The APC-led government has demonstrated a troubling disregard for its constitutional responsibilities. Chapter II, Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) clearly states that the security and welfare of the Nigerian people shall be the primary purpose of government. Yet, this obligation appears to have been subordinated to a purely capitalist and mercantile approach.

Under President Tinubu, the administration of Nigeria’s crude oil and gas resources has been largely subjected to market forces, with insufficient safeguards to protect the welfare of ordinary Nigerians. This policy direction raises serious concerns about the balance between economic liberalization and social responsibility.

A few days ago, during an interview on Arise TV, David Bird, CEO of the Dangote Refinery, stated that petroleum products from the refinery are sold at prices tied to international crude oil benchmarks. In effect, this means that external shocks—such as supply disruptions from geopolitical tensions, including the ongoing crisis in Iran—will continue to drive up domestic fuel prices.

To better appreciate the implications of this policy stance, it is useful to compare fuel prices and minimum wages across selected oil-producing and developed countries:

Saudi Arabia — $0.60 per litre; minimum wage: $1,000

United States — $0.90 per litre; minimum wage: $1,200

Russia — $0.70 per litre; minimum wage: $300

Canada — $1.20 per litre; minimum wage: $1,800

Iran — $0.02 per litre; minimum wage: $120

Nigeria — $0.98 per litre; minimum wage: $40

From the above, Nigeria’s current fuel price is approximately ₦1,380 per litre, while the minimum wage stands at ₦70,000. Filling the tank of an average vehicle now costs close to an entire monthly wage. By contrast, in Iran, fuel costs about ₦28 per litre, while the minimum wage is significantly higher in local currency terms.

The standard of living in any society is closely tied to energy costs, as fuel directly and indirectly affects transportation, food prices, and household expenses. If the Tinubu administration insists on maintaining international pricing for petroleum products, then it must correspondingly adjust minimum wages—potentially to at least $600 (about ₦840,000 monthly)—while also ensuring reliable electricity, food security, and a functional social safety net. These are the irreducible minimum expectations of citizens in any responsible state.

However, Nigeria’s political leadership appears largely indifferent to the welfare of the people. The fuel price crisis is no longer just an economic issue; it has become a national burden imposed by a system that increasingly appears skewed against the average citizen.

At the heart of this crisis lies a powerful network of vested interests often described as “market cabals.” These are not imaginary actors but influential players embedded within Nigeria’s petroleum supply chain—spanning importation, distribution, and pricing. Their influence is subtle yet far-reaching, and its consequences are felt daily by Nigerians.

Notably, these actors operate across both the public and private sectors.

For decades, Nigeria has failed to maintain functional refineries, engaging in a cycle of neglect and inefficiency. This has entrenched dependence on imported petroleum products and created an environment where a few dominant operators control supply. In such a market, competition is weak, and consumers inevitably bear the cost.
Even with the emergence of the Dangote Refinery, there are claims that entrenched interests have constrained the supply of local crude, forcing reliance on international markets. This raises a troubling question: are these powerful actors stronger than the Presidency, or is there a convergence of interests at the expense of Nigerians?

The removal of fuel subsidy, announced without adequate preparation—particularly the rehabilitation of domestic refineries—has exacerbated the crisis. While some view subsidy removal as a necessary reform, its implementation without structural readiness has imposed severe hardship. Nigeria must prioritize optimizing local crude production for both domestic consumption and export.

Furthermore, the legal and institutional framework governing resource ownership requires urgent review. The concentration of control over mineral resources in the federal government has contributed to longstanding inefficiencies and grievances, forming part of the structural roots of the current crisis.

The consequences are evident: rising transport fares, escalating food prices, and increasing pressure on small businesses struggling with higher operating costs. For ordinary Nigerians, fuel price increases are not abstract policy outcomes—they are daily realities that erode income, dignity, and quality of life.

Nigeria must confront the structural issues sustaining this crisis. Expanding and supporting local refining capacity is no longer optional—it is imperative. Private refinery initiatives must be encouraged within a transparent and competitive framework.

At the same time, regulatory institutions must be strengthened and insulated from undue influence to ensure accountability across the sector.
Transparency must become the norm. Nigerians deserve clarity on how fuel prices are determined and who the key actors are within the industry.
Policymakers must act with urgency and resolve. This includes enforcing effective market regulations, dismantling monopolistic structures, publishing transparent pricing mechanisms, and holding all stakeholders—public and private—accountable without fear or favor. It also requires fast-tracking refinery rehabilitation and ensuring that local production translates into tangible price relief for citizens.

Anything short of decisive action will deepen public distrust and prolong economic hardship. Nigeria cannot afford a petroleum sector that serves a privileged few at the expense of the majority. The responsibility now rests squarely on those in power to break this cycle—firmly, transparently, and without compromise.

Ndubuisi Anaenugwu
Ambassador General, Good Governance Ministry (GGM)
Email: ggovernanceministry@gmail.com

Governor Soludo, despite his intellectual depth and strong academic background, appears disconnected from the everyday realities of ordinary people.

With his training in economics, one would have expected policies that stimulate production, expand economic opportunities, and ultimately create quality jobs. Unfortunately, this has not translated into tangible economic prosperity for the people.

More troubling is the failure to build trust—without which public respect and genuine loyalty cannot be earned.

Governments ordinarily deploy public policies to win public confidence and affection. Sadly, Governor Soludo has not demonstrated sufficient empathy or love for the ordinary people of Anambra State. This vacuum partly explains why many still see Nnamdi Kanu as a prophetic figure of the times. Can we entirely blame the people for this perception? It is largely the political and economic elite who endorse Governor Soludo’s approach, including the controversial closure of Onitsha Main Market.

I have never supported the weekly sit-at-home policy; it is unproductive and strategically flawed. At the same time, I cannot endorse Governor Soludo’s increasingly autocratic approach. The Governor has missed a critical opportunity over the past 46 months to genuinely endear himself to the people just like Gov Alex Otti of Abia State.

With the tools of 21st-century good governance, he could have demonstrated what true public service looks like.
Key questions remain unanswered:
Is Governor Soludo genuinely interested in improving electricity supply in Anambra State, especially when the state has regulatory powers over power generation, transmission, and distribution? Why the silence while the state monopolist, EEDC, continues to exploit the people? What of the businessmen mining our crude oil and natural gas ? What about the enforcement of the open grazing law? Food security? Modernization of existing markets and construction of new ones? Low-cost housing? Public pipe-borne water? Industrial and agricultural villages? Where are the economic opportunities? What concrete steps have been taken to reduce the widening income inequalities in the state?

The people are angry—deeply so—and Nnamdi Kanu increasingly appears to them as the last hope. I expected Governor Soludo to consult more widely and engage more inclusively. It is not enough to brand those who obey sit-at-home orders as criminals or terrorist sympathizers.

Politics is driven as much by emotion as by rational thought. Governor Soludo appears uninterested in this emotional dimension, which explains why his speeches fail to resonate with ordinary people.

That said, the people must also share in the blame. Many failed to strike a balance between emotional outrage and rational civic engagement. They had the opportunity to vote Governor Soludo out, yet widespread political apathy prevailed. Some of those who voted sold their votes.

Under such circumstances, how seriously can any government take the people? Too often, our people follow leaders sheepishly and blindly, without critical thinking or accountability.

In truth, we have failed ourselves and must confront the consequences of our collective irrationality.

After God comes the government. We must recognize that we willingly transferred our power to Governor Soludo for four years. It is now our responsibility to organize, engage, and demand accountability—especially in the area of security and economic opportunities.

What we seek is a just, equitable, and fair society where human dignity and mutual respect are guaranteed. Sadly, Nigeria in its current form struggles to deliver this.
Therefore, the call for a new Nation or Nnamdi Kanu release from prison cannot be achieved through sit-at-home protests, but through political processes and active political participation.

Ndubuisi Anaenugwu (GGM)

As usual, I write for humanity—not for official advancement or recognition. Many who follow my contributions often remind me that those entrusted with the responsibility of creating solutions to our societal challenges may never listen to these practical insights.

My response remains simple: the first order of human liberation is mental freedom.

A society that is mentally enslaved cannot experience genuine progress, no matter how sophisticated its political structures or how passionate its religious expressions may appear. Until individuals begin to think independently, question constructively, and act consciously, governance will remain a cycle of repetition rather than transformation.

The Intersection of Politics and Religion

Politics and religion are two of the most powerful forces shaping human society. Politics determines the structure of leadership, resource distribution, and public policy. Religion, on the other hand, shapes values, morality, and the conscience of the people.

In an ideal society, both should complement each other—politics providing structure, and religion providing ethical direction.
However, in many developing societies, including ours, the relationship between politics and religion has often been distorted. Instead of serving as a moral compass, religion is sometimes used as a tool for political manipulation. Likewise, politics, instead of being a platform for service, becomes an avenue for personal gain and power consolidation.

This disconnect creates a dangerous vacuum—where leaders lack accountability, and followers surrender critical thinking.

The Crisis of Good Governance

Good governance is not merely about elections, policies, or political slogans. It is fundamentally about responsibility, transparency, accountability, and service to the people.

Yet, the crisis we face today is not just a failure of leadership—it is also a failure of followership.
When citizens prioritize ethnic, religious, or sentimental loyalties over competence and integrity, they inadvertently reinforce bad governance. When religious institutions avoid speaking truth to power, they weaken their role as moral watchdogs. And when leaders exploit these divisions, the cycle continues.

The Meeting Point

The true meeting point between politics, religion, and good governance lies in shared values: Integrity over opportunism; Service over self-interest; Truth over convenience; Justice over favoritism.

Religion must return to its core role of shaping character and promoting ethical behavior, not merely ritual practices or emotional gatherings. Politics must be redefined as a platform for service, not a battlefield for dominance. At this intersection, governance becomes people-centered, leadership becomes accountable, and society begins to heal.

The Role of the Individual

Change does not begin in government offices—it begins in the minds of individuals. Mental freedom empowers citizens to: Ask the right questions; Demand accountability; Reject manipulation; Make informed decisions.

A liberated mind cannot be easily deceived by propaganda, divided by sentiment, or controlled by fear.

A Call to Consciousness

If we truly desire good governance, we must first align our political choices with ethical values and ensure that our religious convictions inspire responsible civic engagement.

Leaders must understand that authority is a trust, not a privilege. Citizens must realize that silence in the face of injustice is complicity. The transformation we seek will not come from policies alone, nor from sermons alone—but from a conscious integration of both into everyday life.

Conclusion

Politics, religion, and good governance are not separate spheres—they are interconnected realities that must function in harmony. When politics is guided by ethics, and religion inspires responsibility, good governance becomes inevitable. The journey begins with one step: freeing the mind. Only then can we build a society that truly works for all.

Ndubuisi Anaenugwu
ggovernanceministry@gmail.com

The APC-led government has demonstrated a troubling disregard for its constitutional responsibilities. Chapter II, Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) clearly states that the security and welfare of the Nigerian people shall be the primary purpose of government. Yet, this obligation appears to have been subordinated to a purely capitalist and mercantile approach.

Under President Tinubu, the administration of Nigeria’s crude oil and gas resources has been largely subjected to market forces, with insufficient safeguards to protect the welfare of ordinary Nigerians. This policy direction raises serious concerns about the balance between economic liberalization and social responsibility.

A few days ago, during an interview on Arise TV, David Bird, CEO of the Dangote Refinery, stated that petroleum products from the refinery are sold at prices tied to international crude oil benchmarks. In effect, this means that external shocks—such as supply disruptions from geopolitical tensions, including the ongoing crisis in Iran—will continue to drive up domestic fuel prices.

To better appreciate the implications of this policy stance, it is useful to compare fuel prices and minimum wages across selected oil-producing and developed countries:

Saudi Arabia — $0.60 per litre; minimum wage: $1,000

United States — $0.90 per litre; minimum wage: $1,200

Russia — $0.70 per litre; minimum wage: $300

Canada — $1.20 per litre; minimum wage: $1,800

Iran — $0.02 per litre; minimum wage: $120

Nigeria — $0.98 per litre; minimum wage: $40

From the above, Nigeria’s current fuel price is approximately ₦1,380 per litre, while the minimum wage stands at ₦70,000. Filling the tank of an average vehicle now costs close to an entire monthly wage. By contrast, in Iran, fuel costs about ₦28 per litre, while the minimum wage is significantly higher in local currency terms.

The standard of living in any society is closely tied to energy costs, as fuel directly and indirectly affects transportation, food prices, and household expenses. If the Tinubu administration insists on maintaining international pricing for petroleum products, then it must correspondingly adjust minimum wages—potentially to at least $600 (about ₦840,000 monthly)—while also ensuring reliable electricity, food security, and a functional social safety net. These are the irreducible minimum expectations of citizens in any responsible state.

However, Nigeria’s political leadership appears largely indifferent to the welfare of the people. The fuel price crisis is no longer just an economic issue; it has become a national burden imposed by a system that increasingly appears skewed against the average citizen.

At the heart of this crisis lies a powerful network of vested interests often described as “market cabals.” These are not imaginary actors but influential players embedded within Nigeria’s petroleum supply chain—spanning importation, distribution, and pricing. Their influence is subtle yet far-reaching, and its consequences are felt daily by Nigerians.

Notably, these actors operate across both the public and private sectors.

For decades, Nigeria has failed to maintain functional refineries, engaging in a cycle of neglect and inefficiency. This has entrenched dependence on imported petroleum products and created an environment where a few dominant operators control supply. In such a market, competition is weak, and consumers inevitably bear the cost.
Even with the emergence of the Dangote Refinery, there are claims that entrenched interests have constrained the supply of local crude, forcing reliance on international markets. This raises a troubling question: are these powerful actors stronger than the Presidency, or is there a convergence of interests at the expense of Nigerians?

The removal of fuel subsidy, announced without adequate preparation—particularly the rehabilitation of domestic refineries—has exacerbated the crisis. While some view subsidy removal as a necessary reform, its implementation without structural readiness has imposed severe hardship. Nigeria must prioritize optimizing local crude production for both domestic consumption and export.

Furthermore, the legal and institutional framework governing resource ownership requires urgent review. The concentration of control over mineral resources in the federal government has contributed to longstanding inefficiencies and grievances, forming part of the structural roots of the current crisis.

The consequences are evident: rising transport fares, escalating food prices, and increasing pressure on small businesses struggling with higher operating costs. For ordinary Nigerians, fuel price increases are not abstract policy outcomes—they are daily realities that erode income, dignity, and quality of life.

Nigeria must confront the structural issues sustaining this crisis. Expanding and supporting local refining capacity is no longer optional—it is imperative. Private refinery initiatives must be encouraged within a transparent and competitive framework.

At the same time, regulatory institutions must be strengthened and insulated from undue influence to ensure accountability across the sector.
Transparency must become the norm. Nigerians deserve clarity on how fuel prices are determined and who the key actors are within the industry.
Policymakers must act with urgency and resolve. This includes enforcing effective market regulations, dismantling monopolistic structures, publishing transparent pricing mechanisms, and holding all stakeholders—public and private—accountable without fear or favor. It also requires fast-tracking refinery rehabilitation and ensuring that local production translates into tangible price relief for citizens.

Anything short of decisive action will deepen public distrust and prolong economic hardship. Nigeria cannot afford a petroleum sector that serves a privileged few at the expense of the majority. The responsibility now rests squarely on those in power to break this cycle—firmly, transparently, and without compromise.

Ndubuisi Anaenugwu
Ambassador General, Good Governance Ministry (GGM)
Email: ggovernanceministry@gmail.com

Introduction

I write in the public interest, for posterity, and to set the record straight amid growing political rhetoric and economic misconceptions. Too often, the masses are swayed by appealing but simplistic narratives from political leaders. One such narrative is the popular claim by some Governors that “we have not borrowed.” While this may sound fiscally responsible on the surface, it raises an important question: is this truly sound economic policy, or a misunderstanding of development finance?
Recently, during a media chat with the Governor of Anambra State, Dr. Reuben Abati of Arise TV inquired about the level of borrowing undertaken to execute major infrastructural projects, including the construction of a new Government House. The Governor proudly stated that his administration had not borrowed a kobo. This assertion provides a useful backdrop to examine the economic implications of borrowing in public finance.

What Is the Primary Objective of Government?

Chapter II, Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria clearly states that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” This is not optional—it is a constitutional obligation.

To fulfill this mandate, government must ensure that:
1. No citizen goes to bed hungry.
2. The elderly and vulnerable are adequately cared for.
3. Employment opportunities exist for all willing and able individuals.
4. Functional financial systems (banking and insurance) serve public/ private interest efficiently.
5. Reliable and affordable electricity is provided.
6. Access to healthcare is not determined by one’s financial capacity.

These responsibilities require substantial financial resources, which are often beyond what internally generated revenue and monthly allocation from Abuja can provide.

Borrowing as an Instrument of Development

In economics, public borrowing—when properly managed—is not inherently harmful. On the contrary, it is a legitimate fiscal tool for bridging resource gaps and financing long-term capital projects. The key issue is not whether government borrows, but how and why it borrows.A forward-thinking government should:
Invest in productive sectors such as agriculture, housing, infrastructure, and healthcare.Government can stimulate aggregate demand by ensuring income flows to households,
promote inclusive growth and reduce poverty.For instance, if a Government undertakes data-driven planning—identifying population segments such as youths, unemployed persons, retirees, and the working class—it can effectively allocate resources to maximize productivity. When citizens are gainfully employed, crime rates decline, economic activity expands, and overall welfare improves.

The Illusion of “No Borrowing”.

The “no borrowing” mantra, while politically attractive, can be misleading if it results in underinvestment in critical sectors. In a developing economy like Nigeria, where infrastructure deficits are significant, outright avoidance of borrowing may signal missed opportunities rather than fiscal discipline.
It is important to distinguish between:
Productive borrowing (for infrastructure, job creation, and economic expansion), and
Unproductive borrowing (for recurrent expenditure such as salaries or consumption).

The former drives growth and can repay itself over time through increased revenue, while the latter can lead to fiscal distress.

The Reality of Governance and Citizen Expectations.

A troubling reality is that many citizens have normalized government failure. Individuals provide their own water, security, electricity, and even basic infrastructure. This reflects a breakdown in the social contract.

Critical questions must be asked:

i. Does the government actively address unemployment?

b. Is there a clear strategy for improving power supply?

c. Are citizens genuinely benefiting from public resources?

In many cases, the answer is no.

Conclusion

Government must, where necessary, utilize borrowing as a strategic tool to organize the factors of production, stimulate economic activity, and fulfill its constitutional mandate. Avoiding borrowing entirely, especially in a resource-constrained environment, may reflect not prudence but a limited understanding of development economics.

That said, borrowing must be responsible, transparent, and tied strictly to productive investments—not to finance consumption or recurrent expenditure.
Ultimately, good governance is not measured by the absence of debt, but by the presence of development, improved welfare, and a better quality of life for the people.

Anaenugwu Ndubuisi
Ambassador General
Good Governance Ministry (GGM)
Email: ggovernanceministry@gmail.com

In Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, shelter ranks just after food as a fundamental requirement for human survival.Governments across the world recognize this reality and deliberately design policies to ensure that citizens can afford a roof over their heads. In many economies, minimum wage structures are calibrated to reflect the cost of living—particularly housing, whether through rent or mortgage.

In recent years, however, the cost of house rent across South-East Nigeria has risen at an alarming and unsustainable rate, placing immense pressure on residents—especially low- and middle-income earners.

Major urban centres such as Enugu, Owerri, Awka, Aba, and Abakaliki are increasingly experiencing a housing crisis that is steadily eroding living standards and deepening economic hardship.

What was once considered affordable housing has now become a luxury. A single-room self-contained apartment that previously cost about ₦100,000 per annum now goes for ₦400,000 or more. Self-contained apartments that were once ₦150,000 now command as high as ₦800,000.

In Awka, a three-bedroom flat in areas such as Commissioners’ Quarters can cost up to ₦2,500,000 annually, with additional service charges of about ₦200,000( Note that the national minimum wage is N840,000 per annum) . In Onitsha, a two-bedroom flat averages ₦500,000 per annum, even in relatively less expensive areas like Mgbuke, Awada, and Nkpor—still burdensome when compared to prevailing income levels.

This trend is not only unsustainable but socially destabilizing.
Several factors are responsible for this sharp escalation. Rapid urbanization remains a key driver, as increasing numbers of people migrate to cities in search of better economic opportunities.

Unfortunately, this population growth has not been matched with corresponding housing development, resulting in a widening gap between demand and supply—and inevitably, higher rents. Compounding this is the lack of reliable housing data; state governments have not been sufficiently intentional about tracking residential stock and projected demand.

Equally significant is the rising cost of building materials. Cement, iron rods, roofing sheets, sand, laterite, labour, and other construction inputs have witnessed steep increases due to inflation, exchange rate volatility, and high transportation costs. Landlords, seeking to recoup their investments, transfer these costs directly to tenants through higher rents.

Moreover, the weak enforcement of effective regulatory frameworks has worsened the situation. In many parts of the South-East, landlords fix rents arbitrarily, with little or no oversight. Weak tenancy laws (and in some states, their outright absence) have enabled exploitative practices such as excessive advance payments—often one to two years—unjustified rent hikes, and hidden charges.

The consequences are far-reaching. Many families are forced to relocate to substandard housing on the outskirts of cities, increasing transportation costs and reducing overall quality of life. Young people, including students and early-career professionals, are increasingly unable to secure decent accommodation. Overcrowding and the proliferation of informal settlements are rising, posing serious health and security risks. In extreme cases, the psychological toll has led to tragic outcomes.

This growing crisis demands urgent and deliberate government intervention. Housing must be treated as a central pillar of social welfare and economic stability. Recent public engagements by some state leaders suggest a worrying underestimation of the scale of the problem, as well as a lack of clear, actionable housing policies. While reliance on market forces is a legitimate economic philosophy, housing—given its social importance—cannot be left entirely to market dynamics.

Well-designed housing policies, including measured rent regulation, can help stabilize the market and curb arbitrary pricing. Contrary to common fears, effective regulation can also attract investment by creating a more predictable and structured environment for developers.

Governments should actively partner with private developers through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) to deliver affordable housing at large scale. Strategic incentives—such as tax reliefs, subsidized land, and support for local building materials—can stimulate private sector participation and reduce construction costs.

Access to housing finance must also be expanded. Many Nigerians are unable to build or purchase homes due to limited access to affordable mortgage systems. Strengthening housing finance institutions and introducing flexible, single-digit interest mortgage schemes will significantly ease pressure on the rental market.

Equally important is the strict enforcement of tenancy laws. Regulatory authorities must ensure fairness and transparency in landlord-tenant relationships, including reasonable rent increments and standardized payment structures.

In conclusion, South-East governors must, as a matter of urgency, collaborate with the private sector to develop large-scale, high-density housing projects—including multi-storey residential buildings—to accommodate low-income earners while creating employment opportunities for the youth. There is also a need for strategic engagement with the Federal Government to review wage policies, potentially incorporating productivity-based and hourly remuneration structures to better align incomes with the rising cost of living.

The time to act is now. Housing is not a luxury—it is a necessity. Any society that neglects this fundamental need risks deepening inequality, social instability, and economic decline.

Ndubuisi Anaenugwu
Ambassador General
Good Governance Ministry (GGM)
Email: ggovernanceministry@gmail.com