth; our pain, their joy.

Added to these are local liberal economists who believe in high taxation, claiming that the blood money will be used to develop our infrastructure, health, education, etc. It is just the same old bunkum selling since 1986 at the debut of Naira devaluation while our infrastructure, hospitals and schools continue to deteriorate in rebuttal of that thesis.

A Call

I call on the President to consider the low income status of our citizen. Only affordable fuel price will hold together our social fabric, ensure our prosperity and guarantee our security. It is zero subsidy because we are not buying it from anyone. It is our oil.

The President must keep in mind that the IMF and oil magnates are not his partners in 2027. He is on his own. They will be there to outlive him and work with the next President. Let this sink into his psyche. Tam!

Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde

By Farooq A. Kperogi

The torment of incessantly escalating petrol prices and the consequent surge in the cost of everything have plunged Nigerians into a precipitous decline in quality of life. This dire situation is exacerbated by insensitive, almost mocking remarks from those responsible for inflicting this pain.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, aptly nicknamed “T-Pain,” recently stated from London that Nigerians would, in the future, appreciate the wisdom of his “reforms.” Such a statement is both callous and mendacious.

It is callous because these “reforms” are literally destroying the livelihoods of millions and causing the deaths of many. What possible benefit could the deceased derive from economic reforms that precipitated their untimely demise?

It is mendacious because, as evidenced by the history of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) in Nigeria—and the experiences of other nations implementing similar neoliberal economic reforms—such policies invariably erode the middle class, exacerbate poverty among the lower classes, yet please the markets, thereby benefiting the upper classes.

Almost without exception, neoliberal policies—such as the elimination of subsidies, deregulation, reductions in social spending, and fiscal austerity—exacerbate economic inequality and hinder sustainable development in developing economies. These policies often benefit large corporations and the wealthy, which creates an inequitable concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and widens the chasm between the rich and the poor.

Thus, the deferred benefits for which Tinubu wants Nigerians to endure mass deaths and hopelessness are the opening of Nigerian markets to international competition—which may please global markets but will overwhelm local businesses lacking the resources and technology to compete—and the freeing up of resources to invest in infrastructure.

However, the reality is that contemporary Nigeria is inhospitable to foreign investment due to the absence of security, social, and physical infrastructure, and because Tinubu’s policies have so impoverished the majority that they cannot afford to purchase what foreign businesses produce. This explains the mass exodus of foreign companies since 2023.

Furthermore, given the culture of endemic corruption entrenched within the upper echelons of power, most of the funds saved from subsidy withdrawals, tariff increases, intensified taxation, and cuts in social programs will likely be misappropriated. The government will still resort to borrowing from the World Bank and the IMF to finance its operations.

We are already witnessing this phenomenon. Despite massive inflows of cash into government coffers, no new projects are being constructed or even initiated. In fact, governments at all levels are procrastinating over implementing the ₦70,000 per month minimum wage. State governors convert the excess funds they receive from federal allocations into dollars and stash them away, thereby putting pressure on the naira.

Now, the vast majority of Nigerians have resigned themselves to the fact that death, starvation, and hopelessness are the only certain outcomes of Tinubu’s “reforms” and are seeking a way out. Middle-class citizens are saving up to leave the country, and, for the first time ever, even the majority of northern Nigeria’s middle class is investing in plans to escape from Nigeria.

In response, Senate President Godswill Akpabio declared that Nigerians fleeing the blazing neoliberal hellhole that Tinubu has created are ungrateful and unpatriotic cowards who should be stopped. “I believe people should place love for their country above financial gains. That is why many of us choose to remain here,” he said.

Akpabio and his ilk choose to stay in Nigeria not out of love for the country but because they thrive off it and are insulated from the harm they inflict upon it. The professionals leaving Nigeria in droves are not doing so because they lack love for their country. They love their country; they simply abhor the raging neoliberal inferno it has become. British Somali poet Warsan Shire once pointed out, “No one leaves home unless/home is the mouth of a shark.”

It is insulting to suggest, as Akpabio did, that Nigerian emigrants are motivated by base and unpatriotic motives. Even more insulting is Akpabio’s proposed solution to halt emigration: that dissatisfied Nigerians should reduce the number of cars they own.

At times, one wonders whether Akpabio retains any functioning brain cells.

Meanwhile, Remi Tinubu, Bola Tinubu’s wife, continued this pattern of insulting Nigerians amidst their suffering. On Thursday, she told the Ooni of Ife that her husband is not responsible for Nigeria’s current travails, which contradicts her husband’s own acceptance of responsibility for the hardships Nigerians are enduring—with a promise of an illusory better tomorrow as compensation for the pain he is inflicting.

“We are just 18 months into our administration,” she said. “We are not the cause of the current situation. We are trying to fix it and secure the future.”

She then inverted logic and implied that Nigerians are suffering not because her husband has increased petrol prices more times and at higher rates than any previous president, but because prior presidents did not do what her husband is doing.

“We know that subsidy has been removed, but with God on our side, in the next two years, Nigeria will be greater than this,” she said. “Those who attempted removing subsidies before could not see it through. But with your prayers in the next two years, we will build a nation for the future.”

The rage that overcame me upon reading this is beyond description. Do these insensate individuals utilize their cognitive faculties at all?

I have long harbored a suspicion that the upper echelons of Nigeria’s power structure have been displeased with the emergence of a middle class since 1999. The markers of middle-class status—such as car and home ownership, fine dining, foreign education, and sartorial sophistication—have deprived the upper class of privileges they believed should remain exclusive to them.

In the early 2000s, they used to speak derisively of “Obasanjo drivers”—individuals who could afford to own cars due to minimum wage increase and arrears of the minimum wage during Olusegun Obasanjo’s presidency. It isn’t Obasanjo who gave people cars or created the middle class, of course. By its nature, the practice of democracy creates certain jobs and circulates opportunities that foster the middle class.

Now, Tinubu’s neoliberal policies are eradicating the middle class and plunging the poor into deeper, more excruciating poverty, reminiscent of the days of military dictatorship. I wonder how much longer this can continue. Yet we will be observing from afar, as nothing that is happening now comes as a shock. I forewarned that this would occur even before Tinubu assumed power.