Oil subsidy: Buhari admits he never wanted Tinubu to be elected

On Monday, former Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari made the startling admission that the removal of the oil subsidy was not done for the benefit of the nation’s economy but rather as a political move to help the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its then-leader, Bola Tinubu, in the February 25, 2023 elections.

This revelation, which was made public through a press release by former presidential media aide Mallam Garba Shehu, has sparked a firestorm of criticism, raised more general concerns about how national interests were prioritized throughout Buhari’s administration, and shed light on a number of crucial problems that plagued Nigeria at the time.

Public indignation was also sparked by former president Buhari’s alleged admission over the removal of oil subsidies. Nigerians from all walks of life are now debating whether their ex-leader’s choices had been motivated by a sincere desire to advance the interests of the country or had instead been influenced by political considerations.

The decision to end the subsidy has drawn a lot of criticism because it immediately increased the cost of petrol, making it harder for regular people to make ends meet. Concerns about the ethics of governance under his administration were increased by the former President’s admission. His alleged passivity or turning a blind eye to unethical behavior within his administration, according to critics, allowed a culture of impunity to flourish.

Voodoo contracts, oil theft, and other types of large-scale thievery increased, further undermining public confidence in the government’s capacity to combat corruption. The country’s economic problems and lack of accountability hampered its development. Buhari’s alleged slowness in confronting the increasing violence committed by Fulani herdsmen was another unsettling feature of his presidency.

Some detractors said that the President’s “body language” encouraged these attacks, which led to the loss of numerous lives, kidnappings, and disruptions of farming operations. The military’s inability to appropriately address these atrocities contributed to the afflicted communities’ rising sense of instability and insecurity.