By Lawan Musa Danlami (Baba Lawan)
October 3, 2026
When the price of an essential commodity rises sharply, the real test of government is not simply how well it explains the causes of the crisis, but how effectively it protects citizens from bearing its full burden.
That question has again come into focus in Germany, where the government has introduced a temporary reduction in energy taxation to cushion motorists from the consequences of the current energy shock.
According to the German automobile association ADAC, Germany's fuel prices had already reached very high levels before the latest intervention. From October 1, the country's energy-tax reduction was expected to lower petrol and diesel prices by about 16.7 cents per litre, with the ADAC calling for the full benefit to reach consumers.
The German example is particularly interesting because the government is not pretending that the international energy crisis does not exist. Rather, it is using fiscal policy to reduce the immediate pressure on citizens.
This does not mean that Germany has eliminated the problem. Nor does a fuel subsidy automatically mean that every citizen benefits equally. Indeed, Germany itself has faced criticism over whether fuel relief sufficiently targets poorer households.
Economist Clemens Fuest of the Ifo Institute,
for example, argued that a general fuel discount could disproportionately benefit people who drive frequently and own larger vehicles.
That criticism is important.
A good social policy must not only spend public money; it must ask who receives the benefit, how much they receive and whether the intervention reaches those who need it most.
Europe And The Principle Of Cushioning Citizens
Germany is not an isolated example.
The European Commission reported in May 2026 that EU member states had adopted a range of measures to reduce the social and economic effects of high energy prices. These included fuel-tax and excise-duty reductions, targeted income support, energy vouchers, and other forms of assistance to households and businesses.
The Commission estimated that measures adopted or credibly announced by early May carried a budgetary cost of about €14.5 billion in 2026. It also noted that countries were using different combinations of price reductions and direct income support.
Lithuania, for example, temporarily reduced excise duties and released petroleum reserves in response to the energy shock, while also introducing other measures intended to reduce the pressure on consumers.
The lesson is not that Nigeria should copy Germany, Lithuania or any other European country mechanically.
The lesson is that governments have different policy instruments available when extraordinary economic pressure threatens household welfare.
Subsidies, tax reductions, targeted cash transfers, food assistance, transport support and other interventions can all be considered, depending on a country's fiscal capacity and economic circumstances.
The European Commission itself has cautioned that support should ideally be temporary, timely and better targeted at vulnerable households, because broad subsidies can be expensive and may encourage continued consumption of expensive imported energy.
That is a reasonable warning for Nigeria too.
But What About The Nigerian Family?
This is where the discussion becomes much more painful.
For millions of Nigerian families, the issue is not merely whether petrol has become expensive enough to make driving uncomfortable.
The deeper question is whether a family can afford food, transportation, rent, medicine and school expenses at the same time.
When household income is consumed by food and transportation, every increase in the price of petrol eventually finds its way into the price of almost everything else: transportation, agricultural production, distribution, manufactured goods and services.
The consequence is that the ordinary Nigerian does not experience an energy crisis as an abstract economic statistic.
He experiences it at the market.
She experiences it at the kitchen.
The farmer experiences it through the cost of transporting fertiliser and farm produce.
The worker experiences it through transportation costs.
And the unemployed graduate experiences it through a shrinking ability to survive while searching for work.
This is why the debate about economic reform must never become exclusively a debate about government revenue, fiscal balances or macroeconomic indicators.
The final measure of an economy is also the condition of the household.
A country may record improvements in government revenue while families continue to struggle with food and basic necessities. Both realities can exist simultaneously.
The Islamic Governance Question
There is also an important historical lesson within the Islamic tradition.
During the severe famine known as the Year of Ramada in the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, historical studies describe a government response that included mobilising food supplies from other regions, organising distribution and providing assistance to people affected by the famine. Umar himself reportedly shared the hardship of the population rather than living separately from it.
The significance of the story is not simply that food was distributed.
It is the principle behind the response: when society is facing extraordinary hardship, public authority has a responsibility to respond to the suffering of the people.
Umar's administration reportedly brought food from Egypt and Iraq and organised its distribution during the famine. Some historical accounts also describe state-funded meals for people who came to Madinah seeking relief.
That historical experience offers an important moral question for contemporary governance:
What is the purpose of public wealth if it cannot provide relief when citizens are facing exceptional hardship?
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz And The Meaning Of Public Wealth
The example of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz provides another dimension.
Historical studies of his administration emphasise his efforts to restore public property to the treasury, restrain waste and corruption, and use public resources for the welfare of society. One academic study notes that he began with himself and his family and returned public rights and properties to the Bayt al-Mal.
Other historical accounts describe a period in which welfare measures became so extensive that administrators reportedly struggled to find poor people eligible to receive zakat in some areas. These reports should be treated as historical accounts rather than modern statistical measurements, but they illustrate the ideal of a government attempting to make people economically self-sufficient rather than permanently dependent on assistance.
This distinction is crucial.
The objective of social intervention should not merely be to keep people alive from one month to another.
The greater objective should be to restore productive capacity, dignity and economic independence.
Food assistance may save a family today.
Agricultural investment can help that family produce tomorrow.
Affordable transport may reduce the cost of living today.
Reliable electricity can create employment and businesses for years.
A cash transfer can provide temporary relief.
A functioning economy can provide sustainable income.
Nigeria Needs More Than The Subsidy Argument
Therefore, the Nigerian debate should move beyond the simplistic question of whether subsidy is good or bad.
The more important questions are:
Who is being protected?
How much relief reaches the poorest households?
How much public money is being spent?
Can the government afford the intervention?
Is the policy temporary or sustainable?
Does it reduce poverty or merely postpone hardship? Does it encourage production or dependence?
These are the questions that should guide public policy.
Nigeria is an oil-producing country, yet Nigerians still face the paradox of possessing a major natural resource while struggling with the cost of the petroleum products required to move people, goods and agricultural produce.
That paradox deserves serious national examination.
Europe's response to the current energy crisis demonstrates that even governments operating under difficult international circumstances can deploy tax relief, direct assistance and other interventions to cushion citizens. The experience of Umar ibn al-Khattab reminds us of the moral responsibility of government during extraordinary hardship.
The experience associated with Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz reminds us that public wealth must be protected from waste and directed toward building a society in which people can become self-sufficient.
Nigeria therefore needs a policy framework that combines economic discipline with social protection. The answer is neither unlimited subsidy nor unlimited austerity.
It is a government capable of protecting vulnerable citizens while simultaneously investing in agriculture, energy, transportation, employment, education and productive enterprise. Because the ultimate purpose of economic policy is not to make government statistics look impressive. It is to make ordinary people's lives more secure, productive and dignified.
ANN Politics
Tags
Opinion