Ben Murray-Bruce has proposed a bold mass-transit policy aimed at addressing one of the most painful consequences of fuel-subsidy removal: the soaring cost of transportation.
His argument is straightforward: bringing back the petrol subsidy is not the answer. Governments should instead subsidise public transportation directly, while allowing the market to determine fuel prices.
Atiku Is Wrong on Fuel Subsidy, Bruce Says
Murray-Bruce’s position is that Atiku Abubakar is wrong to advocate a return to fuel subsidy. Nigeria operated fuel subsidies for decades, he argues, yet the system became associated with smuggling, corruption, enormous government expenditure and benefits that did not necessarily reach ordinary Nigerians.
Rather than return to that model, he believes the government should use available public resources to reduce the cost of moving people around their cities.
He also commends President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for taking the politically difficult decision to remove the subsidy and for the increase in allocations going to states.
But, according to the proposal, the responsibility must now shift to the governors.
“Transport Is the Governors’ Responsibility”
Murray-Bruce argues that intra-state transportation should primarily be addressed by state governments rather than waiting for Abuja to solve every local transport problem.
The constitutional landscape has also changed in important ways. The 2023 Fifth Alteration moved railway matters from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent Legislative List, giving states greater room to legislate and develop rail transportation.
That does not mean every aspect of transportation is exclusively a state responsibility. Federal agencies, inter-state transport and national infrastructure remain important. However, the principle behind Bruce’s proposal is clear: states should take greater ownership of the daily transportation problems faced by their residents.
His Four-Point Mass-Transit Proposal
Bruce’s proposed model contains four major ideas.
1. Free transportation for students.
Every student should be able to travel to school and return home without paying transport fares.
2. A ₦500 maximum fare.
No passenger should pay more than ₦500 to travel from one end of a city to another, with smaller towns and cities expected to have considerably lower fares.
3. Government should not buy buses.
Rather than creating another government-owned transport fleet that could eventually deteriorate, Bruce proposes registering existing commercial drivers and transport operators.
Under the model, government would determine the maximum passenger fare and pay participating operators the difference between the regulated fare and the actual cost of the journey.
4. Every subsidised trip must be verifiable.
Technology would be central to the system. GPS tracking, digital payments or tap cards could be used to verify journeys and ensure government pays only for trips that actually occurred.
The objective is to reduce fraud while creating a predictable income stream for drivers.
Why the Proposal Matters
The fundamental issue is that transportation is no longer merely a mobility problem. It has become an economic problem.
When workers spend a disproportionate share of their income getting to work, their effective earnings fall. When parents cannot afford daily transport, school attendance can suffer. Businesses also face higher operating costs as workers, customers and goods become more expensive to move.
A targeted transport subsidy could therefore function as an indirect form of economic relief without reopening the much larger and more controversial fuel-subsidy system.
But Where Will the Money Come From?
This is where Bruce puts the governors on the spot.
He proposes that states dedicate no more than five per cent of their FAAC allocations to transportation support.
The argument becomes particularly significant given the substantial growth in federal revenue allocations. Available data show that the 36 states received about ₦3.16 trillion from the Federation Account in 2022, while 2025 allocations were substantially higher, although the exact figure depends on whether gross or net distributions and different tiers of government are being counted.
The central question, therefore, is not simply whether more money is available. It is whether governments are willing to dedicate a measurable portion of that money to solving the transportation crisis.
A Challenge Before 2027
Bruce’s proposal does not require governments to wait for new mega-projects. The drivers, vehicles and existing routes are already available.
Governments could begin with the busiest corridors, publish the amount being spent, monitor every subsidised trip and expand the programme based on measurable results.
His message to the President is equally direct: do not take this burden back to Abuja. Tell the governors that transportation within their states is their responsibility—and that they now have the resources and powers to act.
And his message to the governors is even simpler:
The money is there. The people are suffering. The technology exists. The drivers are already on the roads. So what exactly are you waiting for?
The debate over fuel subsidy may continue, but Murray-Bruce is proposing a different question: instead of subsidising petrol, why not subsidise the journey?
0 Comments