Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has criticised the Federal Government’s decision to provide public service workers with a monthly transport intervention of ₦70,000 for six months, describing the measure as inadequate in the face of rising living and transportation costs.
Atiku, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, argued that the temporary payment would offer limited relief to workers struggling with higher fuel prices and the broader cost of living.
His criticism followed the Federal Government’s agreement with organised labour to introduce the allowance beginning in November 2026, with payments scheduled to continue for six months.
The agreement also covered other outstanding allowances and welfare issues raised during discussions between government representatives and labour leaders.
Government’s Six-Month Intervention
The Federal Government approved the ₦70,000 monthly transport payment following a conciliation meeting with the Nigeria Labour Congress and other labour representatives.
Under the arrangement, the intervention is scheduled to run from November 2026 to April 2027.
The measure is intended to provide temporary assistance to workers facing higher commuting expenses. However, it is separate from a permanent wage increase and does not, by itself, resolve broader questions about workers’ purchasing power.
Atiku argued that the size and duration of the payment failed to address the scale of the economic pressure facing households.
His comments reflect opposition criticism of the government’s response to the effects of fuel prices and other living expenses.
Atiku Questions the Adequacy of the Relief
The former vice president used the cost of filling a vehicle’s fuel tank to illustrate his objection, arguing that ₦70,000 could provide only limited support to some motorists.
The actual quantity of petrol that the allowance can buy depends on the prevailing pump price, while the cost of filling a tank varies according to the vehicle’s capacity and how much fuel remains in it.
Beyond fuel, workers must also contend with other transport costs, food, housing, utilities and household responsibilities.
Atiku maintained that a temporary allowance could not substitute for policies that improve incomes and reduce the pressure of rising prices.
The criticism comes amid continuing debate over the economic consequences of fuel subsidy removal and the measures required to protect workers’ living standards.
Government and Labour Face Implementation Questions
The transport allowance is one element of the government’s wider engagement with organised labour.
The agreement also addressed the payment of certain outstanding allowances, including arrears affecting public workers and health personnel.
Implementation will be important to determining how much relief eligible workers actually receive and whether the payments arrive according to the agreed timetable.
The arrangement also raises questions about what happens after the six-month intervention ends, particularly if transportation and other living expenses remain high.
For workers, the value of the measure will depend not only on the amount paid but also on the cost of commuting and the broader purchasing power of their earnings.
Wider Cost-of-Living Debate
Atiku’s criticism has added to the political debate over how the Federal Government should respond to the cost-of-living pressures facing Nigerians.
While temporary financial assistance can provide immediate support, its longer-term effect depends on the scale of the payment, the number of eligible beneficiaries and whether it is accompanied by sustainable economic measures.
The government’s agreement with labour establishes a temporary intervention, while Atiku’s remarks question whether the measure is sufficient.
The effectiveness of the policy will become clearer as payments begin and workers assess the support against their actual transport expenses.