By Nze David N. Ugwu
There is a Nigerian expression that captures the spectacle of someone struggling to find his feet while attempting a difficult task. He is said to be fumbling and wombling. The expression evokes an image of uncertainty, confusion and movements that suggest an individual has yet to master the demands of the assignment before him. Yet, in the unpredictable world of football, such apparent confusion can sometimes produce an unexpected victory.
Fani Amu, a former Nigerian national football coach, was once associated with the memorable expression that he was fumbling and wombling. The peculiar attraction of the story lies in the possibility that, despite the apparent confusion, a coach might still find a way to win. The American equivalent of fumbling and wombling is flip-flopping, a term used to describe the tendency to change positions repeatedly, sometimes without convincing explanations.
There is, however, an important distinction between a football coach and a government. A coach may stumble through a match and still emerge victorious. A government cannot indefinitely substitute improvisation for strategy and expect citizens to applaud merely because it has survived another political season.
For much of the past three and a half years, the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) has faced criticism over policy inconsistency, economic uncertainty and the management of the consequences of its decisions. From petrol subsidy removal to foreign-exchange reforms, from the floating of the naira to attempts to cushion the rising cost of living, Nigerians have experienced a period of significant economic adjustment.
The recent controversy surrounding petrol discounts has added another dimension to this debate. It raises a fundamental question: is the government pursuing a coherent economic strategy, adjusting its policies in response to new evidence, or repeatedly improvising under pressure?
The answer requires an objective assessment of both the justification for the government’s reforms and the weaknesses in their implementation.
The Promise and Pain of Subsidy Removal
On May 29, 2023, President Tinubu declared in his inaugural address that the petrol subsidy was gone. The announcement marked a decisive departure from a system that had consumed substantial public resources for years.
The decision was not without economic justification. Successive Nigerian administrations had struggled with the fiscal burden of subsidizing petrol, while concerns persisted about inefficiency, smuggling, questionable claims and the extent to which the benefits reached the poorest citizens. Resources devoted to keeping petrol prices artificially low could potentially have been redirected towards infrastructure, healthcare, education, social protection and other development priorities.
Nigeria could not indefinitely ignore the opportunity costs of maintaining an expensive subsidy regime. The incoming administration was therefore entitled to argue that reform was necessary to improve fiscal sustainability and reduce distortions in the economy.
But a sound policy objective does not automatically guarantee a sound implementation strategy.
Petrol occupies a strategic position in Nigeria’s economic life. Its price affects transportation, agriculture, food distribution, manufacturing and the operating costs of small businesses. In a country where road transport dominates the movement of people and goods, an increase in petrol prices quickly spreads through the economy.
The consequences are not confined to motorists. A farmer transporting produce to market, a trader distributing food, a commercial driver supporting a family and a small business owner operating a petrol-powered generator all feel the effects.
These consequences were foreseeable. The central question was therefore not simply whether the subsidy should be removed, but how the government would manage the transition and protect vulnerable Nigerians from its immediate effects.
The removal of the subsidy coincided with other economic pressures, including exchange-rate adjustments, rising inflation and longstanding structural weaknesses. Nigeria’s dependence on imported inputs, inadequate infrastructure, insecurity affecting agricultural production and weaknesses in domestic productivity all contributed to the cost-of-living crisis.
It would be inaccurate to attribute every economic difficulty to subsidy removal alone. Nevertheless, the sudden increase in petrol prices intensified the pressures confronting households and businesses.
For many Nigerians, the government’s promise of future economic benefits offered little immediate comfort. Families still had to buy food, pay transport fares, meet school expenses and keep businesses running.
The administration could reasonably argue that the old arrangement was unsustainable. Citizens could equally reasonably ask why a reform of such magnitude was not accompanied by more effective protective measures.
Both positions deserve consideration.
The real test of leadership was not merely the courage to announce subsidy removal. It was the competence to manage its consequences.
When Reform Becomes Improvisation
Supporters of the Tinubu administration regard its willingness to confront difficult economic problems as evidence of political courage. They argue that previous governments postponed necessary reforms because they feared the immediate political consequences.
There is merit in this argument. Nigeria inherited serious economic challenges, and no responsible assessment should pretend that decades of structural weaknesses could be resolved within a few months. Some reforms impose short-term costs before their potential benefits become visible.
However, inherited problems cannot become a permanent excuse for shortcomings in implementation.
A government must be judged not only by the difficulties it inherits but also by the quality of its response. Once it decides to undertake a major reform, it assumes responsibility for preparing the institutions, communication systems and protective measures required to make the reform work.
The criticism of the Tinubu administration is not simply that it removed the petrol subsidy. It is that the transition has exposed weaknesses in policy coordination, public communication and the management of economic expectations.
The government has announced or introduced measures intended to cushion the effects of its reforms, including cash-transfer arrangements and transport-related interventions. Yet the adequacy, reach and effectiveness of such measures remain important questions for public scrutiny.
A relief program that fails to reach its intended beneficiaries cannot provide meaningful protection. Promised fiscal savings cannot feed a family today. And an appeal for patience becomes less persuasive when citizens cannot identify clear evidence that their sacrifices are producing results.
This is where the expression fumbling and wombling becomes relevant. It describes not necessarily the absence of an objective, but uncertainty in the process of pursuing it.
A government may know where it wants to go and still demonstrate inadequate preparation for the journey.
From Subsidy Removal to Petrol Discount
The emergence of petrol discounts has naturally prompted questions about the consistency of the government’s policy direction. If the administration declared that the subsidy was gone, why are discounted petrol prices now attracting attention?
The answer depends on the nature of the discounts.
A reduction in the pump price offered by a petroleum marketer is not automatically a restoration of the former subsidy. Discounts may result from commercial competition, lower procurement costs, reduced distribution expenses, improved supply or promotional arrangements.
A government-funded concession designed to bridge the difference between the market price and the amount consumers pay would be a different matter. Such an arrangement would raise questions about public expenditure, the beneficiaries of the intervention and whether the government was recreating some of the fiscal obligations it had sought to eliminate.
The distinction is essential to an objective assessment.
Nigerians should not reject cheaper petrol merely because it follows a policy of subsidy removal. If discounts reflect genuine competition, improved efficiency or lower supply costs, they could represent a welcome development for consumers.
The objective of economic reform should be to improve the economy and the welfare of citizens, not to defend an earlier policy declaration regardless of its consequences.
Nevertheless, the political symbolism of the development cannot be ignored. Subsidy removal was presented as a decisive break with a costly system of government price intervention. Any subsequent arrangement that appears to reverse that direction naturally invites questions.
If the discounts are commercially driven, the government should explain how they fit into the new petroleum market. If they involve public funding or government concessions, the fiscal implications should be disclosed. If they are temporary measures intended to relieve consumers, their duration and objectives should be clearly stated.
The issue is transparency.
Citizens should not have to guess whether a new development represents a commercial adjustment, temporary relief or a fundamental change in economic policy.
A government that demands confidence in its reforms must explain its decisions sufficiently to enable the public to understand their purpose and implications.
Otherwise, even a potentially sensible adjustment may be interpreted as another instance of political flip-flopping.
The Difference Between Flexibility and Flip-Flopping
Consistency is important in government, but consistency should not be confused with rigidity. A government that refuses to modify a failing policy simply to avoid appearing inconsistent is demonstrating stubbornness rather than leadership.
Economic conditions change. New evidence emerges. Markets respond in unexpected ways. Policies sometimes produce consequences different from those anticipated.
Responsible governments must therefore be prepared to learn and adapt.
If a petrol pricing arrangement creates excessive hardship, the government should examine the evidence and consider appropriate interventions. If a relief program fails to reach vulnerable households, it should be redesigned. If market reforms produce unintended consequences, those consequences should be addressed.
Such adjustments are not necessarily evidence of failure. They may demonstrate responsiveness and sound judgment.
The critical distinction lies in how the adjustments are made.
A policy revision supported by reliable data, transparent reasoning and clearly stated objectives is fundamentally different from a sudden reversal made under political pressure without adequate explanation.
The former demonstrates adaptive leadership. The latter suggests reactive government.
This distinction is especially important in a democracy, where public trust is essential to the implementation of difficult reforms. Citizens do not expect governments to be infallible. They do expect them to acknowledge mistakes, explain changes and demonstrate that decisions are guided by the public interest rather than political expediency.
The Tinubu administration would strengthen its credibility by explaining more clearly how its economic policies relate to one another, what has changed since the original decisions were made, and how the government intends to measure progress.
Reform is a process, not a slogan.
The Political Cost of Economic Hardship
Economic policy does not operate in a political vacuum. Its consequences shape public attitudes towards government, influence electoral behavior and determine the level of confidence citizens place in their leaders.
In Nigeria, the cost of living has become a major source of anxiety. Food, transportation, electricity, housing and healthcare compete for increasingly stretched household incomes.
The burden is unevenly distributed. Workers whose salaries have not kept pace with inflation have seen their purchasing power decline. Small businesses face rising operating costs. Pensioners and other people living on relatively fixed incomes have limited opportunities to increase their earnings. Informal-sector workers often lack the protections available to some formal-sector employees.
For these Nigerians, macroeconomic explanations can seem distant from the immediate challenge of meeting basic needs.
Government officials may point to the need to correct economic distortions, improve revenue, attract investment and stabilize the economy. These objectives are important, but their credibility depends partly on whether citizens can see a plausible connection between today’s sacrifices and tomorrow’s improvements.
Public confidence becomes fragile when the costs of reform are immediate but the benefits remain uncertain or appear concentrated among a privileged minority.
The perception that ordinary Nigerians are being asked to sacrifice while political officeholders continue to enjoy expensive lifestyles can weaken support for otherwise necessary reforms.
This is not merely a public-relations problem. It is a question of political legitimacy.
Economic reform requires a measure of public cooperation, particularly when the transition is painful. That cooperation becomes difficult to sustain when citizens believe that government is insensitive to their circumstances or that promised benefits are not being delivered.
The administration must therefore recognize that public patience is not unlimited. It must be earned through visible progress, credible communication and evidence that the sacrifices demanded of citizens are producing meaningful results.
What the Government Must Do Differently
The first requirement is a coherent economic communication strategy. Major policy changes should be explained clearly, including their objectives, likely consequences, protective measures and expected results. Where urgent action prevents extensive advance consultation, the government should provide a convincing explanation and establish mechanisms for reviewing the consequences.
The second requirement is transparency in the management of subsidy-related fiscal savings. If the principal justification for ending the subsidy was to release resources for national development, citizens should be able to assess how those resources are being used.
Credible reporting should identify the savings achieved, the expenditure financed from those savings and the projects or programs that have benefited. Public institutions and independent oversight bodies should be able to scrutinize the figures.
The third requirement is more effective protection for vulnerable households. Relief measures must be properly targeted, adequately funded and evaluated. Improving public transportation, supporting agricultural production, strengthening food distribution and expanding access to reliable electricity can help reduce the indirect costs associated with expensive petrol.
Improved domestic refining, storage and distribution can also strengthen the resilience of petroleum supply, although domestic production alone cannot eliminate every factor influencing pump prices.
These measures will not instantly resolve Nigeria’s economic problems. They would, however, demonstrate that the government understands the interconnected nature of those problems and is pursuing a coordinated response.
The fourth requirement is policy consistency anchored in clear objectives. The government should distinguish between adjustments that correct earlier mistakes, temporary interventions designed to address exceptional circumstances and fundamental changes in economic direction.
Finally, fiscal discipline must apply to government itself. Wasteful spending, poorly justified public expenditure and inadequate accountability weaken the moral authority of any administration demanding sacrifices from citizens.
A government cannot credibly insist that Nigerians must endure hardship in the national interest while appearing unwilling to scrutinize its own spending priorities.
The credibility of reform depends not only on what citizens are asked to surrender but also on what their leaders are prepared to change about the conduct of government.
Beyond the Politics of Announcements
One weakness of Nigeria’s political culture is the tendency to celebrate announcements as if they were equivalent to achievements. A policy is unveiled, a program is launched and a declaration is made. The public is then expected to regard the event itself as evidence of progress.
But the true measure of public policy is not the drama of its announcement. It is the quality of its implementation and the difference it makes to people’s lives.
The removal of a subsidy is a fiscal and administrative decision. Whether it contributes to a more productive, equitable and prosperous economy depends on what follows.
Can the government use the resulting fiscal space to improve infrastructure? Can it create conditions that encourage productive investment? Can it improve public services, strengthen domestic production and reduce the cost of doing business? Can it protect vulnerable citizens while maintaining a credible economic framework?
These are the questions that should determine whether subsidy removal is ultimately judged a success.
The government must recognize that economic outcomes depend on more than presidential declarations. Effective implementation requires coordination among ministries, departments and agencies, state governments, regulators and other institutions. It requires reliable data, competent administration and a willingness to confront vested interests.
Where institutions are weak, even well-designed policies may fail. Where responsibilities are fragmented, public programs may be implemented inconsistently. Where official communication is disconnected from practical delivery, public confidence can disappear before the intended benefits arrive.
Nigeria needs a government that combines strategic direction with operational competence. It needs leaders who understand that announcing a difficult policy is only the beginning of their responsibility.
The Fani Amu Test
The comparison with Fani Amu brings us back to the central argument. A football coach who fumbles and wombles but eventually wins may be remembered for the victory rather than the confusion that preceded it. In governance, however, the equivalent of the final score is more complicated.
It includes the purchasing power of citizens, the quality of public services, the availability of decent jobs, the stability of the economy, the condition of infrastructure and the confidence of businesses to invest.
A government may make mistakes and still succeed if it acknowledges them, learns from them and produces measurable improvements. It may revise a policy and still demonstrate good judgment if the revision is supported by evidence and serves the public interest.
Conversely, a government may maintain the appearance of consistency while presiding over worsening outcomes. Refusing to admit mistakes is not a sign of strength, just as changing a policy is not necessarily a sign of weakness.
The real test is whether the government can translate its intentions into results.
For the Tinubu administration, subsidy removal was presented as a defining act of economic reform. Its success must therefore be assessed against the objectives used to justify it: improved fiscal sustainability, more efficient public spending, stronger economic performance and better living conditions over time.
The emergence of petrol discounts, depending on their precise nature and funding, may represent a welcome market development, a legitimate temporary intervention or an arrangement requiring further explanation. What it should not become is another episode in which a major policy development is announced without sufficient clarity about its purpose and implications.
The government has an opportunity to turn this controversy into a demonstration of better governance. It can clarify the distinction between commercial discounts and publicly funded subsidies, explain the principles guiding petrol pricing, disclose how subsidy-related savings are being used and show how its policies are intended to protect consumers without recreating the weaknesses of the former regime.
It should also resist the temptation to equate criticism with hostility to reform. Nigerians who question the implementation of subsidy removal are not necessarily defending the old system. Many are asking a more fundamental question: if reform is intended to improve the country’s economic future, what is being done to ensure that ordinary people can survive the transition?
That question deserves a serious answer.
The Verdict Is Not Yet Final
It would be premature to conclude that every element of the Tinubu administration’s economic program has failed. Nigeria’s economic problems are longstanding, complex and deeply interconnected. Some reforms may produce benefits that take time to materialize, while others may require modification before delivering the intended results.
Equally, it would be unreasonable to demand that citizens suspend judgment indefinitely while waiting for promised improvements. A government that seeks public patience must demonstrate progress and explain setbacks honestly.
The administration still has an opportunity to improve its performance and rebuild confidence. But that will require more than new announcements. It will require better planning, clearer communication, disciplined implementation and greater sensitivity to the economic realities confronting ordinary Nigerians.
From petrol subsidy removal to petrol discount, the central issue is not simply whether the government has changed its position. It is whether it has developed a coherent strategy for achieving its stated objectives while managing the consequences for the people it governs.
Fani Amu’s fumbling and wombling remains a memorable expression because football allows the possibility of a dramatic recovery before the final whistle. Governance is less forgiving. Families cannot postpone meals until the economy improves. Businesses cannot indefinitely absorb rising costs while waiting for policy certainty. Young people cannot suspend their search for employment because the benefits of reform are expected in the future.
The government must therefore turn economic reform into tangible public benefit. It must demonstrate that subsidy removal was not merely a bold announcement, that subsequent adjustments are not products of confusion, and that the sacrifices demanded of Nigerians are connected to a credible program of national renewal.
There is still time for the administration to correct mistakes, improve implementation and strengthen public confidence. But time alone will not produce that outcome. It will require a steady commitment to competent, consistent and compassionate governance.
In the final analysis, the question is not whether the APC government has fumbled and wombled. The more important question is whether it can learn from the experience and turn uncertainty into achievement.
Fani Amu may have fumbled and wombled his way to victory. For the Tinubu administration, the final whistle has not blown. But the Nigerian people are entitled to ask: when will the fumbling and wombling give way to the steady hand of competent governance?
Nze David N. Ugwu is the Managing Consultant of Knowledge Research Consult. He could be reached at [email protected] or +2348037269333.