The Federal House of Representatives on Thursday directed its Committee on Public Accounts Committee to probe allegations that Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs Deziani Allison-Madueke recklessly spent N3.120billion in two years on air charter services.
The committee was given two weeks within which the investigative hearing should be completed and its report submitted.
In a motion titled Urgent Need to Investigate the Waste of Resources on the Arbitrary Charter and Maintenance of a Challenger 850 Aircraft for Non-Official Use, Hon Adejare Samuel (APC, Lagos) alleged that Allison-Madueke unbelievably spent more than N10bn on maintaining the Challenger 850 Aircraft and its crew.
“In these days of scarce national resources where public finance is shrinking in the face of ever-increasing national needs such as roads, health, education and power, amongst others, it is hard to believe that an official of government could waste public funds on such luxury as chartering a Challenger 850 Aircraft for extra official use”, he lamented.
“In recent times, most states of the federation have been facing acute shortage of allocations due to the dwindling national revenue, which has reduced the quality of governance and deprived the people of dividends of democracy”.
Adejare claimed to be in possession of reliable evidence that the minister had been committing €500,000 (N130m) monthly to maintain the aircraft, which meant that within two years, a minimum of N3.120bn had gone into maintaining the private jet, which was only used to meet the personal needs of the minister and her family.
“It is an appalling act. There are strong indications that the above expenditure is only a tip of the iceberg, as several other billions of naira have been allegedly wasted on flying the jet all over the world obviously for the leisure of the Hon. Minister and her immediate family on trips that were of no benefit to the country”, he continued.
”This colossal waste is currently estimated at N10bn, which includes the payment of allowances to the crew for the trips, hanger parking and rent based on the lease agreement.
“If government could be bankrolling this waste in the face of ever-dwindling public resources, it amounts to a misplacement of priority, impudence and breach of public trust, an action that offends the Fiscal Responsibility Act and all other Laws on fiscal discipline in Nigeria”.
Hon. Friday Itulah (PDP, Edo) attempted to oppose the motion, but Speaker Aminu Tambuwal acted quickly to prevent him, saying the House rules does nhave no provisions for debating motions of the nature.
“We will put it to a voice vote and refer it to the relevant committee for further legislative action”, he said. “And I was made to understand that the committee had been on this issue before now”.
After Tambuwal’s call for a voice vote, the voices of APC members drown those of the PDP lawmakers.
 |
|
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has left Nigeria for a three-week vacation in Europe, with his media aide, Sunday Dare, saying the President needs time to “refuel” after months of intense governance.
Dare, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communication, said Tinubu’s leave was well deserved, citing what he described as major decisions taken by the administration on security, the economy and other national issues.
According to Dare, the President would remain in touch with developments at home throughout the trip, receiving regular briefings from ministers, service chiefs and other officials.
He said the vacation was also timely ahead of the coming campaign season, which he said would involve four to five months of intense political activity while governance continues.
But former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has slammed the President’s decision to travel at a time he described as one of deep economic hardship and insecurity.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, said the country was facing a “disturbing vacuum of political leadership,” arguing that the President’s priority should be addressing the problems confronting Nigerians.
“Leadership is not merely the constitutional right to occupy an office; it is the judgment to know when your country needs you at home,” Atiku said in a statement posted on his social media accounts.
He pointed to high petrol prices, rising food and transport costs and insecurity, saying millions of Nigerians were struggling while the President was leaving the country for three weeks.
Atiku also questioned the timing of the trip, noting that Vice-President Kashim Shettima was already outside Nigeria on official duty at the African Union summit in Luanda, Angola.
Using a fire analogy, Atiku said: “A father may travel when all is well. But when his roof is burning and his family is trapped inside, he does not pick up his suitcase and head for the airport.”
He added that the controversy was not about whether a president should rest or travel, but whether the timing was appropriate given the challenges facing the country.
“Millions of Nigerians are being grounded by hardship while their President is airborne,” Atiku said.
While the Presidency insists Tinubu remains engaged with affairs of state despite his vacation, Atiku argues that the President should be physically present to confront the country’s mounting challenges.
The clash has once again put Tinubu’s leadership, economic policies and handling of Nigeria’s current difficulties at the centre of political debate.
If you want, I can also make it more like a Punch/Tribune-style hard-news story, with a stronger headline and a sharper opening paragraph.
News
Nigerian motorists are facing fresh petrol-price uncertainty after the Dangote Petroleum Refinery raised its gantry price by ₦65 per litre, bringing the cost of petrol to ₦1,265 — the refinery’s third increase in just eight days.
The latest adjustment has intensified fears of another round of pump-price increases as marketers grapple with rising supply costs.
Dangote had raised its petrol price from ₦1,165 to ₦1,185 per litre on August 21 before increasing it to ₦1,200 on August 26. Three days later, the refinery announced another ₦65 increase, taking the total rise within the period to ₦100 per litre.
The latest adjustment represents a 5.4 per cent increase and is expected to put additional pressure on retail petrol prices across the country.
The refinery also increased its coastal petrol price from ₦1,582,380 to ₦1,669,545 per metric tonne, while customers were directed to return existing Authorisations to Collect for repricing before loading could resume.
Marketers Brace for Higher Costs
The new price is likely to reverberate through the downstream petroleum market, with marketers expected to review their depot and retail prices.
Independent petroleum marketers have already reported petrol selling for between ₦1,250 and ₦1,300 per litre in some locations.
Industry operators have attributed the latest price movements to a combination of international crude-price volatility, higher freight charges, foreign-exchange pressures and challenges surrounding crude supply.
The consequences could extend far beyond filling stations.
Any significant rise in petrol prices is likely to increase transportation and logistics costs, with potential knock-on effects on food distribution, business operations and the prices of everyday goods and services.
For households already battling elevated living costs, another increase could deepen the pressure on disposable incomes.
Dangote Raises Alarm Over Petrol Imports
The latest price increase comes amid a growing dispute over the volume of imported petrol entering Nigeria.
The Dangote refinery says imported Premium Motor Spirit accounted for approximately 43 per cent of petrol supplied to the Nigerian market in July.
The company argues that the continued inflow of imported fuel is making inventory management increasingly difficult for domestic refiners.
Dangote said it has maintained substantial petrol reserves since beginning operations to ensure reliable supply across Nigeria. But keeping large quantities of fuel in storage requires significant spending on storage facilities, transportation and working capital.
According to the refinery, uncertainty over the quantity and timing of imported petrol makes it difficult to accurately forecast domestic demand and determine how much fuel should be produced and stored.
When imported products subsequently compete with locally refined petrol, the refinery can be left carrying expensive inventories for longer periods.
Refinery May Export More Petrol
Dangote has warned that it could increase petrol exports if the current situation persists.
The refinery said exporting surplus stocks could become more commercially viable than keeping large volumes of unsold petrol in storage.
It stressed that increased exports should not be interpreted as a sign that Nigeria lacks sufficient refining capacity.
Rather, the company said the exports are being driven by excess inventories arising from unpredictable import volumes.
Dangote maintains that it has the capacity to meet or exceed Nigeria’s petrol requirements and remains committed to supplying the domestic market.
However, the refinery says a more predictable and transparent market is necessary for efficient production planning and inventory management.
Pressure Mounts on Regulators
The company is calling for greater transparency in the issuance of petrol import licences and better coordination among regulators and industry players.
It argues that policies supporting domestic refining would help Nigeria reduce its dependence on imported fuel, conserve foreign exchange and strengthen the country’s energy security.
The latest developments expose the difficult balancing act in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum market.
Despite the emergence of major domestic refining capacity, petrol prices remain vulnerable to global crude prices, exchange-rate movements, freight costs, crude availability and competition from imports.
With Dangote’s gantry price now at ₦1,265 per litre, all eyes are on petrol marketers and filling stations for the next move.
For Nigerian consumers, the fear is that another refinery price increase could soon translate into another painful increase at the pump.
Business
In The Spotlight
There comes a point in every government’s life when explanations cease to matter and results become the only language citizens are prepared to hear.
For President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, that moment has arrived.
Three years after the dramatic declaration that “fuel subsidy is gone,” Nigerians are asking a brutally simple question: Are we better off today than we were more than three years ago?
The answer, is a resounding NO!
The government has bandied stats claiming that the economy is doing “well”. But there is another Nigeria — the Nigeria outside the conference rooms, financial markets and government statistics.
It is the Nigeria of the market woman whose transport fare has swallowed a large part of her profit. The Nigeria of the civil servant whose salary disappears within days. The Nigeria of the young graduate who cannot find work. The Nigeria of the small manufacturer whose diesel, petrol, electricity and financing costs have made production almost impossible. The Nigeria of parents who have reduced the quantity and quality of food on their children’s plates.
And it is the Nigeria of millions who have discovered that economic growth on paper, akin to what the character Squealer, the chief propagandist in ‘Animal Farm’, was used to churning out daily, does not necessarily translate into food on the table.
Reuters reported this month that the cost of living crisis remains acute despite investor optimism around the government’s reforms. It noted that petrol prices are roughly six times their level before subsidy removal and that the cost of preparing a basic jollof rice meal has more than doubled since Tinubu assumed office. That is the Nigeria Nigerians know.
Let us be clear: Nigeria’s old subsidy system was deeply flawed. It was expensive. It was vulnerable to corruption. It encouraged rent-seeking. It created opportunities for politically connected middlemen. But acknowledging the failures of the old system does not mean Nigerians were condemned to accept an equally damaging alternative.
The Tinubu administration presented Nigerians with what amounted to a false choice: Keep the old subsidy and risk fiscal collapse — or remove it and allow Nigerians to absorb the shock.
There was another option. A smarter option. A Nigerian option. A production-based subsidy. And that is precisely where Atiku Abubakar’s proposal enters the debate.
President Tinubu has repeatedly defended subsidy removal as necessary to save Nigeria from bankruptcy. Indeed, in May 2026, the President said subsidy removal saved Nigeria from imminent bankruptcy and laid the foundation for economic recovery.
But there is a question that cannot be answered by repeating the word “reform”: If the reform saved government finances, why did it have to destroy so much household purchasing power and dragged millions into the poverty trap?
This is not an argument against fiscal discipline. It is an argument for better fiscal discipline. A government exists not merely to balance its books but to improve the welfare of its citizens. It is actually enshrined in the constitution: The primary responsibility of a government is to ensure the security, safety and welfare of its citizens.
And the evidence of the hardship is not merely opposition political rhetoric. The IMF reported in 2026 that Nigeria’s poverty had reached approximately 63 percent at the national poverty line and an estimated 27 million Nigerians faced food insecurity in late 2025. That is an extraordinary indictment of the gap between macroeconomic reform and human welfare.
Indeed, Tinubu’s reform forgot the average Nigerian. This is where his administration’s economic philosophy deserves serious scrutiny. The government essentially told Nigerians: “Endure today. Prosper tomorrow.”
But what happens when tomorrow keeps moving further away? What happens when inflation eats salaries faster than wages can rise? What happens when transportation costs push food prices beyond the reach of ordinary families? What happens when businesses that were barely surviving before the reform begin closing their doors? What happens when young Nigerians conclude that their country has no economic future for them?
A government cannot indefinitely ask citizens to sacrifice their present for an unspecified future, especially when Tinubu and family and friends are living large. There must be a dividend. There must be relief. There must be evidence that the pain is producing something tangible. And for millions of Nigerians, that evidence remains painfully elusive.
Atiku’s answer: Move the subsidy from consumption to production. And this is why Atiku Abubakar’s latest proposal deserves a serious national conversation. It is important to understand what Atiku is actually proposing. He is not simply calling for a restoration of the old petrol-import subsidy system. That has gone with the wind.
His proposal is to move government support: from importation to production; from middlemen to Nigerian refineries; from unverifiable claims to verifiable barrels.
Under Atiku’s proposal, government support would be capped, targeted at domestic refining and tied to verified production, with the objective of reducing energy costs while accelerating domestic refining.
That is a fundamentally different proposition. And it deserves to be judged on its economic merits. Why subsidise imports when Nigeria can subsidise production?
This is the question Nigerians should be asking. Nigeria produces crude oil. Nigeria has enormous refining potential.
Nigeria now has the Dangote Refinery, a 650,000-barrel-per-day facility, alongside other emerging and existing refining capacity.
Yet we have spent decades in the absurd position of exporting crude oil and importing much of its refined petroleum needs. Why should Nigeria continue using public policy primarily to facilitate expensive imported petroleum products when it can use that same policy to strengthen domestic production? Why should Nigerian taxpayers subsidise foreign refineries and foreign economies when Nigerian refineries can be supported to produce for Nigerians?
That is the policy revolution Nigeria needs. And that is indeed the revolutionary #AtikuSubsidyPlan: Subsidise the barrel — not the middleman.
Imagine a system in which government says to a refinery: “We will provide a carefully capped production incentive, but only for verified Nigerian crude processed in Nigeria.”
No crude processed? No subsidy. No verifiable production? No subsidy. No measurable consumer benefit? No subsidy. False documentation? Criminal sanctions. Independent audit?Mandatory. Public disclosure? Non-negotiable.
That is how Nigeria can take the corruption out of subsidy without taking the affordability out of petroleum. The principle is remarkably simple: Let the subsidy follow the barrel. Not the politician. Not the middleman. Not the importer. Not the briefcase. But the barrel.
The #AtikuSubsidyPlan is not returning to an endless, opaque and uncontrolled subsidy regime. He understands that it is laden with corruption and not cost-saving. That explains why he also proposes to implement the Oronsaye Report.
For doubting Thomases, Atiku’s proposal should be understood as a carefully designed production incentive that helps Nigeria move from import dependence to domestic refining and eventually to a competitive petroleum market.
That is the difference between: subsidising consumption indefinitely and subsidising production to build capacity. The first can create dependency. The second can create industry.
Truth be told, Nigeria needs industrial policy, not economic punishment. The Tinubu administration’s defenders will argue that Nigerians had been living beyond the country’s means and that the subsidy had to go.
Fair enough. But economic reform is not a religious doctrine. It is a tool. If a policy produces unacceptable consequences, responsible governments modify it.
The objective should never be: “We removed the subsidy.” The objective should be: “We made energy affordable, built domestic refining capacity, created jobs, conserved foreign exchange and strengthened the Nigerian economy.” Those are very different objectives. And Nigerians deserve the second.
The government is now confronting the need to reform crude supply and pricing arrangements for domestic refiners. Reuters reported that Nigeria was considering reforms to crude allocation and pricing to improve feedstock access for domestic refineries, including the Dangote Refinery. Proposed measures include allowing producers to deliver crude directly to nearby refineries and discounts that reflect reduced transportation and handling costs.
That development actually strengthens the argument for an Atiku production-centred petroleum subsidy policy. The debate is no longer about whether Nigeria should refine domestically. The debate is about how government policy can make domestic refining economically viable and ensure Nigerians benefit from it. And Atiku’s proposal speaks directly to that question.
And to show that he means business, Atiku has already promised Nigerians that there will be no blank cheque subsidy. He has promised that every naira spent will be traceable. He has promised independent audits. He has promised to publish the volume of crude allocated to participating refineries. He has promised to publish the amount of subsidy paid. He has promised to publish the quantity of refined products produced. And he has promised to publish the pump-price benefit delivered to consumers. He has promised to establish penalties severe enough to make subsidy fraud economically suicidal.
Tinubu says his reform may have saved the government. The jury is still out. But who will save the Nigerian household? This is perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all. The government’s defenders say the reforms saved Nigeria from economic collapse. But if saving the government means millions of Nigerians are unable to afford food, transport, housing and basic necessities, then the reform cannot be the end of the conversation. It must be the beginning of a correction. Even Finance Minister Taiwo Oyedele has acknowledged that the government needs to do more to ensure prosperity is broadly shared. Reuters quoted him warning that persistent inequality is dangerous.
That admission is important. Because the debate is no longer whether the reforms have produced some macroeconomic gains. The debate is whether ordinary Nigerians are receiving a fair share of those gains.
And that is where the Tinubu administration remains vulnerable. Nigeria cannot eat GDP. Nigeria cannot ride on foreign reserves. Nigeria cannot cook investor confidence. Nigeria cannot pay school fees with a favourable credit outlook. Nigeria cannot transport farm produce with macroeconomic stability.
The Nigerian people need purchasing power. They need affordable energy. They need jobs. They need food. They need affordable transportation. They need businesses capable of producing competitively. They need an economy in which hard work once again provides a reasonable pathway to a decent life.
That is the economy that government must build. And that is where the 2027 choice becomes bigger than Tinubu versus Atiku. The 2027 election should not merely be a referendum on personalities. It should be a referendum on economic philosophy. Do Nigerians want another four years of: “Endure the pain; the benefits will eventually come”? Or do they want a government prepared to say: “We will reform, but we will reform intelligently. We will discipline public spending, but we will also protect production. We will eliminate corruption, but we will not punish the poor for the corruption of the powerful. We will build domestic industry and make Nigerians the primary beneficiaries of Nigeria’s resources.”
That is the choice. And Atiku’s production-based subsidy proposal trumps Tinubu’s current “suffering and smiling” reckless removal of subsidy.
President Tinubu asked Nigerians to trust his reform. Millions have paid the price. Atiku Abubakar’s production-anchored subsidy proposal is a better alternative — it will be transparent, capped, independently audited and firmly tied to measurable domestic production and lower prices for Nigerians.
The time has come to stop asking Nigerians how much more pain they can endure. The question should be: How much longer can Nigeria afford an economic policy that makes the Nigerian people poorer in the name of making Nigeria richer?
That is the question every Nigerian, handed the shortest end of the stick in President Tinubu’s subsidy removal misadventure, must answer with their ballots in 2027.
Nigeria deserves reform. But Nigerians deserve to benefit from the reform.
By Paul Ibe
In The Spotlight
For more than three years, Nigerians have been told to endure the pain of petrol subsidy removal in the hope that tomorrow would be better.
Now, tomorrow has been given a date: October 1.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu says Nigerians should begin to feel the benefits of cheaper fuel through lower transport fares from October. The vehicle of that promise is Compressed Natural Gas, or CNG.
The message sounds simple: if CNG is cheaper than petrol, transport operators should spend less on fuel. If operators spend less, passengers should pay less.
But economics — and Nigerian reality — rarely works that neatly.
The question Nigerians should be asking is not whether CNG is cheaper. It is.
The real question is: who will capture the savings?
That is where President Tinubu's latest promise becomes complicated.
Cheaper fuel does not automatically mean cheaper transport
Tinubu says a CNG-powered vehicle can spend between 60 and 80 per cent less on fuel than a petrol-powered vehicle.
If that saving is real and sustained, it is potentially significant.
But a commercial driver does not run a vehicle on fuel alone.
There are tyres, spare parts, engine repairs, insurance, vehicle financing, road-related costs, taxes, levies and — increasingly — the cost of surviving an economy battered by inflation.
And there is another uncomfortable reality: businesses do not normally reduce their prices simply because one component of their costs falls.
They reduce prices when competition, regulation or market pressure forces them to.
That means the government's most difficult task is not converting vehicles to CNG.
It is converting fuel savings into commuter savings.
The CNG paradox
The government's CNG programme has made considerable progress. More than 120,000 vehicles have reportedly been converted, while additional conversion kits and hundreds of refuelling stations are planned.
But there is a glaring contradiction.
You cannot persuade thousands of drivers to abandon petrol for CNG and then leave them stranded in queues because there are too few places to buy the gas.
That is already happening in parts of the country.
Drivers have reported spending hours waiting to refuel. Some commercial operators complain that the time lost in queues directly affects their earnings.
This raises a fundamental question:
What is the economic value of cheaper fuel if the driver cannot reliably obtain it?
A fuel that is cheap but difficult to find can become expensive in another way — through lost working hours, reduced trips and higher operating uncertainty.
Then comes Atiku's subsidy argument
This is where former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has entered the debate.
Atiku is not calling for a simple return to the old petrol subsidy arrangement. His proposal is to move government intervention from imported petroleum towards crude supplied to domestic refineries.
His argument is straightforward: reduce the cost of fuel at the production end and allow consumers to benefit from lower prices.
The Tinubu administration rejects that logic and has criticised the subsidy approach.
But Atiku's political argument has struck a nerve because Nigerians are not debating subsidy as an abstract economic concept.
They are debating it with empty pockets.
They feel fuel prices every morning when they leave home.
They feel them again when they board a bus.
They feel them at the market because the trader paid more to transport the goods.
And they feel them at the dinner table.
That is why the subsidy debate refuses to disappear.
The danger of another promise
President Tinubu deserves credit for recognising that transportation is one of the biggest channels through which economic hardship reaches ordinary Nigerians.
But Nigerians have heard many promises before.
The October 1 target therefore creates a dangerous political expectation.
If transport fares fall meaningfully, the government will have a powerful argument that its CNG strategy is working.
If fares do not fall, however, the administration will face a much more difficult question:
Where did the savings go?
Did operators keep them?
Did higher maintenance costs absorb them?
Did infrastructure shortages eat them up?
Or did the promised savings simply never materialise at the scale advertised?
These questions cannot be answered with statistics about the number of vehicles converted.
A commuter does not eat conversion figures.
A student does not board a “CNG initiative.”
A trader does not pay transport fare with a government press release.
People pay in naira.
Governors cannot escape responsibility
The governors are now part of the equation.
They have endorsed the National Affordable CNG Transit Programme and acknowledged the need to work with the Federal Government and private sector.
But endorsement is not implementation.
Governors will need to show Nigerians exactly what they intend to do.
Will they subsidise conversion?
Will they support transport fleets?
Will they reduce taxes and levies on operators?
Will they regulate fares?
Will they invest in CNG infrastructure?
And, most importantly, how much will they spend?
If the money is coming from public funds, Nigerians deserve transparency.
If the programme is expected to be funded by private operators, the government must explain why those operators would voluntarily surrender a large portion of their savings to passengers.
The real subsidy question
Perhaps the debate has been framed incorrectly.
The choice may not simply be subsidy versus no subsidy.
The better question is:
What is the most efficient way to reduce the cost of moving Nigerians and Nigerian goods?
If a targeted intervention at domestic refineries can reduce fuel prices without recreating the corruption and opacity associated with the old subsidy system, that deserves serious examination.
If CNG can permanently reduce transport operators' fuel costs and those savings can be transparently passed to passengers, that also deserves support.
There is no prize for ideological purity when millions of Nigerians are struggling.
Government should use whatever policy works — provided the policy is transparent, affordable and measurable.
October 1 will expose the difference between politics and policy
The most important part of Tinubu's announcement is not the promise of 1,000 CNG stations.
It is not the 120,000 vehicles already converted.
It is not even the claim of 60 to 80 per cent fuel savings.
It is the promise that passengers will actually pay less.
That is measurable.
And it should be measured.
From October 1, Nigerians should be able to compare fares before and after the policy. Transport unions, state governments and regulators should publish clear fare benchmarks. The public should know which routes have benefited and by how much.
Otherwise, “cheaper fuel should mean cheaper fares” risks becoming another attractive slogan in an economy desperately searching for tangible relief.
Tinubu has put his administration's credibility on the line.
Atiku has put his alternative subsidy argument on the table.
The governors have joined the experiment.
Now the Nigerian commuter gets the final vote.
Not at the ballot box.
At the bus stop.
If fares fall, CNG will have made its case.
If they do not, Nigerians will have every right to ask why cheaper fuel somehow failed to produce cheaper transport.
And that, more than any speech, committee or infrastructure announcement, will determine whether Tinubu's October promise becomes a genuine economic intervention — or simply another political promise made to a population that has already endured too much pain.
By EEA, Publisher/Editor-in Chief