THE manner in which Nigeria’s state governors responded to questions concerning the management of funds accruing to their states following the removal of petroleum subsidy shows their utter lack of sincerity. Despite the fact that millions of Nigerians are currently experiencing the excruciating effects of inflation, high transportation costs, unemployment and declining purchasing power, the governors have offered the nation not an account, but a dismissal of obvious facts and an evasion of substantive issues. The submission, ‘That cannot be true. But we’ll leave that debate for another day,’ uttered by Governor Douye Diri of Bayelsa State in response to questions on governors’ stewardship and handling of the petrol subsidy removal largesse, is hardly the language of an accountable, responsible and social welfare-oriented government. It is the language of officials who would prefer that the books remain closed while citizens blindly trust their leadership.
The 36 governors, under the aegis of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), have rejected allegations that sub-national governments have failed to properly account for funds received after the removal of fuel subsidy. They have simultaneously endorsed the proposed National Affordable Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Transit Programme (NACTP), arguing that CNG could reduce transportation costs and bring relief to the ‘common man.’ While the second proposition may have merit, the first calls for serious scrutiny. As Shakespeare declares, ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’ Nigeria’s predicament is not merely the consequence of economic forces beyond the nation’s control; it is the product of choices made by individuals in government. The removal of subsidy was presented as a painful but necessary surgery that would ultimately make adequate resources available for all-round development. Nigerians should therefore expect that the enormous additional revenues accruing to governments would translate into tangible improvements in their lives.
Far from it. The country has witnessed a cruel paradox: government revenues have increased while the ordinary Nigerian citizen’s capacity to survive has diminished. Across the country, roads remain death traps. Public transportation is inadequate. Rural communities are frequently disconnected from economic centres. Local governments, constitutionally closest to the people, remain financially and administratively emasculated in many states. Poverty has deepened, businesses are struggling, and movement from one point to another has become an economic punishment.
Against this backdrop, the governors’ collective self-certification of their own accountability is grossly unacceptable. Accountability cannot be established by mere declaration; it must be demonstrated by evidence. On what exactly have the governors been spending the money? How much has each state received? What proportion has been spent on transport intervention, healthcare, education, infrastructure, social protection and other palliatives? How much remains? What independent mechanisms have audited the expenditure? Nigerians deserve answers to these questions, not the flippant assurances that the accusations ‘cannot be true.’ Indeed, the governors should understand that public scepticism is not an insult to government. It is an inevitable consequence of opaque governance.
Meanwhile, the governors’ enthusiasm for CNG is similarly deserving of more than rhetorical applause. Gas may indeed be cheaper than petrol, and converting vehicles to CNG could reduce operating costs, if the necessary infrastructure exists. But Nigeria must not repeat the old national habit of announcing solutions before constructing the foundations required to sustain them. Is CNG sufficiently available nationwide? Are there adequate refuelling stations? Can the national gas network support a mass transition to CNG-powered transport? What happens when thousands or millions of commercial vehicles seek such fuel simultaneously? Even now, reports of queues at CNG stations suggest that availability remains a significant constraint. The question is therefore simple: what happens when the whole country is told to embrace an alternative whose distribution infrastructure is still inadequate? It would be a tragic irony if petrol queues morphed into CNG queues.
Government must be honest about the scale of the transition. How many Nigerians currently operate CNG vehicles? How many commercial buses, taxis and tricycles have been converted? Who will finance the conversion? And will poor commercial drivers be expected to borrow money to convert their vehicles while passenger fares remain escalated? The Federal Government cannot escape responsibility either. The failure is not exclusively that of the governors. Government at every level has too often treated Nigerians as table-tennis balls, bounced from one institution to another while each authority disclaims responsibility for the hardship around them. Government must always be acquainted with the fact that economic shocks require visible intervention. During previous fuel-price increases, governments deployed buses to cushion the immediate impact on commuters. Such interventions were hardly a comprehensive economic policy, but they demonstrated an important principle: when government imposes pain in the name of reform, it must also practically provide a suitable balm to dull the pain. That balm is conspicuously missing today.
Nigerian governors should therefore abandon the triumphalism inherent in their latest pronouncements. They should sit down with organised labour, the private sector, transport unions, civil society and other stakeholders and develop a comprehensive post-subsidy social programme. Such a compact programme should include transparent accounting of subsidy-removal revenues, mass-transit investment, road rehabilitation, targeted support for vulnerable households, agricultural interventions, and a credible programme for strengthening local governments. Above all, Nigerians need measurable results. John F. Kennedy famously counselled that ‘the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – but the myth.’ The myth that more revenue automatically means better governance must be shattered. Money transferred to governments is not development. Development occurs when public resources become roads that can be travelled smoothly, schools that function, hospitals that heal, jobs that endure, and transportation that ordinary people can afford.
The governors may reject the charge of financial irresponsibility. They may insist that they have done nothing wrong. But in a democracy, the people are the ultimate auditors. And their verdict is increasingly visible – in empty pockets, crowded buses, abandoned roads, shuttered businesses and households struggling to feed. The governors should listen. For, as Chinua Achebe warned in his book The Trouble with Nigeria, ‘The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership.’ That indictment remains painfully relevant till today. What Nigerians require now is not chest-thumping, political defensiveness or another grand programme wrapped in impressive acronyms. Nigerians require leadership that can account for every naira, anticipate every bottleneck, and deliver relief where it matters most. The governors have had their say. Now, let the evidence speak.