Opinion
Fuel Subsidy Scam: Should FG Adopt Report?
The Farouk Lawan-led House of Representatives Probe Committee on fuel subsidy recently submitted its report to the Presidency which indicted some major oil companies and highly-placed Nigerians, including top politicians.
Our Staff Writer, Calista Ezeaku and Photographer, Dele Obinna, went round the city to seek people’s opinion on whether or not Federal Government should adopt the report. Their response:
Prince Emmanuel Ogba, Niger Delta Youth
Coalition
I think the report should be fully implemented by the federal Government. But the issue of dragging the Minister of Petroleum, Dizeiani Allison-Maduke, into it is very wrong. They are just trying to rubbish her name because right from the onset, she was the one kicking against subsidy. She was the one that made Nigerians know that the money being spent on fuel subsidy was much, revealing that there was a certain cabal benefiting from that. So they should not rope her in because she insisted that they should do away with subsidy.
That is very wrong because she is the only person we have there in the Petroleum sector. And being a Minister of the Niger Delta, she cannot sabotage her people.
I’m not trying to defend her because she is from the Niger Delta, if she was from the North I will say the same thing.
But if at the end of the day she is found guilty, she should face the penalty. The Niger Delta Youth Coalition is coming up with a protest in favour of Dizieani on Wednesday.
Dizieani was not indicted in that report, so they should not rope her in. The House of Representatives want to rope her in but from the report from the NNPC, she was not involved in all those things they are talking about.
So the federal government should adopt the report and the companies and individual, indicted should be prosecuted.
Mr. Koshi John – Media Worker. Yes, the report should be adopted because the way I look at the law makers, they are fighting for the masses. The other way round, I look at it from the angle of government not being willing to make effort to see that the masses benefit from the natural gift from God, because the removal of subsidy on fuel early this year, has affected every aspect of our life. And the worst part of it is that the money realised from this is being shared by just a few group of people, without the general people seeing the benefits of the fuel subsidy removal.
So, the report should be adopted because that was what the committee was set up to do. The report should be adopted immediately and all the people indicted should be brought to book. They should be prosecuted because this is something that is causing serious damage to the country.
Proper action should be taken on them so that other people watching them, should not be found doing the same thing tomorrow. Nobody indicted in that report should be excluded just because he is from Niger Delta or whatever. Once anybody is found guilty, he should be brought to book.
But can federal government adopt the report and prosecute the indicted persons? That is where Nigerians are discouraged. The fact is that we don’t even have confidence in them (those in government) any more. In Nigeria, only the common man is always brought to book. That is why, when we heard about James Ibori’s judgment in London, we were very excited. And how I wish that could be done here in Nigeria. Government officials embezzle public funds, saving the money for their generations yet unborn, while the people who own the money are suffering and they are watching the masses languishing in poverty.
So, to me, the people indicted in the report even deserve death sentence. When the fuel subsidy was removed in January many people resigned from their working places because the cost of transportation became higher than their salaries.
And when you resign there is nothing for you to do to earn a living and some of such people were committing murder, sad enough a few people are benefiting from the system. So they (the indicted persons) should not be spared at all.
Mr. Akpos Etioms – Insurance under writer. I think this is a very trying time for this administration, especially for Mr. President, because this is an issue that will put his credibility to test, especially as most of the people indicted contributed a lot to enthrone the President.
But what I will say there is that I want the President to ensure that the country holds him in trust because he was elected by the generality of the people. And this fuel subsidy is a national issue that affected the entire nation, especially at the beginning of this year when the fuel subsidy was removed.
So, whoever was indicted should be brought to book, irrespective of how highly placed the person may be. That will give the citizens the assurance that this government is actually a government of the people. So I think the government should take action now.
In the past, government had deceived the people but this time around the people especially the civil society groups, Labour Congress and other organised groups in the country have risen to their rights. They have said it openly that the President should take action, because one of the reasons for the January fuel subsidy strike was the cabal that has robbed the society, that has drained the economy of the country. Civil Society groups and labour have come out openly to tell Mr. President to take action now.
So, I believe government will take action now.
Dr. George Ellah – Medical Practitioner. The report should be looked into and the National Assembly should act on it because the Committee was set up to help us find a way out of the fuel subsidy problems. Some people in some quarters say there is no fuel subsidy, others say there is fuel subsidy.
Infact recently I read in one of the newspapers, where Prof. Tam David-West was saying that there’s nothing like subsidy. For such a highly profiled person to make that kind of comment, it means that there’s something we need to look critically into.
So, that report should be looked into. Infact a white paper should be published so that the public can really know and understand what is going on? What has been happening, what the present situation of things are? And where we have to go from here?
Some people say that some of those indicted in the report were those who sponsored President Goodluck Jonathan’s election, if that is true then it is common sense that it may be difficult for him to do any thing against them.
However, justice is justice. And justice delayed is justice denied. The President must at this point in time, look at the general interest of Nigerians. One person is not above the whole nation. We are talking about the life and welfare of 150 million Nigerians that is at stake in this matter.
While some of those people may have sponsored the election of the President, what the President should do at this point in time is to take a bold step and do act in the interest of Nigerians.
He must take this hard decision and make sure that no offender goes unpunished.
Mr. Obirido Abat – Businessman. I think the normal course of action should follow, that is justice. Because if this trend continues, we shall have no nation. Some highly placed persons who had opportunity to have contracts, to do business with government did not do it decently, then the full weight of the law should follow, otherwise this nation will not survive.
If we continue this way, watching people take away what belongs to the public, what belongs to 150 million Nigerians and nothing is done, there will be a time nothing would be left at all. It has already been said that this nation is a failed state and these are features of a failed state. And if we don’t arrest this trend then there will be no Nigeria for us again.
I don’t see this report going the way of previous reports, because this is from the National Assembly. In the past the National Assembly seemed indisposed to handle corruption issues. This is the only regime the national assembly is waking up to tackle corruption issue. So, I think since the general public and the national assembly have woken up, it will not go the way of the past where reports were submitted and no actions were taken.
I want the federal government to put necessary machineries in motion. I know that the EFCC is already at work. Nobody, no organisation should be spared so that this trend of corruption will stop. It is corruption that is killing this nation. If you remove corruption, this country will be one of the best countries in the world to live in. Any body, any organisation that was indicted should be tried.
Mr. Biragbara Jolly – Businessman. In my own view, those indicted should be prosecuted, so that others will learn lessons from them.
We have seen some past African leaders prosecuted for offences committed while in office. Things like that can also happen in Nigeria. Let government sit up. Let the President show Nigeria a difference. He said this is a transformation government, let the right thing be done. Justice should prevail.
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
