Cover StoryEconomyNews

#Ebinpawa: Nigerians Decry Tinubu’s Anti-social Policies, Ask — Can Awolowo Ever Do This?

3 Mins read

When Nigerians coined the hashtag #Ebinpawa, it wasn’t just a joke. It was a cry of exhaustion, a desperate lament from citizens stretched beyond survival. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s 15% fuel import duty has now become another wound on a people already bleeding from endless reforms that punish instead of protection. One must ask, as many have bitterly done: Could Awolowo ever do this to us?

Between Reform and Ruin: A People Betrayed

Tinubu’s administration calls it reform, a path to fiscal recovery. But for millions of Nigerians, these policies feel more like a betrayal than a rebirth. Every new “economic adjustment” digs deeper into the pockets of those who have nothing left to give.

Since the removal of fuel subsidy and the floating of the naira, prices have spiralled. Now, this 15% duty on imported fuel adds insult to injury. The government promises a stronger economy, but all Nigerians see is a weaker household.

The Human Cost: Ordinary Nigerians Paying the Price

For the average Nigerian, economics isn’t theory, it’s ’s breakfast, transport, and rent. A man who once spent ₦2,000 on daily transport now spends ₦3,000. The food vendor pays double for cooking gas. The barber struggles to afford petrol for his generator.

Farmers face rising costs for diesel, while small business owners can barely keep the lights on. Survival has become a privilege. Behind every statistic of “growth” lies a story of human deprivation, children pulled from school, meals skipped, dreams deferred.

Taxing Misery in the Name of Reform

The tragedy of Tinubu’s economic policy lies not just in its impact but in its intent. Governance has become a numbers ga and e, citiz are ns reduced to economic data points.

Fuel, a basic necessity, is treated like a luxury item to be taxed. The government calls it “fiscal prudence,” but it’s closer to moral blindness. A system that balances books by breaking backs is not reforming. It’s exploiting.

When you tax misery, you create resentment. When you justify it as reform, you lose empathy.

The Politics of Pain

Let’s not pretend this 15% duty is merely economic, it’s deeply political. It reflects a government that preaches sacrifice but practices inequality.

Powerful elites shield themselves from the consequences of policies they impose. Meanwhile, the masses are told to “tighten their belts,” as if hunger were an act of patriotism.

Tinubu’s rhetoric of “sacrifice for a better tomorrow” has lost meaning. When sacrifice becomes perpetual, it stops being patriotic, and it becomes institutionalized suffering.

Trump’s Stand on Genocide in Nigeria

Even across the Atlantic, voices are rising. U.S. President Donald Trump recently condemned the escalating violence in Nigeria, calling attention to what he described as “a slow-motion genocide” against Christians. His remarks have reignited international debate on Nigeria’s worsening insecurity and the government’s selective silence.

While Nigerians battle economic hardship, they also live in fear of kidnappers, bandits, and religious extremists. Tinubu’s government can not claim reform while failing to protect its people. There’s no economic revival in a climate of fear and bloodshed.

A Nation at the Crossroads

The 15% fuel import duty is more than a fiscal measure — it’s a moral test of leadership. How much more can Nigerians endure in the name of reform? How long before survival replaces faith in governance?

Awolowo once said that “the worst crime is poverty in the midst of plenty.” Today, Nigerians live that reality — plenty promises, but empty plates.

The cries of #Ebinpawa are not just trending words; they are history being written in the language of pain. If leadership does not listen, the reform they call progress will become the ruin the people call betrayal.

What A True Progressive Would Have Done…

Progressives are known by their actions. They are not swayed by rhetorics. They don’t pass blames. They simply act!

Unlike what we are currently experiencing in Nigeria, true Progressives like Obafemi Awolowo’s emphasises on polices that focused on welfarism and modernization, most notably introducing free primary education and free healthcare for children under 18 in the Western Region. His administration also launched infrastructure projects like the first television station in Africa (WNTV) and established industrial initiatives, such as the Ikeja Industrial Estate and a cooperative to support cocoa farmers. He was a proponent of federalism, fiscal discipline, and using state resources for social and economic development.

He implemented universal free primary education in the Western Region, boosted literacy rates, and established new schools and teacher training colleges.

Introduced free healthcare for all children under the age of 18 and established a hospital in every administrative division.

He advocated for federalism, regional autonomy, and fiscal discipline, believing that education was crucial for national progress and that the government should invest resources in social services and development.

Awolowo would have put the people first and would have created some sort of soft landing to prevent the kind of deep hardship that has ruined so many businesses and livelihoods.

Today, the man leading us is claiming to be progressive but not in his actions and policies. Nigerians can no longer feed themselves. Out of school children are on the rise, insecurity is now the new national anthem, and the cost of living is now sending people to their graves. Nigerians are crying #Ebinpawa

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com