As Nigeria grapples with a myriad of crises, the current administration under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has faced increasing scrutiny for its approach to governance. From the controversial removal of the petroleum subsidy to rising inflation and deepening poverty, the Tinubu administration’s tactics have raised alarms about political manipulation aimed at controlling the populace. Today, this column will explore these issues, focusing on the manufactured crises in the petroleum sector, the implications for the economy, and the political maneuvering that underpins it all.
In May 2023, President Tinubu announced the removal of the longstanding petroleum subsidy, a move that was hailed by some as a necessary step towards economic reform. However, the abruptness of this decision caught many Nigerians off guard, leading to immediate fuel price hikes that sent shockwaves through the economy. As fuel prices soared, so did transportation costs, pushing inflation to unprecedented levels and deepening the already dire poverty situation for millions of Nigerians.
The removal of the subsidy was ostensibly aimed at creating a more competitive market, but it has raised suspicions of political manipulation. Critics argue that the sudden nature of the policy change was designed to distract the public from the president’s unpreparedness to lead the country or his desire to turn the country into his personal estate as done in Lagos State. Thus, it was no surprise the several significant regulatory hurdles Dangote’s mega facility has been facing despite its potential to bring some relief to fuel scarcity in the country. Critics further argue that even the presidential directive to sell crude oil to Dangote refinery is part of this manipulation as the same government is now making sure Nigerian buy these products at very high prices that will ensure the rising of poverty levels in the country. As Nigerians continue to agitate what they call the wickedness of the Tinubu administration, the government’s narrative shifted to one of necessity, framing the subsidy removal as a painful but essential sacrifice for the nation’s long-term gain.
The fallout from the subsidy removal has been swift and severe. Inflation rates have skyrocketed, driven primarily by the escalating costs of goods and services. According to recent reports by the National Bureau of Statistics, food inflation has reached over 39%, with food prices hitting record highs. For many Nigerians, this translates to increased hardship and deprivation. The purchasing power of the average citizen has eroded dramatically, pushing more than 180 million Nigerians deeper into poverty.
This economic turmoil has led to widespread discontent. The Tinubu administration’s response has often been to deflect blame onto previous governments, thus, framing the current crisis as a legacy issue rather than a result of their own policies. This tactic of shifting responsibility serves to create a narrative that fosters confusion and uncertainty among the populace, which effectively disarm dissent.
Amidst this backdrop of economic distress, discussions surrounding the review of the new N70,000 minimum wage have intensified. Workers across various sectors are clamoring for a review to match the rising cost of living because of the new petrol pump price hike. The NLC slammed the government for deception, yet the government appears reluctant to respond. This manipulation is fueling frustrations and sparking calls for new protests, which will be dire for the already fledgling economy.
President Tinubu’s handling of the minimum wage issue reflects a broader trend of political manipulation. By manipulating the wage increases, he is attempting to suppress potential uprisings while redirecting public attention towards divisive issues like the Kano emirate crisis, the change of the national anthem, and the proposed implementation of the Orosanye report, not to mention the arrest of NLC President Ajaero. This cynical strategy deepens the suffering of Nigerians and starkly illustrates a government that is alarmingly out of touch with the harsh realities faced by everyday citizens. It is a blatant attempt to manipulate the narrative and leave the populace vulnerable to vote buying in the next elections.
In a bid to maintain public support, the Tinubu administration has also engaged with religious leaders, employing clerics to propagate narratives that align with its political goals. By leveraging the influence of religious figures, the administration aims to sway public opinion and foster a sense of unity amidst the chaos.
However, this strategy raises ethical concerns about the integrity of these clerics, as their involvement in political messaging is already leading to an erosion of trust among their followers. Many Nigerians view this as an attempt to co-opt religion for political gain, further undermining the moral authority of these leaders. Once the administration succeeds in messing up the clerics’ influence, food and basic sustenance will become the ultimate concerns for the populace. the goal of the administration to effectively remove critical discussions about governance, accountability, and corruption would have been achieved.
At the heart of the manufactured crises lies a deeply entrenched network of political corruption that is increasingly becoming apparent under the Tinubu administration. Allegations have emerged suggesting that President Tinubu and his inner circle are strategically positioning themselves to control Nigeria’s oil industry, effectively creating a cartel-like structure that consolidates power and wealth within a select few. This maneuvering raises serious ethical questions about the conflation of political power and business interests. As the president’s family and cronies accumulate wealth, the average Nigerian is left to bear the brunt of economic mismanagement.
Critics assert that Tinubu’s apparent goal is to reign over Nigerians with poverty and hunger until 2027 and beyond. His administration’s romance with French leaders indicates a troubling adoption of French postcolonial strategies that maintain control over former colonies through economic dependency. This relationship suggests that Tinubu is a keen student of these tactics, aiming to sustain political power by fostering a populace that is too preoccupied with basic survival to challenge authority.
However, this path carries significant risks. The growing frustrations among Nigerians, compounded by the deepening crises, could lead to an explosive reaction. As economic hardships intensify, there is a palpable sense of aggression brewing among the populace. The potential for unrest fueled by despair and disillusionment should not be underestimated.
The crises manufactured by the Tinubu administration—concerning petroleum subsidy removal, inflation, minimum wage, and corruption—reveal a stark pattern of political manipulation aimed at subjugating the narrative and the people. At this critical juncture, Nigeria demands more than mere leadership; it requires unwavering accountability and transparency, especially with the next round of elections coming up in 2027. Citizens must rise against this manipulation, which not only erodes trust in government but also threatens the nation’s very essence.
A resounding call for change, anchored in integrity and accountability, is vital for Nigeria to forge a future of progress and prosperity. Let this moment serve as a clarion call for Nigerians to hold their leaders accountable, transforming these crises from instruments of control into catalysts for transformative change.
