By Obinna Ejianya (9News Nigeria – Melbourne, Australia)
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to remove fuel subsidy on the very first day of his administration has proven to be the most consequential economic policy in recent Nigerian history. The aftermath has been devastating: the cost of goods and services has skyrocketed, transportation has become prohibitively expensive, the naira has tumbled to historically low exchange rates, and millions of Nigerians are gasping under unprecedented hardship. What we are witnessing is not merely an economic adjustment but a humanitarian crisis in real time.
Tinubu’s economic agenda has become a tale of detours in the face of Nigeria’s harsh realities. Instead of offering direct relief, Tinubu has leaned on palliatives and policy experiments that circle around the real solution. It is like standing before a starving child who is desperate for food, yet choosing to take a long, winding journey before delivering the meal. In the process, the child weakens further — and in Nigeria’s case, millions are sinking deeper into poverty and despair.
The direct and obvious solution lies in reversing course and reinstating fuel subsidy, even if partially, to stabilize fuel prices and provide immediate relief. Nigeria’s economy is fundamentally fuel-dependent. From transportation to agriculture, from small-scale industries to households that must power their lives with generators due to chronic electricity failure, fuel cost determines the baseline for the entire economy. Lowering fuel prices would immediately reduce the cost of living, stabilize markets, and restore a measure of confidence to the people. Yet, instead of taking this straightforward step, President Tinubu has chosen to pursue a labyrinth of indirect policies, programs, and palliatives that have failed to deliver tangible relief to the masses.
The ₦500 billion palliative fund, touted as a cushion against hardship, has disappeared into a sea of bureaucracy, inefficiency, and corruption, leaving ordinary Nigerians untouched. The distribution of buses, cash transfers, agricultural inputs, student loans, and grants to MSMEs sounds impressive on paper, but the reality is that these measures have barely reached those at the bottom who bear the real brunt of subsidy removal. Even when such interventions reach a fraction of intended beneficiaries, the astronomical rise in prices wipes out whatever temporary relief they provide. A bag of rice remains out of reach for many households, transport costs continue to cripple daily earnings, and SMEs that should be the lifeblood of the economy are suffocating under impossible operating costs.
The painful irony is that many of these palliative measures might have worked if they had been introduced after Nigerians were already assured of affordable fuel and a stable cost of living. In developed countries — including Australia where I live — governments ensure that essential services remain subsidized to keep life affordable for ordinary citizens. Fuel, energy, healthcare, transport, and even agriculture benefit from varying levels of subsidy, making daily living sustainable. Only after these fundamentals are secured are additional palliatives introduced to cushion citizens from shocks. That is the right sequence. By reversing it — withdrawing subsidy first and then dangling inadequate relief measures — Tinubu has placed the cart before the horse, worsening hardship instead of alleviating it.
The truth is that none of these palliative programs addresses the fundamental trigger of Nigeria’s economic crisis: unaffordable fuel. The ripple effect of high petrol prices cascades through every sector, inflating food costs, transport fares, production expenses, and ultimately plunging millions deeper into poverty. The insecurity crisis is worsened by desperation, as hunger and lack of opportunity push more citizens into crime and unrest. It is therefore disingenuous to pretend that cash handouts or piecemeal interventions can substitute for structural relief through affordable energy.
Nigerians are not blind to the pattern. They see that endemic corruption continues to swallow intervention funds, that the so-called relief packages are politicized or hijacked before they reach the common man, and that everyday life is becoming worse despite the billions supposedly committed to alleviating suffering. The growing distrust in government is a direct consequence of this misplaced policy priority.
President Tinubu must confront the reality. No economy can thrive when its citizens are choking under suffocating costs of basic survival. No policy can succeed if its impact is invisible to those it claims to help. By reinstating fuel subsidy, even temporarily while working out a comprehensive long-term energy reform, Tinubu would directly lower the cost of living, allow SMEs to revive, bring transportation and food prices within reach, and give Nigerians the breathing space they desperately need.
Nigeria does not need more committees, lofty promises, or half-measures that fail to address the root cause. What is required is the political will to acknowledge that the subsidy removal, though perhaps well-intentioned, has unleashed unbearable hardship without a safety net that works. Reintroducing subsidy is not a sign of weakness but of responsive leadership — leadership that prioritizes the survival and dignity of its people over rigid adherence to economic orthodoxy.
If Tinubu truly wants to be remembered as a reformer who rescued Nigeria from the brink, then he must hit the nail on the head. Nigerians do not need endless palliatives that vanish into thin air. They need the fuel price lowered, the economy stabilized, and the chance to breathe again. Anything less is like watching that starving child grow weaker by the minute, while the food that could save him is carried on a needless detour.
