The growing activities of scavengers across Nigerian cities have become a matter that deserves urgent attention from governments, security agencies, local authorities and community leaders. What began largely as an informal means of livelihood for people searching through discarded materials for items of economic value has, in some places, developed into an activity associated with environmental degradation, theft, vandalism and threats to public safety.

The recent case in question happened last weekend when Borno State Governor, Babagana Umara Zulum, said the state lost electricity distribution wires worth billions of naira to metal scavengers, including materials used for a power line project valued at over ₦3 billion.

Zulum said the loss was among the security and infrastructure concerns that forced his administration to ban scrap metal trading in the state.

The governor discloded this while in meeting with scrap metal dealers, whom he urged to submit proposals on how they could continue their businesses without threatening security or damaging public infrastructure.

There is nothing inherently wrong with scavenging as a means of earning a living. Many Nigerians depend on the collection and recycling of discarded metals, plastics, electrical components and other materials. Indeed, properly organised scavenging can contribute to waste management, recycling and environmental sustainability. The problem arises when the activity operates without adequate regulation and when individuals use scavenging as a cover for criminal activities.

Across many communities, there have been concerns about the removal of public infrastructure and private property, including electrical cables, water facilities, manhole covers, railway components, road furniture and other metal installations. The consequences can be severe. The vandalism of electricity infrastructure, for instance, can plunge communities into darkness, while the theft of public property imposes additional costs on governments and taxpayers.
Another disturbing aspect is the destruction of waste containers, indiscriminate dumping and the indiscriminate opening of refuse bags.

Where scavenging is conducted without proper environmental standards, recyclable materials may be recovered at the expense of public hygiene. The situation can also expose scavengers themselves, particularly children, to hazardous substances, sharp objects and other dangerous waste.

Government must therefore move beyond occasional raids and arrests. What is required is a comprehensive regulatory framework that distinguishes legitimate recycling activities from criminal acts. Scavengers and recycling operators should be registered, identifiable and properly monitored.

Scrap dealers should also be required to maintain records showing the sources of materials they purchase, particularly metals and other items that could have been stolen from public infrastructure.
Security agencies must pay particular attention to the markets and businesses where stolen infrastructure is allegedly bought and sold. It is not enough to arrest people found collecting scrap materials on the streets while ignoring those who finance, purchase and profit from stolen property. The demand side of the illegal scrap trade must be addressed if vandalism is to be effectively reduced.

At the same time, government should avoid treating every scavenger as a criminal. Many people involved in the trade are simply struggling to survive in an economy where employment opportunities are limited. A blanket crackdown could deprive thousands of legitimate workers of their livelihoods without addressing the underlying problem.

A better approach would be to organise the sector. Local and state governments, working with relevant federal agencies, can establish designated collection points and recycling centres where scavengers can take recyclable materials. Those who meet prescribed standards could be licensed and trained in safe waste handling. Such an arrangement would make it easier to identify genuine operators and expose those involved in criminal activities.

There is also a need for public education. Nigerians should be encouraged not to buy or sell materials suspected to have been stolen from public infrastructure. Communities should report suspicious activities, while scrap dealers should understand that purchasing stolen property can make them part of the criminal chain.

The authorities must also address the socio-economic conditions that drive vulnerable people into unsafe scavenging. Skills acquisition, vocational training, access to small-business financing and employment programmes can provide alternative livelihoods, especially for young people who depend on scavenging as their primary source of income.

The challenge before Nigeria is to strike the right balance between economic opportunity, environmental management and public security. Scavenging itself is not the enemy; the absence of effective regulation and the criminal exploitation of the trade are.

Government must act decisively to protect public infrastructure and the environment while creating a legal and organised pathway for legitimate recycling businesses. The objective should not be to drive scavengers underground, but to bring the sector into the formal economy, punish those involved in theft and vandalism, and protect law-abiding operators.

Nigeria cannot afford to continue replacing vandalised infrastructure while stolen materials are openly recycled for profit. The time has come for stronger regulation, better enforcement and greater accountability throughout the scrap and recycling chain. A properly regulated recycling sector can create jobs and protect the environment; an unchecked one can become a serious threat to public infrastructure and national development.

As the 2027 elections approach,
politicians must stop treating fuel subsidy as an electoral bargaining chip. Nigerians deserve affordable energy, transparent governance and credible economic policies, not promises designed merely to capture power.
Few economic policies have generated as much controversy, hardship and political argument in Nigeria as the removal of the petrol subsidy. Since President Bola Ahmed Tinubu announced the policy on May 29, 2023, Nigerians have grappled with rising transportation costs, expensive food, higher production expenses and a persistent decline in their purchasing power.

Now, as the country prepares for the 2027 general elections, fuel subsidy has returned to the centre of political debate. Politicians are presenting competing proposals, with some promising to restore government support for petrol /prices and others defending the decision to allow market forces to determine prices.

This renewed controversy raises a fundamental question: Is the fuel subsidy debate genuinely about the welfare of Nigerians, or has it become another instrument for winning political power?

The answer demands a sober examination of the facts, the consequences of existing policies and the credibility of the alternatives being proposed.

What is beyond dispute is that millions of Nigerians are struggling with the cost of living. Any government or political party that ignores this reality does so at its own peril. Equally, those who exploit the suffering of citizens to make financially unsustainable promises must be challenged to explain how their proposals would work.

THE HIGH PRICE OF SUBSIDY REMOVAL
The Tinubu administration justified the removal of petrol subsidy on the grounds that the arrangement placed an unsustainable burden on public finances, encouraged abuses and diverted resources from essential public services.

The argument was that Nigeria could no longer afford to spend enormous sums maintaining artificially low petrol prices when the country faced serious deficits in infrastructure, healthcare, education and security.

There was merit in demanding a more transparent and sustainable system of managing public resources. However, the manner in which the policy affected ordinary Nigerians has raised legitimate questions about the adequacy of the government’s preparations and social protection measures.

The immediate consequences were severe. Transportation became more expensive, businesses faced higher operating costs, and the prices of many goods and services came under additional pressure.

Workers found that their incomes could purchase less than before, while small-business owners struggled to absorb the rising costs of transportation, electricity generation and distribution.

The burden has been particularly difficult for low-income households, which spend a large proportion of their earnings on food, transportation and other necessities.

Three years into the reform period, the central issue is not simply whether subsidy removal was economically defensible. It is whether the government has done enough to protect vulnerable citizens and ensure that the expected benefits of the policy reach them.
Economic reforms must be judged not only by government revenue or investor confidence but also by their consequences for employment, household welfare, business survival and the standard of living.

A policy that promises long-term gains cannot be sustained indefinitely on the basis of explanations while citizens continue to demand tangible improvements.

THE RETURN OF SUBSIDY PROMISES
The approach of the 2027 elections has brought the subsidy debate back into the political arena with renewed intensity.
Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has pledged to restore a form of petrol subsidy if elected president, arguing that government has a responsibility to protect citizens from unbearable living costs. Other political figures have proposed different ways of reducing petrol prices, including support for domestic refining.

These proposals deserve serious examination rather than automatic acceptance or outright dismissal.
The public has every right to question whether the existing system is delivering sufficient benefits and whether alternative policies could offer more effective relief.

However, promises of cheaper petrol must be accompanied by credible explanations of their financial implications. Any candidate advocating subsidy restoration should disclose the estimated annual cost, the proposed funding source, the intended beneficiaries and the safeguards against corruption and waste.

If support is directed towards domestic refiners rather than imported petrol, candidates must explain how the arrangement would translate into lower pump prices, how its costs would be monitored and how consumers would be protected against exploitation.
The same standard must apply to politicians promising substantial reductions in petrol prices without restoring subsidy. They must explain the economic assumptions behind their promises and identify the practical measures that would make such reductions possible.

Nigerians have heard enough political assurances. What they need now are workable proposals supported by transparent calculations.

GOVERNMENT MUST ACCOUNT FOR THE SACRIFICES OF NIGERIANS
The Federal Government cannot reasonably expect citizens to accept the burden of subsidy removal indefinitely without demanding a clear account of its benefits.

If the reform has freed substantial resources for public investment, Nigerians deserve to know how much has been saved, how those resources have been distributed among the different tiers of government and what measurable improvements have resulted.

How much has gone into public transportation, healthcare, education, road construction, agricultural development and social welfare?
What proportion has reached the poorest households? How many jobs have been created through programmes funded by the additional resources? What concrete measures have been introduced to reduce the cost of doing business?
These are legitimate questions that should not be dismissed as political opposition.

In August 2026, the Federal Government organised a briefing on the savings associated with subsidy removal, reflecting the importance of public accountability in the reform process. Such disclosures should become a regular practice, with clear records that allow citizens to assess how the resources are being used.

Government should publish periodic, independently verifiable reports detailing the revenue implications of the policy, the allocation of the proceeds and the outcomes of funded projects.
State governments and local government authorities must also demonstrate how the additional resources available to them have improved public services and living conditions.

Without this transparency, the public will continue to question whether the sacrifices demanded of citizens are producing benefits commensurate with the hardship endured.

THE DANGER OF ELECTION-TIME POPULISM
Fuel subsidy is particularly attractive to politicians because its effects are immediately visible in the daily lives of voters.

A promise to reduce petrol prices appeals directly to commuters, transport operators, traders, farmers and manufacturers. It is therefore understandable that candidates would seek to make the issue a major part of their campaigns.

But the danger arises when political parties focus on the immediate popularity of their promises without explaining the financial obligations those promises would create.
Universal fuel subsidies can be expensive, and poorly designed arrangements can encourage smuggling, diversion of petroleum products, fraudulent claims and benefits that are not fairly distributed.

If subsidy is restored without adequate safeguards, the government could find itself committing public resources to a programme that is difficult to sustain. The resulting fiscal pressure could undermine investment in essential services and create further economic problems.

Yet the opposite extreme is equally troubling. Government cannot simply invoke fiscal discipline while overlooking the suffering of citizens who can no longer comfortably afford transportation and basic necessities.

The real challenge is to reconcile responsible public spending with the obligation to protect the population.
This requires more than a choice between restoring the old subsidy system and leaving consumers entirely exposed to price fluctuations.
Government can consider targeted transport assistance, support for vulnerable households, affordable mass transit, reliable public infrastructure and carefully monitored interventions that provide relief without creating an uncontrolled financial burden.

Such measures must be transparent, properly funded and evaluated according to their actual impact.
The 2027 election campaign should not become a contest in which candidates compete to make the most attractive promises while leaving the public to discover their costs later.

DOMESTIC REFINING IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC GUARANTEE OF CHEAP PETROL
Nigeria’s expanding domestic refining capacity offers an important opportunity to reduce dependence on imported petroleum products and strengthen the country’s energy security.
However, the existence of domestic refineries does not automatically guarantee cheap petrol.

Prices remain influenced by crude oil costs, exchange rates, refining expenses, distribution charges and other market conditions. Domestic production may reduce certain costs and supply risks, but the extent of the benefits depends on the economics of production and the structure of the market.

Consequently, politicians promising dramatic reductions in petrol prices must explain how those reductions would be achieved.

If government intends to support local refiners through preferential crude-oil arrangements or other incentives, it must demonstrate how consumers will benefit and how the cost of such support will be accounted for.

Similarly, the government should promote fair competition, transparent pricing practices, reliable petroleum supply and investments that improve the efficiency of the energy sector.

Over the longer term, greater investment in public transportation, compressed natural gas, renewable energy and more efficient transport systems could reduce the country’s vulnerability to petrol-price shocks.

The objective should be to build an energy system that supports economic development while reducing the pressure that fuel costs place on households and businesses.

THE PEOPLE MUST COME BEFORE POLITICAL CALCULATIONS
The most troubling aspect of the subsidy debate is the risk that the welfare of Nigerians will become secondary to the political ambitions of those seeking office.

Citizens should not have to endure years of economic hardship only to become the subjects of competing promises whenever elections approach.

The responsibility of government is continuous. It does not begin when campaigns commence, and it does not end when election results are announced.

The Federal Government must show that its economic reforms are improving the lives of citizens. Opposition parties must demonstrate that their alternatives are practical, affordable and sustainable. Neither side should be allowed to escape scrutiny.

The media, labour unions, civil society organisations, professional bodies and other stakeholders should intensify efforts to ensure that the subsidy debate is informed by evidence rather than political emotion.

Candidates should be asked to publish their energy policies, identify their funding sources, explain the likely effects on public finances and specify the measures they would introduce to protect vulnerable Nigerians.

They should also provide clear timelines and measurable targets against which their promises can be assessed.
Voters, for their part, must look beyond campaign slogans and demand explanations that address both immediate relief and long-term economic stability.

CONCLUSION: THE TIME FOR EXCUSES AND EMPTY PROMISES IS OVER

As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, the politics of fuel subsidy presents an important test of political responsibility and economic leadership.
The removal of subsidy has imposed considerable hardship on many Nigerians, while the argument for fiscal sustainability remains an important consideration in managing public resources. Neither reality should be ignored.

What the country needs is a transparent and practical policy that addresses the cost of energy, protects vulnerable households, supports productive businesses and prevents public resources from being wasted.

The government must account for the benefits of its reforms and demonstrate how the savings are improving public welfare. Politicians proposing a return to subsidy must explain how they will fund it without creating another unsustainable burden. Those promising cheaper petrol through alternative arrangements must show how their plans will work in practice.
The Independent National Electoral Commission, media organisations and civil society groups should ensure that fuel pricing receives serious attention during public debates and candidate interviews. Nigerians must be given the opportunity to scrutinise the policies of those seeking their mandate.
The 2027 elections must not become another occasion for politicians to purchase public sympathy with promises they cannot fulfil. The welfare of Nigerians is too important to be reduced to an election slogan.
Ultimately, the success of any administration should be measured by whether citizens can afford to travel to work, transport their goods to market, feed their families and operate their businesses without being overwhelmed by the cost of energy.
Nigeria needs leaders who can combine economic discipline with compassion, public accountability with practical action, and political ambition with a genuine commitment to the common good.
Fuel subsidy must cease to be a weapon in the struggle for political power and become part of an honest national conversation about affordability, economic justice and responsible governance. Nigerians have made sacrifices. They now deserve answers, measurable results and policies that improve their lives.

The nation is still mourning the 25 people who died in the Nigerian Air Force aircraft crash at Igbokoda, Ondo State, even as three days official mourning declared by the federal government has elapsed. Grief would continue to remain in the homes of victims’ families, colleagues, friends, and well-wishers.

That, being duly acknowledged, there is a critical question that must be addressed and situated appropriately, so as not to be caught in the labyrinth of unprofessional and global embarrassment going forward. And this, the government cannot afford to ignore: How did an aircraft that ultimately had 25 people on board become an aircraft carrying 32 in the official public information chain?

On Monday, October 5, after Nigerian Air Force aircraft NAF 931 lost contact with Air Traffic Control at about 9:13 a.m. while flying from Benin to Lagos, the Aviation Minister, Festus Keyamo, announced that preliminary information indicated 25 passengers and seven crew members, totaling 32 people were aboard, even as he clarified that the control and regulation of military aircraft were outside the authority of the Ministry of Aviation and the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority.

But as much as that clarification was correct yet the public had been misinformed as the information lacked verification and factuality. It also entered the wider government communication system and was subsequently echoed at the Presidential level.

Then, on Tuesday, the Nigerian Air Force provided the verified figure to be 20 passengers and five crew members making 25 people in all. The Service also confirmed that there were no survivors and released the identities of those aboard. That is not a trivial discrepancy
as a difference of seven human beings
in an aircraft disaster represents a human being, a family, a friend, a colleague and a community.

It is important to note that the global community has moved beyond “say something first”. International aviation practice recognises that speed matters after an accident but accuracy matters the most.

The International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) guidance on accident communication says authorities should provide information that is “verified, timely, consistent, transparent and truthful”, while avoiding speculation. It also recommends clearly identifying who communicates with government officials, families, the media and other stakeholders.

And that is the lesson Nigeria should take seriously. Crisis communication is not a race to see which government institution speaks first. It is a system for ensuring that the right institution speaks with the right information at the right time.

ICAO’s guidance further recommends consistency of information across stakeholder groups so that different government channels do not create conflicting versions of the same event.
And this principle was precisely what was missing in the 32-versus-25 episode.

This is not to turn the tragic occurrence against the Aviation Minister rather to situate what the information architecture should be at various material occurrences.

The information was made available to him through the civil aviation system. Air Traffic Control knew when contact with the aircraft was lost and the Ministry had a legitimate role in reporting that development and supporting the emergency response.

There is no doubt that civilian agencies can provide essential assistance, such as; track the aircraft, provide radar information, coordinate emergency services and support search-and-rescue operations, but assistance is not ownership, and access to one part of the information chain does not confer authority over the entire chain.

The aircraft in question belongs to the Nigerian Air Force, including its manifest, crew records, passenger records, mission details and operational status. Hence, all these should have ultimately be verified by the Nigerian Air Force before they become definitive government facts.

Another lesson that Nigeria must learn is that the first constituency in an aviation tragedy is not the television audience, social media, nor political leadership, but the families of victims.

ICAO has repeatedly emphasised the importance of timely, accurate and compassionate communication with victims’ families. Its current framework places growing emphasis on national family-assistance systems and accurate information throughout the aftermath of an accident. This is why casualty figures must be treated with extraordinary care.

Imagine a family member seeing an official government statement saying that 32 people were aboard an aircraft and desperately wondering whether their relative was among them.

Imagine another family being told that their loved one was on the aircraft, only to discover later that the manifest had been wrong.

Imagine the emotional consequences of government being unable to provide one authoritative answer about who was actually on its own aircraft.
That is beyond public-relations but a humanitarian problem.

The Service was right not to rush into announcing fatalities while search-and-rescue operations were continuing. It was equally right to exercise caution before releasing names, particularly where next-of-kin notification was concerned.

Modern aviation safety increasingly recognises that public confidence depends not only on the eventual investigation but also on how information is managed immediately after an accident.

ICAO’s recent guidance stresses the need for timely, verified factual information and measures to strengthen confidence in accident investigations.

The United Kingdom, for example, has a formal military aviation safety structure through its Defence Safety Authority and Service Inquiry system, with investigations intended not merely to establish what happened but to produce recommendations that improve defence safety.

Nigeria should be moving in the same direction of clear command responsibility, professional investigation, disciplined communication and lessons that are actually implemented.

The tragedy must therefore not end with a condolence register, a national mourning period and promises of investigation. There must be a transparent examination of what happened, including the aircraft’s technical condition, maintenance history, operational circumstances, crew factors, weather, flight procedures, air traffic information, emergency response and every other relevant factor.

The difference between 32 and 25 should therefore not become another fleeting controversy that disappears from public attention.

It should become a lesson in how a serious government communicates during a national emergency.

We should not wait for another aircraft to disappear from radar before establishing who speaks, what they can say, how quickly they must say it, and how information is verified.

We, at Disclosure News, suggest that the government set up a military aviation crisis-communication protocol that can be activated immediately after an accident.

It should designate the lead spokesperson; establish verification procedures for manifests and casualty figures; create a single government information desk; protect next-of-kin notification; provide scheduled updates; distinguish confirmed facts from preliminary information; and ensure that every government institution communicates the same verified facts.

The Nigerian Air Force, for its part, must ensure that it can rapidly reconcile its aircraft manifest and assert information leadership when an accident involving its aircraft occurs.

The Presidency and other ministries must equally resist the temptation to amplify preliminary information simply because it is available, because in a crisis, being first is not the same as being right.