By Comrade Ibrahim Muhammad Sani*
This is not a praise song. This is not an attack. This is an analysis.
Nigeria is divided today on the question of President Bola Tinubu. To understand the division, we must listen to both sides — the critics and the government — and then look at the facts.
1. WHAT THE CRITICS SAY
Critics, opposition groups, labour unions, traders, students, and many ordinary Nigerians argue:
*a) Subsidy removal was too sudden.*
On 29 May 2023, subsidy was removed on day one, without buses, without CNG alternatives, without food reserves, without a strong safety net. Petrol price jumped, transport jumped, food jumped.
*b) Naira floating increased hardship.*
The floating of the Naira led to depreciation, which made imported goods, medicine, fuel, and food more expensive.
*c) Cost of living became unbearable.*
Inflation rose to historic levels. Bag of rice, garri, yam, cooking oil — all doubled or tripled. Salary did not rise at the same speed.
*d) Palliatives were not enough.*
Cash transfers, food palliatives, and the new minimum wage helped some people, but critics say they did not reach the majority, especially in rural areas. Many say the money did not match the scale of the hardship.
This is why many Nigerians feel frustrated. Their frustration is real. It is not invented on social media. It is felt in the market.
2. WHAT THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS SUPPORTERS SAY
The Tinubu administration and its supporters argue a different side:
*a) Subsidy was unsustainable.*
They say Nigeria was spending trillions of Naira every year on subsidy, and most of the benefit was going to smugglers and the rich, not the poor. Continuing it would have led to economic collapse and more borrowing.
*b) Reforms are painful but necessary.*
They compare it to a surgery: painful in the short term, but needed to save the patient. They say without reform, Nigeria would have gone bankrupt, with no money for salaries, schools, or hospitals.
*c) Revenue has increased.*
After subsidy removal, Federation Account (FAAC) allocations increased. Federal Government got ₦5.4 trillion, States and LGs got ₦10.4 trillion from June 2023 to December 2025. The government says this money is now available for infrastructure, healthcare, and education.
*d) Reforms are beginning to show results.*
Supporters point to improved foreign reserves, return of investors, refinery rehabilitation, road projects, student loan scheme, and increased minimum wage as signs that the reforms are working, even if slowly.
From the government’s view, the hardship is the price of fixing a broken system that was left for many years.
3. WHAT ARE THE VERIFIED FACTS?
Let us separate emotion from fact:
*Fact 1: Fuel price rose sharply.*
Subsidy removal immediately increased petrol price. This increased transport and food prices across Nigeria. This is not debatable.
*Fact 2: Inflation rose.*
Nigeria experienced historic inflation in 2023-2025, especially food inflation. This reduced purchasing power of ordinary families.
*Fact 3: Government revenue rose.*
FAAC allocations to federal, state, and local governments increased significantly after subsidy removal.
*Fact 4: Palliatives and minimum wage were introduced.*
Federal government introduced cash transfers, food palliatives, CNG buses, student loans, and negotiated a new minimum wage of ₦70,000. However, implementation was slow in many states, and many citizens say they did not benefit.
*Fact 5: Impact is uneven.*
Some Nigerians — especially in urban areas with government jobs or businesses that benefit from increased revenue — felt some improvement. Many others — especially in rural areas, informal traders, farmers, and daily wage workers — felt only hardship.
So both sides are partly right.
4. WHERE IS THE MIDDLE TRUTH?
A fair analysis must admit three truths:
*First Truth: The Reform Was Needed, But The Timing Was Wrong.*
Nigeria could not continue paying unsustainable subsidy forever. But removing it without preparation made the poor pay the heaviest price.
*Second Truth: More Money Came, But Accountability Did Not Follow.*
The reform brought more money to government. But the people did not see the money in their lives. The problem shifted from “no money” to “money without accountability.”
*Third Truth: Nigerians Are Patient, But Patience Needs Results.*
Nigerians endured. But patience cannot live on promises alone. It needs food, jobs, security, and visible improvement.
5. WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT — A FAIR RECOMMENDATION
Without insult, without politics, this is what a fair observer will say:
*1. Government must show where the money went.* Publish a monthly account of the ₦15.8 trillion subsidy savings — state by state, project by project.
*2. Government must protect the poor first, before collecting more tax.* Jobs, food security, and affordable transport must come before new taxes.
*3. Critics must also offer solutions, not only complaints.* It is not enough to say “Bring back subsidy.” We must also ask: “If subsidy returns, how do we pay for it without borrowing?”
*4. All sides must keep the conversation peaceful.* Nigeria cannot be fixed by insult. It can only be fixed by dialogue, accountability, and honest leadership.
CONCLUSION
The Tinubu presidency is not all black, and it is not all white.
It is a government that took bold reforms that were necessary, but implemented them in a way that caused deep pain to ordinary people.
It is a government that increased revenue, but has not yet convinced the people that the revenue is working for them.
The people are not enemies of the government. The government is not the enemy of the people. The real enemy is hunger, corruption, and bad implementation.
If the government listens more, accounts more, and protects the poor more — the story can still change.
If it does not, the frustration will continue, not because Nigerians hate Tinubu, but because Nigerians hate suffering.
Comrade Ibrahim Muhammad Sani*
_Arewa Advocate_
