Nigeria’s President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s latest promise is as simple as it is consequential: if fuel becomes cheaper, public-transport fares should fall.
In announcing a joint federal‒state
effort to reduce intra-state transport costs from 1 October, the President has put a necessary principle back at the centre of economic policy—the benefits of public investment must reach the people who carry the heaviest burden of the cost-of-living crisis.
That principle deserves support. But it also demands scrutiny. A declaration that cheaper fuel “must” mean cheaper fares will be meaningful only when commuters can see the savings in the fares they pay, when drivers are not pushed into losses, and when governments publish enough information to distinguish genuine relief from another unfulfilled promise.
“We have agreed that cheaper fuel should result in cheaper fares!” — President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, 27 August 2026. The President’s statement rests on a potentially powerful transition.
According to the official Presidential Initiative on Compressed Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles, more than 120,000 vehicles have been converted, while the programme reports more than 400 certified conversion centres, over 90 refuelling stations and 7,700 technicians trained.
The administration also says it is expanding conversion capacity and CNG infrastructure, alongside a longer-term move toward electric buses and other electric vehicles. CNG can reduce the fuel component of operating a commercial vehicle.
The presidential initiative reports that CNG is 40‒60 per cent cheaper per kilometre than petrol, while the President’s latest statement places the potential saving at 60‒80 per cent.
These figures should be treated as policy claims requiring transparent, real-world verification. The saving available to a commuter is not the same as the saving available to a vehicle owner.
The final fare also reflects vehicle financing, maintenance, tyres, labour, route charges, taxes, insurance, congestion, station access and the cost of downtime during conversion or
refuelling.
That distinction is crucial. If government reduces the price of fuel but leaves every other operating cost untouched, fares may not fall by the same percentage.
Conversely, if operators receive substantial fuel savings and fares remain unchanged, the transition
becomes a private windfall rather than a public-interest intervention.
The test must therefore be neither political rhetoric nor arbitrary fare fixing. It must be a published calculation of the cost per passenger-kilometre before and after conversion. Nigeria’s commuters have already endured a punishing transport burden.
The National Bureau of Statistics recorded an average intra-city bus fare of ₦899.31 in September 2024, up 3.45 per cent from the previous month. The average intercity bus fare stood at ₦7,175.06, a 21.26 per cent increase over September 2023.
Those figures are not current 2026 measurements, but they establish the direction of the pressure that households have faced and underline why transport relief cannot be postponed indefinitely.
The states are right to occupy the front line. Intra-state transport is where most Nigerians experience the price of fuel most directly, and state governments control much of the regulatory environment for buses, tricycles, taxis and route operations.
Their responsibility, however, is broader than announcing a lower fare. They must ensure that the reduction is enforceable, geographically fair and durable.
A fare cut in a state capital that does not reach peri-urban communities, rural corridors and low-income neighbour- hoods would leave the people most in need of relief behind.
The proposed federal‒state committee should therefore publish a clear implementation framework.
Every state should establish route-level baseline fares, disclose the assumptions used to calculate reductions, and create a public mechanism for reporting non- compliance.
The framework should also protect drivers from coercive enforcement. An
operator who cannot cover legitimate costs will either withdraw service, cut maintenance or recover the loss through informal charges. None of those outcomes serves commuters.
The proposed federal–state committee should publish a clear implementation framework.
Affordability must be the first test: commuters should see measurable reduction in fares on ordinary intra-state routes, not merely a reduction in operators’ fuel costs.
Transparency is equally important, requiring governments to publish baseline fares, fuel-price assumptions, conversion costs and route-by-route targets. Coverage must extend beyond major cities to include tricycle, minibus and rural transport users.
Safety must be guaranteed through certified kits, accredited installers, regular inspection, emergency-response systems and firm action against unsafe conversions.
Fairness requires protection for both passengers and drivers, with no informal levies that erase the savings.
Accountability demands monthly reporting, independent audits and a complaints process that commuters can actually use.
While safety must remain non- negotiable. CNG is not a magic fuel, and a rapid expansion of stations and conversions will increase the importance of standards, inspection and emergency preparedness.
The official initiative says its kits are certified and installed by accredited centres. That claim should be backed by publicly accessible registers, routine
inspection data and penalties for unapproved installations.
A cheaper journey is not a public benefit if it is purchased at the price of preventable risk. Nor should CNG be mistaken for the destination of Nigeria’s clean-energy journey.
It is better understood as a bridge that can reduce immediate fuel costs and some transport emissions while the country develops the power, financing and charging systems required for wider electrification.
Nigeria’s Energy Transition Plan identifies passenger vehicles as responsible for about 72 per cent of transport emissions in 2020 and presents low-emission technology, public transport and mode-shifting as central to decarbonisation.
Its own analysis recognises barriers that include high electric-vehicle costs, inadequate charging infrastructure, limited public transport and skills shortages.
Electric mobility therefore requires more than importing buses and installing chargers. It.requires reliable electricity, workable battery-replacement, charging models, concessional finance, technical training, public procurement that rewards performance over headline numbers.
The World Bank notes that electric buses can cost nearly 60 per.cent more upfront than conventional buses in some developing countries, but also shows that well-designed procurement and dedicated public-transport infrastructure can make clean systems more viable.
Nigeria should apply that lesson by buying mobility as a service, not merely vehicles as objects. The most important policy question is who captures the efficiency dividend.
If CNG lowers operating costs, the gain should be shared among commuters, drivers and the public purse in a visible formula. If electric buses eventually deliver lower lifetime costs, those savings should support affordable fares and better service rather than simply increase.concessionaires’ margins.
And if public money subsidises conversion kits, stations or fleets, the public deserves public-interest conditions in return.
The administration has made this promise before. In October 2023, President Tinubu said cheaper CNG buses would operate at a fraction of prevailing fuel prices and positively affect transport fares.
In August 2024, the Presidency said the CNG initiative could reduce transportation costs by approximately 60 per cent and announced plans for low- or no-cost conversion kits for commercial vehicles.
The latest commitment is therefore not only a new policy announcement; it is also a test of delivery against an established expectation.
The October 1 deadline should begin a process of measurable relief, not a one-day publicity.event. Governments should publish the first fare table, explain the savings methodology and report results at regular intervals.
Civil-society groups, transport unions, consumer organisations and the media should be able to check whether the promised reduction is reaching the passenger at the roadside.
Nigeria’s clean-energy transition will earn public support only if it improves daily life. Cleaner vehicles matter. Reduced emissions matter. Domestic gas utilisation, technical jobs and new infrastructure matter.
But for a worker who pays several fares every day, the immediate question is simpler: can I get to work, school, hospital or market without surrendering an ever-larger share of my income?
The President is right that cheaper fuel should mean cheaper fares. Now the federal government and the states must prove it—with numbers, with safety, with coverage and.with accountability. The success of the programme will not be measured by the number of conversion kits announced or stations commissioned.
It will be measured by the fare paid by the commuter, the income retained by the driver and the confidence restored to a public that has heard promises before.