By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D
Cheaper petrol is politically irresistible in Nigeria.
Petrol shapes the cost of transport, food distribution and much of everyday economic life. For millions of Nigerians battered by inflation and shrinking purchasing power, any reduction in its price is welcome. But when relief arrives on the eve of a general election, it raises questions that go beyond economics.
The Federal Government’s temporary reduction in petrol prices has reopened a debate the Tinubu administration may have considered closed. When subsidy was removed in 2023, Nigerians were told the era of artificially supported fuel prices was over and that market forces must prevail, however painful the transition.
There was sound logic in that position. For decades, the subsidy regime consumed enormous public resources, fed corruption and delivered benefits that were neither fairly shared nor properly accounted for. Ending it required courage.
The real question was never whether subsidy should go. It was whether Nigerians had been prepared for the consequences, and whether the promised dividends of reform would reach those bearing its costs.
More than three years on, that question remains painfully relevant. Subsidy removal, exchange rate reforms and related measures fundamentally altered the cost of living. Fares rose. Businesses buckled under operating costs. Households now spend more to sustain ever more modest lives. Some indicators have improved. Daily life has not.
This is why any intervention that lowers petrol prices deserves to be judged on its merits. Government exists to improve the welfare of citizens, not to satisfy economic theory or impress international financial institutions. Good policy does not become bad policy simply because it is politically convenient.
But political convenience must not be mistaken for sound economic management.
Reform rests on consistency, transparency and trust. Having told Nigerians that government no longer fixes petrol prices, the administration owes them a clear account of what has changed. Has the cost of supply fallen? Has domestic refining reduced reliance on imports? Is public money financing the reduction? Or has government found another way to influence prices without formally restoring subsidy?
These are legitimate questions, not hostility. Convincing answers would strengthen public confidence.
To be fair, the government has offered an explanation. Finance Minister Taiwo Oyedele insists this is not a return to subsidy, because NNPC Retail is temporarily forgoing its profit margin rather than receiving public funds to sell below cost. The Presidency says the measure merely cushions global oil price shocks without reversing the 2023 reforms. That distinction matters and deserves recognition.
The details, however, show why scrutiny remains necessary. NNPC has extended a discount of ₦66 per litre until 31 October. Yet at its Abuja outlets, motorists paying at the pump were reportedly charged ₦1,405 per litre, while those using the company’s mobile application paid ₦1,339. The relief is not automatic for everyone who drives into a filling station.
Who, then, is it really for? If commercial transport operators are the priority, how many have the digital access and payment arrangements to claim the discount? More importantly, what ensures that their savings translate into lower fares for passengers? Relief that skips the commuter will do little for the wider economy.
Then there is duration. A few weeks of breathing space is welcome, but the hardship has lasted far longer. What happens on 1 November? Will prices simply return to previous levels? These questions deserve answers before anyone celebrates.
Predictably, the opposition has pounced. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has questioned the timing and effectiveness of the measure, describing it as politically motivated relief that ignores the underlying problem. The Social Democratic Party and others have echoed him. The administration calls it an economic response, not an electoral inducement.
Both sides deserve scrutiny. The opposition is entitled to question a temporary measure, but it cannot reasonably argue that government should withhold relief because an election is near. Equally, the administration cannot expect Nigerians to ignore the politics of its decisions because officials call them necessary.
What ultimately matters is whether the intervention is transparent, sustainable and beneficial. The proposed ceiling on petrol supply costs, support for domestic refining and efforts to reduce exposure to global price volatility merit serious attention. Government must explain how they will work, who will bear the cost and what safeguards will stop today’s relief from becoming tomorrow’s fiscal burden.
There is a larger lesson here for President Tinubu. Reform is not an end in itself. Nigerians cannot be expected to applaud favourable indicators indefinitely while struggling to afford transport, food and electricity. Reform must ultimately be measured in the purchasing power and dignity of ordinary citizens.
The administration should therefore treat this discount neither as a public relations triumph nor as an embarrassment to be explained away. It should publish the cost of the intervention, its beneficiaries and its results. If it works, build on it. If it falls short, say so and do better.
Citizens, too, have a duty. As the election approaches, economic policy should not be judged solely through partisan lenses. A good intervention deserves acknowledgement whoever introduces it. A flawed one deserves criticism whoever defends it. That is the discipline of democratic accountability.
Nigerians are not asking for a brief display of governmental compassion. They want an economy in which the cost of living does not perpetually outrun the means of survival.
The real test for President Tinubu is not whether petrol becomes cheaper for a few weeks before an election. It is whether Nigerians can live with dignity long after the votes are counted.
Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D, FIMC, CMC
Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645
