Kola Ologbondiyan, a former spokesperson for Nigeria’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has delivered sharp criticism of the Bola Tinubu administration, accusing it of implementing policies that have exacerbated the economic challenges facing the country. His statements, directed at two of the administration’s most controversial decisions—removing the fuel subsidy and floating the naira—have reignited debates about the direction of Nigeria’s economy and the human cost of these reforms.
The removal of the fuel subsidy, announced early in Tinubu’s presidency, was presented as a necessary measure to address longstanding inefficiencies and corruption in Nigeria’s petroleum sector. For years, the subsidy had drained government resources, costing billions of dollars annually while failing to ensure the availability of affordable fuel for citizens. Tinubu’s government argued that removing the subsidy would free up funds for infrastructure, education, and healthcare, creating long-term benefits for the country.
However, Ologbondiyan contends that the decision has inflicted severe hardship on ordinary Nigerians. The immediate consequence of subsidy removal was a dramatic rise in fuel prices, which have tripled in some areas. This price surge has cascaded through the economy, driving up transportation costs and contributing to skyrocketing inflation. Essential goods and services have become increasingly unaffordable for millions, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income households.
Similarly, the administration’s move to float the naira—a policy aimed at stabilizing Nigeria’s foreign exchange market and attracting foreign investment—has been another contentious issue. By allowing the value of the naira to be determined by market forces, the government sought to end years of currency manipulation and multiple exchange rates that had deterred investors. But the policy has led to a sharp devaluation of the naira, which has lost a significant portion of its value against major currencies like the dollar.
Ologbondiyan argues that the combined effects of these policies have pushed Nigeria into a deeper economic crisis. With the cost of living surging and the naira’s purchasing power eroding, many Nigerians are struggling to meet basic needs. The floating of the naira has also increased the cost of imported goods, from food to technology, while businesses reliant on foreign exchange are grappling with higher operating costs. The ripple effects have been felt across all sectors, from agriculture to manufacturing.
In his critique, Ologbondiyan accuses the Tinubu administration of failing to adequately prepare for the impact of these reforms. He points to the absence of effective palliatives or social safety nets to cushion the blow for vulnerable populations. While the government has announced plans for cash transfers and other relief measures, critics argue that these efforts have been insufficient and poorly executed, leaving many Nigerians to bear the brunt of the economic shock on their own.
The PDP stalwart’s comments also touch on broader questions about governance and accountability. He challenges the administration’s justification for its policies, questioning whether the anticipated long-term benefits outweigh the immediate hardships. Ologbondiyan also raises concerns about transparency in how funds saved from the subsidy removal are being allocated, calling for more clarity on the government’s spending priorities.
Supporters of Tinubu’s policies, however, argue that the reforms, though painful, are necessary steps toward a more sustainable economic future. They highlight the inefficiencies and corruption associated with the fuel subsidy and the distortions caused by an artificially fixed exchange rate, emphasizing that maintaining these systems was no longer tenable. From their perspective, the administration’s bold actions are laying the groundwork for a more competitive and self-reliant Nigerian economy.
Despite these arguments, the public discontent voiced by figures like Ologbondiyan reflects widespread frustration among Nigerians. Protests and strikes have been organized by labor unions and civil society groups, demanding immediate relief and a reassessment of the government’s policies. The pressure on the Tinubu administration to address these concerns continues to mount, with calls for more inclusive decision-making processes and greater engagement with stakeholders.
Ologbondiyan’s critique is not just a political rebuke but a reflection of the struggles faced by millions of Nigerians grappling with the daily realities of these economic changes. His remarks underscore the importance of balancing fiscal reforms with measures that protect the most vulnerable members of society. While structural adjustments are often challenging, the human cost of such policies cannot be ignored.
As Nigeria navigates this difficult period, the government faces a critical test of its ability to manage reform while maintaining public trust and social cohesion. The criticism from voices like Ologbondiyan serves as a reminder of the stakes involved, urging the Tinubu administration to prioritize transparency, equity, and effective implementation in its policy agenda. Without these elements, the promise of a better future may remain out of reach for many Nigerians.
