Tinubu Called It ‘Jonathan Tax’ in 2012—Then Became President and Did Exactly the Same Thing

Revisiting Tinubu’s 2012 “Jonathan Tax” Argument: What Changed When He Became President? On January 11, 2012, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, then a leading opposition figure, published a lengthy article titled **“Removal of Oil Subsidy: President Jonathan Breaks Social Contract with the People.”** The article was a forceful attack on the Goodluck Jonathan administration’s decision to remove the petrol subsidy, which had triggered nationwide protests and the historic Occupy Nigeria movement. Tinubu argued that the policy was **ill-timed**, describing the resulting burden on Nigerians as the **“Jonathan tax.”** He accused the government of breaching its social contract with the people and warned that removing the subsidy without first addressing corruption, improving infrastructure, expanding mass transportation and strengthening the economy would deepen hardship. ([PM News Nigeria][1]) More than a decade later, that article deserves to be revisited—not merely as a piece of political history, but as a striking measure of how political arguments can change when the person making them moves from opposition to government. Tinubu is now President of Nigeria, and his administration removed the petrol subsidy shortly after assuming office in May 2023. The reform was presented as necessary to reduce the enormous fiscal burden associated with subsidising fuel and redirect public resources towards development. The International Monetary Fund has acknowledged the reform as a major structural change, while also documenting the severe economic pressures that followed, including high inflation, rising food insecurity and declining real incomes. ([IMF][2]) This is where Tinubu’s 2012 argument becomes particularly relevant. In his earlier article, he maintained that subsidy removal should not be undertaken abruptly and that government ought to put adequate measures in place first to protect ordinary Nigerians. Yet, when his administration eventually implemented the policy, Nigerians experienced a dramatic increase in petrol prices, transportation costs and the prices of essential goods and services. The consequences have been substantial. The IMF reported that Nigeria’s inflation reached 32 percent year-on-year in February 2024, with food inflation at 38 percent, noting that higher energy and transportation costs following the fuel subsidy reform contributed to the inflationary pressures. ([IMF eLibrary][3]) The IMF’s 2025 assessment also provides an important qualification to the political debate: while the reforms improved macroeconomic stability in some respects, **poverty and food insecurity increased**. ([IMF][4]) The World Bank similarly estimates that another seven million Nigerians fell into poverty in 2025, bringing the estimated share of the population below the national poverty line to 63 percent. ([World Bank][5]) Therefore, the issue is not simply whether subsidy removal was economically necessary. The more fundamental question is whether the **timing, implementation and social protection measures** surrounding the policy were consistent with the principles Tinubu himself articulated in 2012. There is, of course, a legitimate argument that circumstances change and that a government in power may confront fiscal realities that opposition politicians did not have to manage. Nigeria’s subsidy system had become increasingly expensive and economically problematic, and successive administrations struggled with the issue. But political consistency also matters. The man who once warned that subsidy removal could push ordinary Nigerians deeper into hardship eventually became the president who carried out the policy. Nigerians therefore have every reason to place the 2012 article beside the realities of the post-2023 economy and ask a simple question: **What changed—the economic facts, the policy circumstances, or the political position of the man making the argument?** Tinubu’s 2012 words remain part of Nigeria’s political record. Revisiting them today is not merely an attempt to score political points. It is an opportunity to examine accountability, political consistency and the enduring question at the heart of his original article: **what does government owe the people when difficult economic reforms are imposed in their name?** [1]: https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2012/01/11/removal-of-oil-subsidy-president-jonathan-breaks-social-contract-with-the-people/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "REMOVAL OF OIL SUBSIDY: PRESIDENT JONATHAN BREAKS SOCIAL CONTRACT WITH THE PEOPLE. - P.M. News" [2]: https://www.imf.org/en/news/articles/2024/02/09/pr2443-nigeria-imf-exec-board-concludes-pfa?utm_source=chatgpt.com "IMF Executive Board Concludes Post Financing Assessment with Nigeria" [3]: https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2024/102/article-A001-en.xml?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Nigeria: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Nigeria" [4]: https://www.imf.org/en/news/articles/2025/07/01/pr-25231-nigeria-imf-staff-completes-2025-article-iv-mission?utm_source=chatgpt.com "IMF Staff Completes 2025 Article IV Mission with Nigeria" [5]: https://www.worldbank.org/ext/en/country/nigeria?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Nigeria | World Bank Group"