The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Mr. President

  • Fuel import tariff: Letter to Mr. President

    Fuel import tariff: Letter to Mr. President

    By Rotimi Matthew

    Mr President, Nigerians have walked with you through a season of fire. They have endured subsidy removal, foreign exchange shocks, inflation that eats wages before payday, and reforms that have stretched household budgets to their breaking point. They did so because you asked for time — time to rebuild, to reform, to restore.

    Now, after this difficult year of sacrifice, the government has confirmed that it will introduce a 15 per cent import duty on petrol and diesel. Mr President, this decision risks turning faith into fatigue. It could undo the fragile trust Nigerians have placed in your leadership.

    According to the leaked memorandum from the State House dated October 10, the new tariff is framed as a “market-responsive import framework” meant to “safeguard local refining capacity and stabilise the downstream market.” But Nigerians are not fooled by the language of protection when its result is punishment.

    This tariff, applied to the Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) value of imported fuel, will raise the landing cost of petrol by roughly N150–N175 per litre. That means the average pump price could surge toward N970 or more per litre, a direct hit to every household, every transport operator, every food vendor, every generator owner.

    This policy claims to “protect local refineries,” but the reality is different: it protects one refinery, the Dangote Refinery, at the expense of an entire nation. The refinery, which currently supplies only about 22 million litres daily, cannot meet Nigeria’s 50 million-litre daily consumption. So the rest will still come from imports — but now, imports that must bear a punitive 15 per cent tax, ensuring Dangote’s petrol looks cheaper, even when it isn’t.

    That is not protectionism; it is manipulation dressed as policy.

    Inside that closed circle lies the new “fuel cabal,” a collection of powerful businessmen who have aligned themselves with the refinery to dictate who lifts petrol, who gets access, and at what price. The market, which deregulation was meant to free, is now being redesigned for control.

    We are told this tariff will “stabilise the market.” But, as history teaches us, monopolies do not stabilise; they suffocate. In cement, sugar, and now fuel, the pattern remains the same: establish dominance, and then block rivals through state-backed regulations. What we are witnessing is not industrial policy — it is industrial capture.

    Every naira added to fuel prices ripples across the economy. Transport fares rise by 20–30%. Food prices follow. Inflation deepens. The middle class shrinks further. The poor lose what little dignity inflation has not already taken. And all this, in the name of protecting an investor who built a “state-of-the-art” refinery but cannot yet supply half the country’s needs.

    Economic policy is not a courtroom for the powerful to plead for privilege. It is a covenant between the government and the people. And that covenant is broken when policy tilts toward a single enterprise.

    Why protection does not build efficiency

    When global oil markets faced deregulation, from the United States to South Korea, competition — not tariffs — built resilience. Local refiners had to innovate, not lobby for protection. In the 1980s, American refiners survived the global glut not because of tariffs, but because the market forced them to be efficient, invest, and adapt. South Korea’s Chaebols, initially sheltered, became efficient only after the state opened competition and removed protectionist crutches.

    If a refinery built with global expertise and billions in investment cannot compete without government shields, then what is it offering Nigerians? The same Nigerians who have already indirectly funded infrastructure through public concessions, waivers, and policy privileges now face a second tax — at the pump.

    The psychological compact between citizens and the state depends on fairness. When people believe that one man or one company is being favoured at their expense, they stop seeing reform as progress. They see it as betrayal.

     Mr President, economic theory often hides its human cost. But behind every fuel price increase lies a family’s rationed meal, a trader’s collapsed margin, a farmer’s unaffordable transport. The sociology of hardship is cumulative — people can absorb one reform, perhaps two, but a third breaks faith.

    Nigerians are patient, but patience is not infinite. Inflation, currency devaluation, and insecurity already weigh heavily. A 15 per cent tariff on fuel is not a correction — it is cruelty wearing the mask of economic reform.

    Those who drafted this proposal insist the tariff is “not revenue-driven” but “corrective.” Yet every indicator shows that the correction benefits one player. The refinery’s own petrol, as of October 20, lands at N929.72 per litre — more expensive than the N802.44 landing cost of imported petrol.

    If local refining is truly efficient, why must it be shielded from competition? Why must the public pay a premium to protect inefficiency? The promise of local refining was cheaper fuel, not controlled pricing.

    Even more troubling, reports confirm that the refinery itself has imported cargoes of gasoline in recent weeks, claiming they were “blending components.” If the nation’s premier refinery must import finished products, how then can it claim protection from import competition? Is it a refinery, a blender, or both?

    Read Also: Nigeria must unite against fabricated divisions — Alawuje

    The contradictions are too loud to ignore.

    Mr President, Nigerians are not asking for perfection. They are asking for fairness. They are asking that your reform legacy not be hijacked by those who trade influence for policy.

    You have often spoken of restoring Nigeria’s credibility in the eyes of investors, citizens, and the global community. That credibility depends not on who we protect, but on what we protect — fairness, transparency, and competition.

    You fought cabals before; Nigerians remember. They trusted that you would never allow another to rise under your watch, this time cloaked in refinery smoke. The test is here again.

    Viable alternatives exist to protect both the refinery and the community: Promote competition instead of protection by permitting multiple refiners, importers, and marketers to operate simultaneously. Increase transparency by making the cost structures and local refiners’ production capacities publicly accessible. Implement a phased approach, applying tariffs only when domestic supply exceeds dependency on imports. Conduct independent assessments, empowering the FCCPC and NMDPRA to verify if the refinery’s pricing aligns with global standards.

    Mr President, every leader is tested by the counsel he keeps. Those urging this tariff are not protecting your legacy; they are protecting their leverage. They are not serving Nigeria; they are serving themselves. If this tariff goes forward, it will not only raise prices but also fuel resentment. It will feed the belief that government exists to protect the powerful, not the people.

    The Nigeria you promised, open, competitive, compassionate, begins not with the policies we announce, but with the ones we refuse to endorse when they betray the people’s trust.

    •Matthew, a policy and governance analyst, Abuja.

  • Mr. President, I disagree!!! (2)

    Mr. President, I disagree!!! (2)

    Yes, there exists within and outside the country schools of thought which insist that the constitution does not matter,  these schools of thought argue that even if Angels and the Panjandrums came together to give the nation the most seamless of constitutions, as long as such constitutions were peopled by human beings, especially the best of Nigerians, such a constitution would only serve as a mere piece of paper.

    These Schools argue that from the historic point of view,  merely changing or adopting a new constitution has not led to meaningful change in governance structures or political behavior in Nigeria. The existing 1999 Constitution has provisions designed to uphold democratic governance, protect human rights, and ensure accountability. However, the challenges Nigeria faces today—such as corruption, security issues, and ethnic tension—are less about the document itself and more about the failure of political leadership and institutional integrity.

    There is also the argument that we have the option of Constitutional amendments which could also serve as seeking to solve a number of issues  in Nigeria’s political environment, thus the amendments  can serve whatever lofty desires the Patriots have about a new constitution. Thus, instead of starting over, it is imperative to engage in substantive amendments that target the flaws and deficiencies of the current system while promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement.

     However, in contradiction scholars such as the likes of Mark Tushnet, a William Nelson Cromwell Memorial Scholar argues that constitutional law is really politics by another name and that the Constitution’s text and judicial doctrine expounding on it matters  only to the degree that it provides a structure for our politics, so on one hand, leadership matters, politics and politicians will always have their  way but only to the extent  that the constitution allows. Even the talk of amending the constitution is much amnesiac in the sense that such legislative processes haven seen several unsuccessful attempts at amending the constitution has yet to offer Nigerians a befitting constitution, again such processes arent effective such legislative processes have always been tainted with politics, or how can we forget how an Olusegun Obasanjo sought for a Third Term in office under the pretext of s constitutional review.

    Read Also:Time is of the essence, Mr. President

    Thus, the 1999 Constitution, which was fashioned by the military which was rather in a haste to handover to a civilian  government and which was fraught with a lot of inconsistencies cannot give structure to the progressive politics Nigerians are desirous of.  Understanding all these, the Patriots’s desire for a new constitution gives form to the thinking of scholars like Tushnet, the late Professor Ben Nwabueze and other notable constitutional scholars, without a new and people based constitution, we will continue to move in circles politically!

    The legislative process has seen several unsuccessful attempts at amending the constitution to accommodate pressing needs.

    Like i stated earlier, even if a new constitutional  process may be long and laborious and may even bring periods of extended uncertainly, creating a potential for conflict and division during the drafting phase,  exacerbating existing tensions, threatening  national unity and stability and even  threaten the corporate structure of Nigeria, it will still be better than this present and assured journey unto doomsday which only the fashioning of a new constitution can avert. Even, the talk of such uncertainty may not arise owing to the ability of the Nigerian to compromise.

    The visceral arguements that our nation’s governance challenges are dynamic and often interlinked with social, economic, and cultural factors and that a new constitution cannot simply erase these existing problems nor provide a framework that guarantees better governance is much lacking in merit. How else can we develop such robust frameworks which will be inclusive of the various  voices,  thoughts and ethnic groups within the  Nigerian society if not in the process of drawing up a new constitution, particularly the  marginalized groups who often feel excluded from the political discourse.

    Another significant aspect of the call by the Patriots is that it offers the government of President Tinubu the chance of engaging citizens in the constitutional discourse. If a new constitution is to reflect the will of the people, it must incorporate their views, needs, and aspirations. The arguments that past attempts at such civic engagement at the  constitution-making processes have often been tokenistic remains flawed. What is tokenistic is rather the attempt at such quickfix measures mentioned above, these could serve as complementary to the demand for a new constitution  but can never resolve these issues.

    President  Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s  stance on the demand for a new constitution is thus in need of a rethink. By focusing efforts on the economic front, President Tinubu has exposed the political future of the country to forces that are readily comfortable with skewed system, truth be told, these are his enemies as history would also be unkind to him should he miss such  golden opportunity at such an epoch making moment.