The former labour leader who mobilised Nigerians against fuel price increases under Olusegun Obasanjo now faces a difficult question: why should Nigerians judge the same policy differently under Bola Tinubu?
A viral video of Senator Adams Oshiomhole reacting angrily to an interviewer has reignited a debate about political consistency, fuel prices and the credibility of Nigeria’s political class.
The interviewer reportedly challenged Oshiomhole over the contrast between his opposition to fuel price increases under former President Olusegun Obasanjo and his support for President Bola Tinubu’s fuel reforms, which have been accompanied by a dramatic rise in petrol prices.
The question is straightforward: if higher fuel prices were worth fighting against in 2003, why should Nigerians accept them so readily today?
It is a question that deserves an answer, not anger.
When Oshiomhole led the fight against fuel price increases
Before becoming governor of Edo State and later a senator, Adams Oshiomhole was one of Nigeria’s most prominent labour leaders. As president of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), he helped mobilise workers and ordinary Nigerians against increases in petrol prices during the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo.
In 2003, organised labour challenged the government's fuel price policy through strikes and protests. The dispute ended with the government and oil marketers agreeing to return petrol prices to ₦34 per litre, which labour presented as a victory.
During another major strike in July 2003, labour opposed a proposed increase that would have significantly raised the price of petrol. Oshiomhole argued that the labour movement had a responsibility to secure relief for Nigerians struggling with the cost of living.
His position was clear: fuel prices were not merely a technical question of petroleum economics. They were a matter of household survival, workers' welfare and the government's responsibility to its citizens.
That history is important because it establishes the standard against which his current political position should be examined.
Tinubu’s fuel reforms have changed the economic landscape
When President Bola Tinubu announced the end of the petrol subsidy during his inauguration on 29 May 2023, fuel prices rose sharply.
In the months that followed, petrol prices climbed from the previous regulated levels to several hundred naira per litre. By September 2026, reported pump prices in parts of Lagos and Abuja had reached approximately ₦1,400 per litre, with some northern locations reportedly seeing prices as high as ₦1,500.
The consequences extend far beyond the cost of filling a vehicle.
Nigeria depends heavily on road transport to move people, food and goods. When petrol prices rise, transport fares and distribution costs often rise with them. Businesses face higher operating expenses, and households have less money available for food, rent, education and healthcare.
The impact is especially severe for Nigerians whose earnings have not kept pace with inflation.
Supporters of subsidy removal argue that the old system was expensive, vulnerable to abuse and unsustainable. They contend that removing the subsidy can reduce government expenditure and allow market forces to determine prices.
Those arguments deserve serious consideration. But they do not eliminate the government's responsibility to explain how the reform benefits citizens, how its costs are distributed and what protection exists for vulnerable households.
A policy can have an economic rationale and still impose a devastating social burden. Both realities must be acknowledged.
Why Oshiomhole’s change in position deserves scrutiny
In June 2023, shortly after Tinubu announced subsidy removal, Oshiomhole acknowledged the impact of the policy and said immediate measures were needed to cushion its effects.
That acknowledgment matters. It shows that the hardship caused by fuel price increases was not an imaginary problem, even among those who supported the new administration.
The central issue, therefore, is not whether Oshiomhole must oppose every policy of a president he supports. Politicians are entitled to reconsider their views when circumstances change or when they believe a reform is necessary.
The problem arises when the same political figure appears to apply different standards to similar policies depending on who occupies the presidency.
Under Obasanjo, Oshiomhole stood at the forefront of opposition to fuel price increases. Under Tinubu, his political alignment is different, and he has defended the administration's reform agenda.
What has changed: the economic evidence, the policy design, the available alternatives or the political relationship?
Nigerians deserve a clear explanation.
If the argument is that subsidy removal is now necessary, Oshiomhole should explain why the economic circumstances justify that conclusion. If he believes the long-term benefits outweigh the immediate suffering, he should identify those benefits and show how ordinary Nigerians are expected to experience them.
Simply defending a political ally is not an adequate substitute for answering questions about public policy.
The difference between explaining reform and dismissing hardship
The fuel subsidy debate is not a contest between people who understand economics and people who do not.
Many Nigerians understand that subsidies can be costly, that public funds are limited and that government interventions can be poorly managed. Their concern is whether the alternative is delivering tangible benefits.
Where are the measurable improvements in public transport, affordable food distribution and household purchasing power that could help citizens cope with higher energy costs?
What support has reached low-income families, small businesses and informal workers? How transparent is the use of savings attributed to subsidy removal? What safeguards exist to ensure that the burden does not fall disproportionately on people least able to afford it?
These are reasonable questions for any government, regardless of party.
A political leader who once mobilised workers against rising fuel prices should be particularly sensitive to them. His labour background ought to strengthen his commitment to accountability, not weaken it.
And when an interviewer asks why his position appears to have changed, the public deserves a substantive response rather than a confrontation that shifts attention away from the question.
A viral clip alone may not capture an entire exchange, so the full interview should be considered before drawing conclusions about everything that happened. But the underlying policy question remains legitimate.
Oshiomhole’s record in Edo State is also part of the discussion
Oshiomhole’s public record is not limited to labour activism and his present political alignment. He served as governor of Edo State from 2008 to 2016, and his administration promoted infrastructure projects, including roads and public facilities.
His time in office also attracted scrutiny.
In 2020, an Edo State judicial commission of inquiry examining the procurement of the Edo Specialist Hospital reported alleged breaches of public procurement rules, including a payment arrangement it said exceeded the legal limit for upfront payments. The commission recommended that civil or criminal action be considered against those found culpable.
That finding should be described accurately: it was a commission's report and recommendation, not proof that Oshiomhole was personally convicted of a crime.
Nevertheless, public officials should expect their decisions and the conduct of their administrations to remain open to scrutiny. Political popularity and a record of completed projects do not place any leader beyond questions about public spending, procurement or accountability.
The same principle applies to his time as a labour leader and his current role as a senator. His past achievements do not exempt him from explaining his present positions.
The bigger problem: political loyalty over consistent principles
Nigeria’s political debate is often dominated by personalities and party affiliations. Politicians who condemn a policy under one administration may defend a similar policy under another, while supporters on opposing sides change their arguments according to who benefits.
This creates a serious problem for democratic accountability.
If a policy is wrong when an opposition party implements it but acceptable when a politician's own party adopts it, the public cannot easily distinguish principle from political convenience.
The test should be consistent: What is the policy? What evidence supports it? Who benefits? Who bears the cost? What alternatives were considered? And what results can citizens verify?
Oshiomhole should be judged by the same standard he once demanded of the government he opposed.
If he believes Tinubu's fuel reforms are necessary, he should defend them with evidence, acknowledge the hardship they have caused and explain what the government is doing to reduce that hardship. He should also explain why his present position differs from the one he took during the Obasanjo years.
That is not an unreasonable demand. It is the minimum expected of an elected representative.
Nigerians deserve consistency, not political theatre
The dispute over Oshiomhole’s reaction to an interviewer is about more than one video or one senator. It exposes a recurring weakness in Nigerian politics: the tendency to treat accountability as a weapon against opponents rather than a principle that applies to everyone.
Oshiomhole built a national reputation as a labour leader willing to confront government over policies that hurt ordinary Nigerians. That history gives the public a legitimate basis for asking whether his current political positions reflect the same commitment to workers and households.
He is free to argue that subsidy removal is economically necessary. But he should make that argument openly, explain the change in his position and address the human consequences of the policy he supports.
The price of petrol is not an abstract political talking point. It affects the cost of getting to work, transporting food, running a small business and keeping a household afloat.
When politicians ask Nigerians to endure economic pain in the name of reform, they must do more than demand patience. They must demonstrate accountability, provide credible evidence of progress and explain how the sacrifices are expected to produce a better future.
The question for Adams Oshiomhole is simple: if he once believed that rising fuel prices justified a national confrontation with government, what has changed—and how can Nigerians be sure that his present position is based on principle rather than political loyalty?
That question deserves a direct answer.
Comments
Post a Comment