“When the rain falls heavily, it is the poor man’s roof that leaks first.” This old African proverb speaks directly to the reality many Nigerians face today. Economic policies may be designed in government offices and defended by experts on television, but their true impact is felt in homes, markets, classrooms, hospitals, and on the streets where ordinary people struggle daily to make ends meet.

Few government policies in recent years have generated as much debate, concern, and controversy as the removal of fuel subsidy. Since President Bola Ahmed Tinubu announced on May 29, 2023, that “fuel subsidy is gone,” Nigerians have experienced one of the most dramatic shifts in the nation’s economic landscape. Fuel prices rose almost immediately, transportation costs soared, food prices skyrocketed, and the cost of living reached levels many households had never experienced before.

For some economists and policymakers, the removal of fuel subsidy was a bold and necessary decision. They argue that subsidy payments had become a huge financial burden on the government, consuming trillions of naira that could have been used to improve infrastructure, healthcare, education, and other critical sectors. They also point to years of corruption, fraudulent claims, and fuel smuggling that turned the subsidy regime into a system that benefited a few powerful individuals more than the average Nigerian.

On paper, these arguments appear convincing. A nation cannot continue spending beyond its means indefinitely. No economy can thrive when public funds are repeatedly drained by an inefficient system. The idea behind subsidy removal was to free up resources, attract investment, encourage competition, and ultimately create a stronger and more sustainable economy.

However, while the policy may make economic sense in theory, its practical consequences have raised an important question: Who is really bearing the burden of this reform?

READ ALSO: Fuel Subsidy Removal: A Necessary Reform, But Poorly Managed

The answer is becoming increasingly clear. The greatest burden is being carried not by politicians, oil marketers, or economic advisers, but by ordinary Nigerians whose daily lives have become significantly more difficult since the policy was introduced.

The first and most visible impact of subsidy removal was the sharp increase in fuel prices. Petrol, which once sold for less than ₦200 per litre, suddenly rose to over ₦500 and later climbed even higher. This increase did not affect fuel alone. Because transportation is the foundation upon which many economic activities depend, the rise in fuel prices triggered a chain reaction across virtually every sector of the economy.

Today, transport fares have become a major source of concern for millions of Nigerians. Workers who commute daily spend a significant portion of their salaries on transportation. Students traveling to and from school face higher costs. Traders transporting goods from farms and warehouses to urban markets pay more for logistics. Even short journeys that once seemed affordable have become expensive.

For many Nigerians, transportation costs have become a daily reminder of the economic hardship caused by subsidy removal.

The impact is particularly severe in the food sector. Farmers must pay more to transport produce from rural communities to urban markets. Food vendors and retailers pass these additional expenses on to consumers. The result is visible in every market across the country. The prices of rice, beans, yam, garri, vegetables, bread, and other staple foods have increased significantly.

Families that once managed to provide three meals a day now struggle to afford two. Parents are forced to reduce household expenses, often sacrificing nutritional quality in order to survive. The rising cost of food has become one of the most painful consequences of subsidy removal because it affects every Nigerian regardless of age, occupation, or social status.

READ ALSO: Fuel Price Hike Turns Basic Meals into Luxury for DELSU Students

Small businesses are also feeling the pressure. Across Nigeria, countless enterprises rely on petrol and diesel-powered generators because of the country’s unstable electricity supply. Barbers, welders, tailors, cybercafés, restaurants, and other small business owners now spend far more on energy than they did before.

For many entrepreneurs, profit margins have shrunk dramatically. Some have increased the prices of their goods and services to stay afloat, while others have reduced their workforce or shut down entirely. The consequences extend beyond business owners themselves. Employees lose jobs, families lose income, and communities lose economic opportunities.

In a country where small and medium-sized enterprises contribute significantly to employment and economic growth, the pressure on businesses represents a serious challenge to national development.

The education sector has not been spared either. Students in tertiary institutions face increasing financial difficulties due to higher transportation costs, rising accommodation fees, and more expensive food. Parents already struggling with inflation find it difficult to meet educational expenses.

Some students now combine their studies with multiple side jobs to support themselves. Others rely heavily on friends and relatives for assistance. In extreme cases, some students have been forced to suspend their education because their families can no longer afford the associated costs.

This situation raises concerns about the long-term impact of economic hardship on access to education and human capital development.

Healthcare has become another area affected by the ripple effects of subsidy removal. Hospitals and clinics face higher operational costs due to increased fuel and transportation expenses. The prices of medicines and medical supplies have also risen because of higher logistics costs and exchange rate challenges.

For low-income families, accessing quality healthcare has become increasingly difficult. Many postpone medical treatment, self-medicate, or avoid hospital visits altogether because of financial constraints. This creates a dangerous situation where economic hardship translates into poorer health outcomes for vulnerable citizens.

Despite these challenges, supporters of subsidy removal maintain that the policy should be judged by its long-term benefits rather than its immediate consequences. They argue that reforms of this magnitude are often painful at the beginning but necessary for sustainable growth. According to this view, the savings generated from subsidy removal can help fund infrastructure projects, reduce fiscal deficits, improve public services, and attract foreign investment.

Indeed, the government has introduced several measures intended to cushion the impact of the policy. These include conditional cash transfers, student loan programmes, wage awards, compressed natural gas initiatives, and infrastructure investments. Government officials have repeatedly assured Nigerians that the savings from subsidy removal are being redirected toward projects that will benefit the country in the future.

However, many citizens remain unconvinced.

The challenge is not simply whether government interventions exist. The challenge is whether those interventions are reaching enough people and whether they are sufficient to offset the hardship being experienced across the country. For many Nigerians, the promised benefits remain distant and difficult to see.

A worker struggling to pay transport fares, a mother unable to afford food for her children, or a student battling rising living expenses may find little comfort in promises of future economic gains. Economic reforms succeed when citizens can see tangible improvements in their quality of life. When hardship continues without visible relief, public confidence inevitably weakens.

Another important issue is transparency. Nigerians deserve clear and regular information about how subsidy savings are being utilized. Citizens should be able to see measurable improvements in roads, hospitals, schools, power supply, and public transportation systems. Transparency not only builds trust but also strengthens public support for difficult reforms.

If citizens are expected to make sacrifices, they must be confident that those sacrifices are producing meaningful results.

It is also important to recognize that fuel subsidy removal alone cannot solve Nigeria’s economic challenges. Other structural problems continue to affect the country’s development. Poor electricity supply, insecurity, inadequate infrastructure, unemployment, and currency instability all contribute to economic hardship.

Without addressing these broader issues, subsidy removal may simply transfer financial pressure from government accounts to the pockets of ordinary citizens.

This is why complementary reforms are essential. Investments in public transportation can reduce commuting costs. Stable electricity can lower business expenses. Increased local refining capacity can reduce dependence on imported petroleum products. Agricultural support programmes can improve food production and stabilize prices. Job creation initiatives can increase household incomes and strengthen economic resilience.

Such measures are necessary if the benefits of subsidy removal are to be widely shared.

As Nigerians continue to adjust to life after subsidy removal, one reality remains undeniable: the ordinary citizen is carrying the heaviest burden. The civil servant whose salary has remained unchanged, the trader struggling to restock goods, the farmer transporting produce, the student pursuing an education, and the small business owner fighting to survive all bear the weight of this economic reform every day.

READ ALSO: Grassroots Developments, Warri North LGA And The Hon. Ashima’s Magic Wand

This does not necessarily mean the policy was wrong. Economic reforms are often necessary and sometimes unavoidable. However, necessity does not eliminate responsibility. Government must ensure that the burden of reform is not borne disproportionately by those least able to afford it.

A successful economic policy should not only balance national accounts but also improve the welfare of citizens. Growth should be reflected not only in statistics and economic reports but also in the everyday experiences of ordinary people.

The debate over fuel subsidy removal is therefore no longer about whether the policy should have happened. It has already happened. The more pressing issue is whether the promised benefits will eventually justify the sacrifices being made today.

Until inflation falls significantly, transportation becomes more affordable, jobs become more available, electricity becomes more reliable, and living standards improve, many Nigerians will continue to ask a simple but powerful question:

If fuel subsidy removal was meant to rescue the economy, why does it feel as though ordinary Nigerians are the ones paying the highest price?

The answer to that question may ultimately determine how history judges one of the most significant economic reforms in modern Nigeria.

The author, Pius Ashima, is a-200 Level student of Journalism and Media Studies at Delta State University, Abraka. Email: ashimapius@gmail.com

By Benedicta Okorotete

A confirmation service was held for students by All Saint’s Anglican Church marking an important milestone in the spiritual journey of many young christian seeking to strengthen their commitment to the christian faith.

This ceremony provide students with the opportunity to publicly profess their faith, deepen their relationship in God, and become more actively involved in church activities.

The service which consisted of up to 11 confirmers (students), parents, friends and church members.

The service was characterized with prayers, hymns, bible reading and messages encouraging the candidates to remain faithful to Christian teaching while pursuing their academic goals.

Delivering his sermon during the service, the presiding minister reminded the candidates that confirmation is more than a religious ceremony.

He described it as a lifelong commitment to serve God faithfully, uphold christian values and become responsible members of the society.

He urged the students to demonstrate humility, honesty, discipline and love in their daily lives.

The ceremony concluded with thanksgiving prayers, the presentation of certificates to the candidates, and a reception where family, friends and church members celebrated with the newly confirmed students.

Many of the students expressed joy after the ceremony, describing the event as a memorable moment of their lives.

Some said that the ceremony has strengthen their confidence in God and are inspired to live according to Christian principles despite the pressure associated with university lives.

By Ohwona Oghenemine

Inadequate soil moisture, uneven soil fertility, and natural biological limitations have been identified as major factors responsible for the rapid decline of cucumber crops at the Delta State University (DELSU) Site Three Farm.

The findings, based on practical farm trials conducted by an Agricultural Science student of the university, highlighted key management practices required to maximise cucumber production before the crop reaches the end of its natural growth cycle.

The student explained that proper irrigation schedules, early pest control, and effective soil management are essential factors in improving crop performance and extending productivity.

Soil Fertility And Yield Disparities

One of the major challenges observed during the farming project was the uneven distribution of soil fertility across the farm plot.

Although the application of supplemental fertiliser improved overall crop performance, sections of the farm with lower nutrient levels continued to record weaker growth compared to healthier areas.

The student emphasised the importance of conducting proper soil testing before planting and ensuring uniform soil enrichment to achieve better yields.

Timely Pest Management

The study also identified early pest control as a critical factor in protecting young cucumber vines from damage.

The student recommended the first application of pesticide (Larafox) two weeks after planting, noting that delayed treatment could increase vulnerability to pest attacks and negatively affect plant development.

“Pesticide application at the two-week growth mark is critical,” the researcher noted, warning that late intervention could reduce crop productivity.

High Water Dependency

Addressing irrigation challenges, the study revealed that water remains the most important resource for cucumber growth, despite the crop’s need for adequate sunlight.

The student explained that cucumber plants cannot survive in dry or poorly irrigated environments and require consistently moist soil to support healthy growth and fruit production.

Understanding The Three-Month Lifecycle

The student also clarified concerns surrounding the sudden death of cucumber plants after harvesting, explaining that the decline is largely a natural biological process rather than a disease outbreak.

According to the findings, cucumber plants have an average lifespan of about three months and naturally begin to wither after producing fruits multiple times.

The student explained that after two or more harvest cycles, the vines gradually lose productivity and eventually die as part of their natural growth pattern.

The findings highlight the importance of understanding crop lifecycle, proper farm management practices, and timely interventions to improve cucumber cultivation outcomes.