Opinion
Partnering The Media For Dev
People, especially the elitist in developed climes inclusive, have always leveraged on the necessity of the media to push issues of concern and public interest through. The media remain a veritable ally in the titanic struggle for good governance and end to repressive military regimes, unpopular constitutional democratic administrations and anti-people policies and programmes. However, not without negative consequences that more often than not results in sealing off of media organisations, harassment, litigation, imprisonment and murder of practitioners as was the unfortunate fate of Dele Giwa, the then Editor-in-Chief of NewsWatch Magazine. The Media are not only one of the oldest human institutions for civilising society as an agent of socialisation, they are also the strongest and loudest voice of the people, moulding public opinion, providing platform for public discourse and are constitutionally and statutorily obligated to holding government-stewards of the resources of the people in trust, to be accountable to the people.
No doubt the media are an invaluable asset for both government and the governed. The media are inextricably tied to governance, like the snail and its shell so much so that separating them will make each of them languish for want of the other because of the core values of effective communication through informative, educative and entertaining roles. The third president of United States, Thomas Jefferson was one of the world’s earliest political leaders to declare his admiration, and advocacy for media governance. Writing from Paris to Edward Carrington, who Jefferson sent as a delegate to the Continental Congress from 1786-1788, on the importance of Free Press to keep government in check, the media-friendly Jefferson said quite unambiguously (as quoted from his Correspondence volume 5), if he had to “choose between a Government without Newspapers or Newspapers without Government I should not hesitate a moment to choose the latter”.
According to him, the people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them”.
Unfortunately, some anti-press government have either tried to or even shut down media houses by coercion, obnoxious and unpopular legislation and lack of funding of Government-owned media houses. It is not saying a new thing that most Government media houses have not been able to survive the excruciating challenge of inadequate or lack of funding by their owners. Today, most Government-owned media houses across the country, are moribund and their staff redundant. But did the government know that their media organisations remain their megaphones, propaganda machineries and effective channels for programme and policy transmission to the people in a democratic regime where opposition is an integral part of governance? In fact the media are the de facto public relations department of Government. They sell, amplify programmes and policies of government to the people. To say it is not well with most Media Houses because of lack of operational funds, is an understatement. For instance, in the past 16 years of democratic leadership in Rivers State, state owned media houses have been struggling to survive because of lack of funding even with well qualified and professional managements.
The Rivers State Newspaper Corporation, founded in 1971, publishers of The Tide Group of newspapers, Rivers State Broadcasting Corporation, airing on the frequency modulation of 99.1 and the Rivers State Television Authority, eke out their publication and transmission respectively, through precarious means of internally generated revenue. This explains why production, and circulation by the Rivers State Newspaper Corporation (The Tide) and transmissions by the Rivers State Broadcasting Corporation and the Rivers State Television Authority, are inadequate thus making them perform far below their capacity despite the creme of trained and qualified staff and management teams. These State-owned media houses established to propagate the programme and policies of the state government as well as the views of the people of the State have performed meritoriously and creditably well, serving as the Government and People’s voice.
Recall the role the State Media organisations during the Rivers State and Imo State protracted legal boundary dispute during the administrations of Chief Melford Obene Okilo of Rivers State and Dr. Sam Mbakwe of Imo State. Through their transmitted vociferous comments and published editorials, the world was abreast of the well articulated position and claims of Rivers State Government over ownership of the disputed border areas. Judgment was delivered on the legal tussle in favour of Rivers State. This judgment which became precedent for the Supreme Court judgment over the contentious claim of oil wells, by the Abia State (created from Imo State) and Rivers State has given advantage to Rivers State as a major oil State and a beneficiary of the 13 percent Derivation fund. Rivers State Media Houses should be celebrated for such uncommon feats.
Though like the shoe shinner, State Media Houses have more often than not been chuckled aside on a whim for the other media organisations. “Charity”, they say, “begins at home”.What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Peter should not be robbed to pay Paul because he that labours deserves his wages. Even the Lord Jesus warned, “Do not muzzle the ox that treads the corn”. Consequently, I appeal to the present administration in the State, led by Sir Siminalayi Fubara to positively respond to the plight of State Government-owned media houses by providing the enabling environment for enhanced productivity. This, our reformer, visionary and purpose-driven Governor Fubara can do, by providing the necessary facilities, conducive work environment through adequate funding and employment of manpower to cushion the depleted workforce due to retirements and deaths. As veritable partners in achieving the policy thrust of any Government, Media houses owned by the State should be factored into the government’s reform agenda and their workers given incentives for motivation.
Igbiki Benibo
Opinion
A Renewing Optimism For Naira
Opinion
Don’t Kill Tam David-West
Opinion
Fuel Subsidy Removal and the Economic Implications for Nigerians
From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.
Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.
The Subsidy Question
The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.
While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.
A Critical Economic View
As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.
- Structural Miscalculation
Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.
- Neglect of Social Safety Nets
Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.
- Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives
Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.
Political and Public Concerns
Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.
This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.
Broader Implications
The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:
- Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
- Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
- Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
- Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
- Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.
In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.
Missed Opportunities
Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:
- Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
- Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
- Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
- Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.
Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.
Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face
Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.
Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.
Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.
Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.
References
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
- National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
- World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
- OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.
By: Amarachi Amaugo
-
Niger Delta3 days ago
Tompolo’s Visit To Bayelsa Bothers Coalition … As Stakeholders Want Security Checks
-
Oil & Energy3 days agoMonarchs Task FG On Host Communities’ Welfare ………As PINL Targets 2000 Women For Empowerment
-
Opinion3 days agoDon’t Kill Tam David-West
-
Business3 days ago“W’Bank To Invest $14bn In Agric Transformation
-
News3 days agoNECO Opens UK Exam Centre For Nigerians In Diaspora
-
City Crime3 days ago
RSG Ready For 2030 Digital Transformation
-
Opinion3 days agoA Renewing Optimism For Naira
-
Business3 days agoFG Fixes Uniform Prices for Housing Units Nationwide, Approves N12.5m For 3-bedroom Bungalow ……..Says Move To Enhance Affordability, Ensures Fairness
