Tinubu Then and Now: From Fuel Tax Opponent to Fuel Tax Enforcer.

(A Political Irony Cast in Fuel Flames)

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by SaharaWeeklyNG.com

In 2003, he called it “double taxation.” In 2025, he signed it into law.

In the annals of Nigeria’s political history, few things expose the duplicity of power like policy reversals. In 2003, then-Governor of Lagos State, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, stood before Nigerians as a fiery defender of the masses, lashing out at President Olusegun Obasanjo’s proposal of a fuel tax. He called it “DOUBLE TAXATION,” condemned it as an anti-people policy and vowed to challenge it in court. Fast-forward to June 2025 and that same Tinubu (now President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) has signed into law a sweeping tax reform that imposes a 5% surcharge on petrol and other fuels, effective January 2026, under the guise of funding clean energy initiatives.

The irony is blistering. The man who once denounced fuel taxation as economic strangulation now brandishes the very policy instrument he once demonized. Nigerians are left to ask: has Tinubu betrayed his own words or has power exposed a truth he once concealed?

The Heavy Burden of Fuel Taxes.
Fuel in Nigeria is not just another commodity; it is the lifeblood of the economy. With epileptic electricity and industries relying heavily on diesel-powered generators, any increase in fuel price sends shockwaves across every sector. A 5% surcharge, no matter how noble the intended purpose, translates into higher transport costs, food inflation and spiraling costs of goods and services.

Dr. Bismarck Rewane, a respected economist and CEO of Financial Derivatives Company, has long warned: “In Nigeria, any policy that touches fuel pricing is a policy that touches every Nigerian pocket.”

Already, Nigerians are grappling with the aftermath of subsidy removal in 2023, a policy that saw fuel prices skyrocket by more than 200%. Inflation, officially pegged at over 33% by mid-2025, has ravaged household incomes. The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) reports that food inflation is above 40%, while unemployment remains at a crushing 37%. In such a climate, adding a fuel surcharge is nothing short of pouring salt into a festering wound.

Tinubu’s Contradiction: From Courtrooms to Aso Rock.
Let us revisit Tinubu’s words in 2003. Back then, when Obasanjo’s administration sought to introduce a levy on fuel, Tinubu (as Lagos Governor) declared:

“This is double taxation, an exploitation of the people. We will resist it and if necessary, challenge it in court.”

That same Tinubu, now wielding presidential authority, has turned his back on the principle he once defended. What has changed? Is it the man, the times or the seduction of power?

Political scholar Dr. Jideofor Adibe puts it bluntly: “Nigerian politicians rarely hold consistent positions on policy. What they oppose in opposition, they implement in power. It is not about principle but expediency.”

This hypocrisy is at the heart of Nigeria’s governance crisis. Policies are not measured by long-term developmental value but by political convenience. Today, Tinubu’s reform is packaged as “PROGRESSIVE TAXATION for CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION,” but to ordinary Nigerians, it is yet another mechanism of state-sanctioned hardship.

The Global Energy Argument; And Its Flaw.
Defenders of the surcharge argue that the world is moving toward renewable energy and that Nigeria must raise funds to finance its own green transition. Indeed, global institutions like the International Energy Agency (IEA) have emphasized the urgency of moving away from fossil fuels. Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer, paradoxically suffers from poor energy access, with over 85 million citizens lacking electricity.

However, as Professor Pat Utomi, a leading political economist, once observed: “You cannot tax poverty into prosperity. A government must first build productivity before loading burdens on its citizens.”

Unlike advanced economies where fuel taxes fund infrastructure and clean energy, Nigeria’s history is littered with failed interventions. Billions allegedly spent on power reforms have vanished into bureaucratic black holes. The Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF), set up in the 1990s, became a political cash cow. Why should Nigerians now trust that this 5% fuel surcharge will not go the same way?

Opposition Cries Foul.
Unsurprisingly, opposition parties have seized on this contradiction. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) issued a scathing statement:

“Tinubu opposed fuel taxes when it suited him politically. Today, he imposes the same tax on a suffering population. This is not leadership; this is betrayal.”

Labour unions, too, are preparing for confrontation. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has vowed mass action if the surcharge is not reversed. Its president, Joe Ajaero, thundered: “This government cannot continue to impoverish Nigerians under the false banner of reform. We will resist with everything we have.”

History Repeating Itself.
George Santayana once warned: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Nigeria is the perfect example. Obasanjo’s attempt to tax fuel in 2003 collapsed under public outrage. Now, two decades later, Tinubu has resurrected the same ghost.

Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka once described Nigerian governance as a “cycle of déjà vu.” Today, his words ring true. Every administration recycles old, failed policies under new labels. The tragedy is that Nigerians are forced to pay the price again and again.

The Larger Question: Leadership or Self-Interest?
At the heart of this debate is a moral question: should leaders hold themselves accountable to their past words? Tinubu’s reversal is not just a policy decision; it is a credibility issue. By signing a law he once condemned, he sends a dangerous message that political positions are mere costumes to be worn and discarded at will.

Political scientist Larry Diamond once wrote: “Democracy collapses when leaders lose credibility, because legitimacy is the only currency that sustains power.” If Tinubu continues down this path, his administration risks eroding whatever remains of its legitimacy.

Alternatives Ignored.
Critics argue that instead of taxing fuel, the government should:

Cut Wasteful Spending: Nigeria’s budget still allocates billions to frivolous items, including luxury convoys and political perks.

Plug Revenue Leakages: The Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) reports that over $46 billion has been lost to oil theft and mismanagement in two decades.

Expand Tax Base Fairly: Less than 10% of Nigerians are in the formal tax net. Why punish the poor majority with fuel surcharges instead of taxing the wealthy elite more effectively?

Professor Kingsley Moghalu, former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank, emphasizes: “Reform must be people-centered. You cannot build a nation by squeezing its weakest members.”

Final Reckoning: A Nation at the Crossroads.
Tinubu’s 2025 fuel surcharge is not just an economic decision, it is a moral and political paradox. The man who once called fuel taxes “double taxation” now enforces them on the very people he once claimed to defend. Nigerians are watching, and the echoes of 2003 are alive.

The question is not whether clean energy is necessary, it is whether this government has the trust, integrity and capacity to channel fuel taxes into genuine transformation. Without transparency and accountability, this policy will go the way of every failed Nigerian reform: another burden on the masses, another betrayal by the political class.

As Chinua Achebe warned in The Trouble with Nigeria: “The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership.”

Once again, Nigerians stand at the mercy of leaders who promise one thing and deliver the opposite. And once again, it is the people who will pay at the pump.