Opinion
Tinubu’s “Living Wage”: A Dashed Hope?
It is more than one year today, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assured Nigerian workers that his administration will correct the anomalous hardship workers in Nigeria faced because he was irrevocably committed to doling out a “Living Wage” to them.
Nigerian workers under the two central Labour organisations: Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), and Trade Union Congress (TUC) were captivated in an euphoria of Mr. President’s mouth watering promise. President Tinubu has whipped up the pleasant sentiment and sensation of workers to believing that at last a messiah in his person (the President Tinubu) has appeared and the era of the litanical, “ aluta, struggle continues” will be consigned to history. Workers heaved a sigh of relief that a corrective and workers’ friendly regime that never was, is in the saddle at the centre. President Tinubu (then President -elect) had told workers in his goodwill message on the May 1 Labour Day, “In the Nigeria I shall have the honour and privilege to lead from May 29, workers will have more than a minimum wage. You will have a living wage to have a decent life, and provide for your families.
“On this special day as your President-elect, I extend my hand of friendship to Nigerian workers through the two central Labour unions- Nigeria Labour Congress and the Trade Union Congress. In me you will have a dependable ally and a co-labourer in the fight for social and economic justice for all Nigerians, including the working people. Your fight will be my fight because I will always fight for you. My plans for a better welfare and working conditions are clearly spelt in my Renewed Hope Agenda for a Better Nigeria. It is a covenant born of conviction and one I am prepared to keep”. In Nigeria today, can Mr. President say without iota of doubt that N54,000 is a “Living Wage”?
Today the Mr. President’s covenant with workers is a mirage, it is translating to a delusion .
Workers under the President Tinubu seem to have suffered more hardship than in past administrations, civilian or military. Hope for a “Living Wage” seems dashed.
Considering the protracted dialogue on what is supposed to be a marked departure and turning point from previous minimum wage regimes, Nigerians and workers can now decide if Mr. President really meant to give a Living wage to workers with the present Federal Government’s position on N54,000 against Trade Union Congress and Nigeria Labour Congress’ N500,000 as minimum wage.
When the nation’s House of Representatives proposed a N100,000 minimum wage many workers were dissatisfied with the proposal which they said was pre-emptive of the 37-members Minimum Wage Committee report. Workers had hoped the outcome of the negotiation would be more than N100,000 proposed by the House of Representatives. I believe workers can realize that the Representatives are empathetic and in touch with the plight of Nigerian workers better than the Presidency.
It is crystal clear that President Tinubu never meant what he said about a “Living Wage” for workers. While the Federal Government hinges its decision to pay workers on sustainability of new wage regime because of economic challenges the nation under the present leadership faces, one wonders how a nation grappling with multi-dimensional socio-economic challenges will be enmeshed in frivolous expenditures. For instance, the recent approval of N6 billion for a car park in Abuja, the N90 billion Hajj Subsidy, barefaced looting of public funds by some public officers, myriad of corrupt practices that are associated with some of those in Government and the extravagant expenditures by members of the National Assembly, some State Governors political office holders, clearly show that the Federal Government is not committed to a ‘Living Wage” to ameliorate the plight of workers.
Workers under the present administration of President Tinubu have suffered loss of purchasing power. In less than one year of President Tinubu-led administration, the prices of petroleum products have been increased several times. Today, premium motor spirit is about N900 a litre. And this unfriendly price regime rubs off negatively on every Nigerian, because at the centre of commercial and economic activities is petroleum products. For the first time in the history of Nigeria, prices of food items are outrageous, outside the reach of the common man: a basin of garri sells for N18,000, rice, beans etc are food the rich only. House rent has gone up. A self contain that was between N60,000 and N80,000 is N250,000.
The adverse social-economic realities informed the Labour’s insistence on N615,000, which they have reviewed downward to N500,000.
Breaking down the figure the National President of the Nigeria Labour Congress, Joe Ajaero said the N615,000 was a fair demand considering the socio-economic realities of the country.
Discussion on another minimum wage regime, therefore, should not be an exercise in futility, because since the N30,000 Minimum Wage became a legal document in April 18, 2023 most State Governors and Local Government Area chairmen across the country, have refused to implement it. And the Federal Government could not enforce compliance.
It is also speculated that some governors who claimed to have implemented the National Minimum wage only paid the difference of what their predecessors were supposed to pay workers consequent on the shortfall of financial benefit due workers.
With the veiled liberalisation policy of the National Minimum Wage which mandates the Labour unions in the State to negotiate with their various State Governments on what is feasible for States to pay, based on their financial capacity, State governors now have the power to determine how much to pay their workers based on outcomes of negotiation with the workers under their umbrella bodies. That is why Labour-friendly Governments of Lagos, and Edo, among other States of the Federation have approved N70,000 National Minimum Wage with effect from May, 2024, at a time some State Governors, such as Soludo of Anambra are foot-dragging to pay the old wage which expired April, 2024.
It is mind boggling that while elected officers and political office holders go home with mouth watering salaries at the end of every month and severance benefits, the civil servant wage is paltry, a peanut and they have to wait for years to access their gratuity and pension which cannot be compared to political officers salaries. Some never received after all. They died while waiting for their benefits.
While the Nigeria Labour Congress and its Trade Union Congress counterpart negotiate with the Federal Government’ on increase of Minimum Wage they should ensure that no stone is left unturned towards achieving a “Realistic” living wage. A Living Wage, according to “investopedia” is “a theoretical income level that allows individuals or families to afford adequate shelter, food and other necessities.
Though the N500,000 minimum wage proposed by Labour is not realistic considering the economic realities in the country, the least minimum wage the Federal Government should consider is N100,000 proposed by the House of Representatives.
Most State Governors have refused to pay the expired N30,000 minimum wage on the unacceptable reason of unavailability of funds.
But if the looting instincts, leakages and frivolous spending of public funds were checked, an upwardly reviewed wage could be paid with ease.
A situation where elected public officers build estates and leave trans-generational assets for their children after eight or as the people’s mandate last, while the civil servant retires home after 35 years with virtually nothing, is repugnant to good conscience, equity and morality. In fact it is heartbreaking.
Both elected public officers and civil servants are exposed to the same socio economic realities.
Igbiki Benibo
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