Opinion

Nigeria’s inflation has turned to “greedflation” – Farooq Kperogi

Published

2 years ago

March 30, 2024

Farooq Kperogi

Nigeria’s inflation has turned to “greedflation” – Farooq Kperogi

The naira is progressively rebounding against the dollar and petrol prices have remained largely stable, but inflation keeps rising almost unstoppably. Something isn’t adding up. If the initial drivers of inflation have been relatively tamed, why isn’t this reflected in the prices of consumer goods?

The answer appears to be embedded in a new term I’ve learned: “greedflation.” It’s a neologism made by combining “greed” and “inflation” to describe a situation where inflation is driven not just by the usual economic factors like supply and demand imbalances, cost-push factors, or monetary policy, but by corporate greed and the naked exploitation of consumers by conscienceless marketers.

Of course, it needs to be acknowledged from the outset that the ongoing, totally avoidable, unprecedented inflationary pressures on the Nigerian economy were activated by the thoughtless, insensitive, neoliberal, IMF-inspired economic policies of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. There’s no way to sugarcoat it.

When you unleash a double whammy of petrol subsidy removal and a boneheaded depreciation of the naira (deceptively called “floating,” which is actually “sinking”) in a rudimentary, import-dependent economy like Nigeria’s, you inevitably open the floodgates to soul-crushing hyperinflation—such as Nigeria is going through now.

Fortunately, Tinubu seems to be seeing the light now. He has so far bucked pressures from the IMF to allow petrol prices to climb to over 1,000 naira per liter.

The government had denied Daily Trust’s September 2023 report that it had resumed paying subsidies through the backdoor to keep the current pump price of petrol. Five months later, the IMF confirmed the report.

The IMF regretted that Tinubu had “capped retail fuel and electricity prices” in order to “ease the impact of rapidly rising inflation on living conditions, thus partially reversing the fuel subsidy removal.”

The IMF doesn’t want the government to “ease the impact of rapidly rising inflation,” so it “advised the administration of President Tinubu to completely stop the payment of subsidies on petrol to free funds to run the government,” according to Daily Trust of February 14.

“Running the government” is more important to the IMF than the wellbeing of the people. People can drop dead on the streets as a consequence of starvation that subsidy removal instigates. The IMF doesn’t care. In fact, that is what it wants.

READ ALSO:

Well, Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Energy, Mrs. Olu Veŕheijen, has called the bluff of the IMF— at least for now. On March 8, in defense of partial subsidies to stop petrol prices from increasing further, she said “the government has the prerogative to maintain price stability to address social unrest. They reserve the right to intervene.

“If the government feels that it cannot continue to allow prices to fluctuate due to high inflation and exchange rates, the government reserves the right to intervene intermittently…”

The naira is also being rescued with subsidies after it drowned in the shark-infested waters of the global currency market in the aftermath of its “floating”— at the prompting of the IMF, of course. Is Tinubu finally growing some testicular fortitude against the racist, callous, anti-people bullies at the IMF? It’s too early to tell.

Well, why are the effects of the thawing of the neoliberal nonsense that Tinubu started with not showing in the prices of goods? It’s partly down to the unrestrained avarice of sellers. This phenomenon is happening even here in the United States, although it seems to be less vicious than what I am sensing in Nigeria.

The traditional term to describe the act of taking advantage of consumers by arbitrarily jacking up prices is “price gouging.”

The idea behind this concept is that companies, retailers, and street sellers (in the case of developing economies like Nigeria) take advantage of certain conditions (such as supply chain disruptions, increased demand, economic recovery phases, natural disasters, etc.) to raise prices beyond what would be justified by cost increases alone, thereby increasing their profit margins at the expense of consumers.

Nigerians experienced this phenomenon in its rawest, crudest, most rapacious form in May 2023 when petrol marketers jacked up the pump price of petrol from less than 200 naira per liter to more than 500 naira per liter—on old stock that was subsidized by taxpayers’ money—shortly after President Tinubu announced that petrol subsidies were gone for good.

Greedflation is most observable, according to experts, in industries with a few dominant players or where there is a lack of competition, such as in the building sector in Nigeria. Interestingly, the government has been able to successfully persuade cement manufacturers to bring down the prices of cement, so this fact isn’t applicable across the board.

In the informal economy, prices of goods and services remain unusually high even when the factors that propelled them in the first place are easing. So, while the government is still to blame for the current inflation, the primitive acquisitive impulses of marketeers and profiteers help to make this worse.

As I pointed out before, this isn’t exclusive to Nigeria. Here in the United States, we’re also contending with greedflation and even what has been called “shrinkflation.” Shrinkflation occurs when companies, instead of increasing the prices of goods, shrink the quantities they put in the packages of the goods, which forces consumers to buy more.

So, there is a shrinkage in quantity, but not in price, and companies that do this hope you won’t notice. In a February 11 video, President Joe Biden called shrinkflation a “rip-off” and urged companies to put a stop to it.

READ ALSO:

For example, the price of a bag of okra (as Oyinbo people call okro) at Walmart, which I regularly buy for my “swallow,” hasn’t changed, but the quantity has. Two bags used to be enough for a week’s worth of soup. Now I need four.

American consumers are fighting greedflation and shrinkflation by cutting back on spending, finding cheaper alternatives to products they habitually used, and ditching name brands for generic and cheaper brands.

This has translated to drastic declines in sales for many companies, which is forcing them to reduce the prices of their products to attract more sales.

I don’t know if Nigerian consumers have the alternatives that Americans have to cause sales declines in the products of greedy marketers, which might then force them to bring down their prices. Maybe not.

And that’s why governments in Nigeria have to be extra careful to not implement policies that can trigger inflation because prices of goods in Nigeria are like our ages: when they go up, they never come down.

Of course, there are exceptions. But, for the most part, petrol and commodity price hikes in Nigeria are often permanent. That’s how you know that “deregulation,” “liberalization,” “market forces,” etc. that Nigerian political elites influenced by right-wing economics like to spout are all scams. Any economy where prices go up and never come down for any reason is a giant swindle.

The Tinubu government that instigated this preventable downturn in the economy by playing the IMF playbook has a responsibility to help tame the monster of greedflation that’s devouring our people.

Strengthening the capacity of regulatory bodies to monitor and penalize price manipulation and collusion among businesses can help control unjustified price increases. Educating consumers about their rights and how to report unfair pricing practices can empower them to fight against greedflation—in addition to ditching exploitative marketers where they can.

The government can also borrow a leaf from governments in the West, which use tax policies to incentivize businesses to maintain reasonable price levels, especially for essential goods and services.

Fighting greedflation requires the commitment of both the government and conscientious elements in the private sector, along with the active participation of civil society, to create a more stable, fair, and competitive economic environment.

Nigeria’s inflation has turned to “greedflation” – Farooq Kperogi

Farooq Kperogi is a renowned Nigerian newspaper columnist and United States based Professor of Media Studies.

Related Topics:greedflation inflation Nigeria

Up Next

Wasiu Ayinde, Bobrisky and the Nigerian Army (1)

Don't Miss

Zenith Bank’s new MD and the burden on successful women – Farooq Kperogi

Opinion

How a Misleading Channels TV Headline Reignited Nigeria’s Religious Tensions

Published

3 days ago

December 28, 2025

Trends Admin

How a Misleading Channels TV Headline Reignited Nigeria’s Religious Tensions

In Southwestern Nigeria, the historic heartland of the Yoruba ethnic group, religious coexistence was once deeply ingrained in everyday life. Families were often religiously heterogeneous yet harmonious: a Muslim husband with a Christian wife, parents of different faiths raising children who chose Islam, Christianity or indigenous beliefs. Religious festivals were commonly celebrated together, reinforcing social cohesion.

This tradition of harmony began to erode significantly after the introduction of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in 1986 by the military government of General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, under the influence of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). SAP policies—such as reduced government spending on education and social services, trade liberalisation and currency devaluation—triggered soaring inflation, weakened purchasing power and widespread economic hardship.

As livelihoods collapsed, some Nigerians turned to corrupt practices, while others found opportunity in the rise of commercialised religious enterprises, complete with aggressive business models and intense competition for followers. This shift contributed to rising intra- and inter-religious tensions, particularly in a region once celebrated for tolerance.

The erosion of harmony in the Southwest mirrored growing religious conflicts across Nigeria, especially between Christians and Muslims. Scholars and analysts have long warned that the media plays a decisive role in either escalating or de-escalating such conflicts. In his 2006 pamphlet Voices of War: Conflict and the Role of the Media, Andrew Puddephatt observed that media outlets can either inflame violence through partisan reporting or promote peace through independence and responsible framing.

READ ALSO:

These concerns resurfaced sharply on 24 December 2025, when a mosque in Maiduguri, Borno State, was bombed during Maghrib prayers, killing worshippers. International and local media clearly identified the target as a mosque. Headlines from BBC, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, The Cable, The Guardian (Nigeria) and Daily Trust all referenced the mosque or Muslim worshippers.

However, Channels Television published the headline: “BREAKING: Many feared dead as bomb blast rocks Maiduguri on Christmas eve.” The omission of the mosque and the emphasis on “Christmas Eve” drew widespread criticism for being misleading and inflammatory.

Reacting on X, commentator Boss Kitty Kitty (@Aashfinn) condemned the framing, warning that it fed a dangerous “Christian genocide” narrative, despite evidence that terrorism in Nigeria targets victims indiscriminately. The Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC) also issued a strong statement, accusing Channels Television of editorial bias, deliberate omission of Muslim identity, and the weaponisation of language to provoke religious tension.

MPAC argued that the headline change—adding “Christmas Eve” after initial publication—suggested a calculated attempt to drive engagement at the expense of national unity. The organisation further alleged a pattern in which Muslim victims are anonymised while narratives that heighten suspicion against Islam are amplified.

Media scholars describe this practice as media bias and confirmation bias, where editorial choices reinforce preconceived narratives while excluding crucial context. Studies consistently show that headlines shape public perception, especially in an era where many readers share stories based solely on headlines without reading full reports.

The controversy came just a day after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in his Christmas Day 2025 broadcast, reaffirmed the government’s commitment to religious freedom, protection of all faiths, and peaceful coexistence. While the President sought to calm tensions and promote dialogue, critics argue that irresponsible media framing risks undermining these efforts.

As one commentator, @mrabdulreacts, noted on TikTok: “Narratives can be more dangerous than bullets… misleading headlines can destroy trust for generations.” The Maiduguri bombing coverage has therefore reignited urgent questions about journalistic responsibility, religious sensitivity, and whether sections of the Nigerian media are contributing to division in an already fragile society.

How a Misleading Channels TV Headline Reignited Nigeria’s Religious Tensions

Opinion

When a Tax Law is an illegality, By Farooq Kperogi

Published

4 days ago

December 27, 2025

Trends Admin

Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism

When a Tax Law is an illegality, By Farooq Kperogi

What began as a routine legislative reform of the Nigerian tax system by the Bola Tinubu administration has transmogrified and metastasized into an allegation of unexampled transmutation of a duly passed law to an illegality.

It’s by now well known that a law passed by the National Assembly and assented to by the president may have been materially altered after assent and then presented to the public as binding law. If this allegation is established beyond all shadows of doubt, Nigeria would be confronting the specter of an illegality fraudulently constituted as law.

Interestingly, the discovery wasn’t brought to public notice by secretive, conscientious whistleblowers in the bureaucracy or from eagle-eyed civil society audits. It came from within the legislature itself.

A member of the House of Representatives, Abdulsammad Dasuki, raised a point of privilege after personally comparing the harmonized bill passed by both chambers with the version of the tax laws published in the official gazette. He found that the documents did not match.

His discovery was the product of days of rigorous, studious and painstaking examination of Votes and Proceedings, committee harmonization records and the gazetted text. He realized that he voted for one thing, but the country was being governed by another.

That intervention sparked a chain reaction. Other lawmakers requested certified true copies of the assented bill to verify whether the president had signed the same text that was now in circulation. According to multiple reports, those requests were denied.

The refusal to release certified copies deepened suspicion and transformed what could have been dismissed as a clerical misunderstanding into a full-blown institutional crisis.

When legislators are blocked from seeing the law that they passed and that the president signed, the issue verges on criminal constitutional transgression that must not be swept under the carpet.

While full official disclosure is still pending, several discrepancies have been repeatedly cited by lawmakers, journalists and civil society groups. These include expansions of the discretionary powers of tax authorities beyond what the National Assembly approved, alterations to reporting and oversight obligations, changes in enforcement thresholds, and adjustments that potentially increase executive control over revenue administration.

READ ALSO:

These are not innocent, unintentional clerical slips. They go to the meaning, scope and intent of the law. In short, they change who has power to tax Nigerians, how that power is exercised and to whom it is accountable.

The distinction matters. All legislative systems experience clerical errors. A misplaced word or a misnumbered section does not invalidate a statute. But when alterations confer new powers, remove safeguards, or shift institutional balance, they cross from error into illegality.

A gazette cannot lawfully create what the legislature did not enact or what the president did not assent to. Publication is supposed to merely provide evidence of the existence of the law. It can invent a law that hasn’t been passed.

The official responses so far have been evasive and contradictory. Government representatives initially insisted that there was only one authentic version of the law and that claims of alteration were partisan, ill-natured rumors. But that posture is difficult to reconcile with subsequent developments.

For example, a December 26, 2025, press statement signed by Akin Rotimi, House Spokesman and Chairman of the House Committee on Media and Public Affairs, said the National Assembly has now constituted an ad hoc committee to investigate the sequence of events from harmonization to assent to gazetting.

More tellingly, Rotimi said, the leadership of the legislature has directed that the tax laws be re-gazetted and that certified true copies of the versions duly passed by both chambers be issued.

Re-gazetting is not a neutral act. It is an implicit admission that the existing gazette cannot be confidently treated as an accurate record of legislative intent. If nothing were amiss, there would be nothing to authenticate. The attempt to frame this as a routine administrative clarification rings hollow. Laws are not re-gazetted in the absence of doubt about their authenticity.

Supporters of the government have urged the public to trust the president’s integrity and to avoid speculation. The issue, however, is not whether the president is personally trustworthy but whether the law now being enforced is the law he signed. No amount of rhetorical reassurance can substitute for producing the signed text and allowing a side-by-side comparison with the gazetted version.

There is no precedent in the world that I have found for this kind of illegality. In the United States, the much-cited Deficit Reduction Act controversy of 2006 involved a discrepancy between House and Senate versions due to a clerical transmission error. The president signed the enrolled bill that was presented to him.

Courts upheld it under the enrolled bill doctrine, which treats the signed text as conclusive. Crucially, there was no claim that the law was altered after presidential assent.

READ ALSO:

In the Philippines, in 1964, there was a case where the wrong version of a bill was signed by the president. Legislative leaders later disowned the enrolled copy and treated the signature as invalid. Again, the error occurred before or at assent, not after. Once discovered, it was confronted as a mistake. It wasn’t normalized.

Nigeria’s case, if the allegations are borne out, is more disturbing. Here, the claim is that the president signed the correct bill but that the authoritative law published afterward materially departs from it.

Comparative constitutional practice offers no comfort here. Stable legal systems do not recognize post-assent textual mutation as valid law. Where gazetting errors occur, they are corrected. They do not become the basis for enforcement.

This raises an unavoidable question: why would anyone alter a law after it has been passed and signed? Motives can only be inferred from circumstantial evidence, but the inferences are troubling.

Expanding the powers of tax authorities in a period of fiscal stress creates incentives for bureaucratic overreach. Removing or weakening legislative-oversight provisions reduces accountability. Centralizing discretion in the executive arm simplifies revenue extraction while insulating decision makers from scrutiny. These are not abstract possibilities. They align closely with the specific alterations that have been alleged.

There is an even more unsettling implication. If a major tax reform law can be altered after assent without immediate detection, what confidence can citizens have in the integrity of other statutes? Nigeria has passed hundreds of laws over the years, many of them technical, complex and rarely scrutinized line by line after gazetting. The discovery of this discrepancy raises the chilling possibility that post-assent alterations may not be unprecedented in practice.

That possibility should alarm every Nigerian regardless of political affiliation. Law is the foundation of collective life. If the text of the law is unstable, if it can be surreptitiously modified after constitutional procedures have been completed, then legality itself becomes provisional. Governance slides from rule of law to rule by document manipulation.

The seriousness of this violation cannot be overstated. If officials altered the tax law knowingly, they did not merely breach administrative rules. They subverted the Constitution. Such conduct would amount to forgery, abuse of office and an assault on democratic sovereignty. It would mean that Nigerians are being taxed under provisions that were never lawfully enacted.

This is why a thorough, transparent investigation is not optional. It must establish a clear documentary chain: the harmonized bill passed by both chambers, the exact text transmitted for assent, the document signed by the president and the version published in the gazette. Any divergence must be accounted for, step by step, with named responsibility. Institutional reviews that end in vague recommendations will not suffice.

If culpability is established, punishment must be severe. Anything less would invite repetition. As I always say, there is no greater enabler of habitual relapses into the same crime than the absence of consequences for committing the crimes.

The alteration of law after assent is not a victimless bureaucratic shortcut. It is a constitutional crime with nationwide consequences. Deterrence requires more than quiet corrections. It requires accountability that is visible, proportionate and unmistakable.

This episode can either be buried under procedural language and political loyalty, or it can become a moment of constitutional self-correction. A tax law that is an illegality cannot be the foundation of fiscal reform. The integrity of the lawmaking process is itself a public good. Without it, no reform, however well intentioned, can claim legitimacy.

When a Tax Law is an illegality, By Farooq Kperogi

Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism

Opinion

Experts Warn US Strikes in Nigeria Could Harm Civilians, Fuel Sectarian Tensions

Published

5 days ago

December 26, 2025

Trends Admin

Experts Warn US Strikes in Nigeria Could Harm Civilians, Fuel Sectarian Tensions

Security analysts and local observers have raised concerns over the recent United States military strikes in Nigeria, warning that the operations could misfire and exacerbate tensions rather than curb terrorism.

The strikes, carried out in Sokoto State on Christmas Day under the guise of counterterrorism, mark the first US military operation on Nigerian soil in modern history. The action follows repeated claims by former US President Donald Trump, who alleged a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria and threatened military intervention.

According to eyewitnesses, the areas targeted have no established history of terrorist or bandit activity, with some strikes reportedly affecting civilian-populated areas rather than forested hideouts typically associated with terrorist groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP. Analysts warn that this raises questions about intelligence accuracy and operational planning.

READ ALSO:

Mallam Ibrahim Agunbiade, writing on the implications of the strikes, emphasized that Nigeria’s security challenges are regionally specific. Boko Haram and ISWAP are concentrated in the North-East, while armed banditry is largely confined to forested regions in Zamfara and Niger states. “Any counterterrorism effort that ignores these realities is either grossly incompetent or deliberately misleading,” he noted.

Experts also caution against framing Nigeria’s crisis as a religious conflict, pointing out that both Muslims and Christians are affected by terrorism. Weaponizing religion to justify foreign military intervention could delegitimize Nigeria’s sovereignty and inflame sectarian tensions.

Agunbiade stressed that the country needs intelligence-driven cooperation and respect for its territorial integrity, rather than indiscriminate bombardments that may increase civilian casualties, deepen resentment, and destabilize communities.

“The goal must be accuracy, accountability, and restraint. Anything less is not counterterrorism; it is a reckless intervention with potentially devastating consequences,” he wrote.