WED OCT 14 2026-theGBJournal| The Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise (CPPE) has cautioned against interpreting the Federal Government’s recent fuel price relief initiative through the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC) as a reversal of the petroleum subsidy removal policy, describing such a position as misleading.
In a policy brief on temporary fuel price relief, the CPPE said the initiative should be understood as a temporary intervention in response to an extraordinary economic shock rather than a fundamental reversal of the government’s policy direction.
The organisation attributed the recent surge in petroleum product prices primarily to developments in the global energy market, particularly geopolitical tensions that have pushed crude oil prices above $100 per barrel.
According to the CPPE, the price surge represents an external shock affecting both oil-producing and oil-importing economies and is neither a consequence of Nigeria’s subsidy removal policy nor peculiar to the domestic economy.
”Extraordinary economic circumstances sometimes require exceptional policy responses,” CPPE said.
The think-tank notes that governments across the world have historically intervened to cushion households and businesses against severe external shocks without abandoning their underlying economic management philosophy and framework.
”The COVID-19 pandemic provided compelling evidence of this approach, even in advanced market economies. Economic policies are instruments for promoting citizens’ welfare; they should not become rigid doctrines that prevent governments from responding to exceptional social and economic difficulties.”
CPPE argued that the commercial status of NNPC does not eliminate the government’s responsibility to respond to exceptional public-interest considerations.
It said ”the NNPC remains a government-owned commercial enterprise with a diversified portfolio of petroleum-related businesses.
Its commercial mandate should ordinarily guide its operations. However, temporary and clearly defined public-interest interventions can be accommodated within an appropriate governance framework.
The critical consideration is that such interventions must be transparent, proportionate, time-bound and financially sustainable. Government ownership creates an opportunity to deploy public assets strategically in exceptional circumstances.
It does not, however, justify an indefinite departure from commercial discipline. The objective should be to reconcile commercial sustainability with legitimate public-interest obligations, rather than present both as mutually exclusive.”
Meanwhile, the CPPE notes that while the proposed fuel price relief is welcome, its limited coverage means that its aggregate impact on household welfare will also be limited.
”Government should therefore pursue broader interventions that address the principal channels through which the energy price shock affects citizens.”
It recommendations are:
-First, scale up affordable mass transit. Transportation is one of the most immediate transmission channels of higher energy prices to household expenditure and business operating costs.
Federal and state governments should prioritise high-capacity buses, including CNG, electric and other economically viable alternatives.
Targeted investment in heavily subsidised public transportation would deliver broader economic and social benefits than limited petrol price discounts.
By reducing commuting costs for millions of citizens, particularly low-income workers, students and small business operators, such interventions would provide more inclusive relief and protect household purchasing power.
They would also improve labour mobility, reduce operating costs for small enterprises and stimulate economic activity.
-Second, support agricultural productivity and food supply. Rising energy costs increase the cost of land preparation, irrigation, mechanisation, transportation, storage and food distribution. Government should provide targeted support for access to fertilisers, agrochemicals, agricultural machinery and other productivity-enhancing inputs.
The priority should be to reduce the cost of food production and distribution rather than rely predominantly on general consumption subsidies.
-Third, strengthen state and local government interventions. The burden of responding to the current economic shock should not rest exclusively on the Federal Government.
State governments have significant responsibilities for public transportation, education, healthcare, agricultural development and local economic welfare.
States could consider designated discounted fuel outlets, subsidised public transport and targeted support for vulnerable households. Such programmes must have clear eligibility rules, a time frame, transparent funding and safeguards against diversion.
-Fourth, protect the integrity of petroleum market reforms. Government should sustain market-based pricing, fair competition, transparent regulation and a trade policy framework that supports domestic refining investment.
X-@theGBJournal|email:gbj@govbusinessjournal.com|govandbusinessj@gmail.com
