The Federal Government’s 50% transport palliative program, implemented between December 20, 2024, and January 5, 2025, aimed to alleviate the financial burden of transportation during the yuletide season. However, the initiative was met with widespread criticism and accusations of fraud and sharp practices from passengers in several states, raising questions about its effectiveness and implementation. While some states like Edo and Akwa Ibom reported positive experiences, a majority of the feedback indicated a stark contrast between the government’s intentions and the reality on the ground. This discrepancy highlights a potential disconnect in the execution of the palliative, suggesting either a lack of proper communication or deliberate non-compliance by the involved transport unions.
Passengers in Anambra, Bayelsa, Enugu, and Rivers states reported inflated transport fares despite the announced palliative. In Anambra, travelers recounted paying up to 300% more than the usual fares, citing journeys from Onitsha to other southeastern destinations like Owerri, Umuahia, and Abakaliki as particularly expensive. This experience was echoed in Bayelsa, where commuters reported paying regular fares without any awareness of the supposed discount. The lack of information dissemination and the absence of any noticeable reduction in fares indicate a failure of the palliative to reach its intended beneficiaries in these states. The consistent narrative across these states strongly suggests a systemic issue in the program’s implementation.
The situation in Enugu further underscored the disconnect between the government’s announcement and the realities at the various motor parks. Drivers and transport unions claimed ignorance of the palliative, asserting they only heard about it through the media. They attributed the increased fares to the one-way nature of passenger traffic during the festive period, which left them with empty return trips. This explanation, while plausible, does not address the core issue of the missing palliative, raising concerns about potential misallocation or misappropriation of funds. The Chairman of the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN) in Enugu confirmed that the state did not receive any funds for the transport palliative, further deepening the mystery surrounding its implementation.
Rivers State presented a similar picture of unmet expectations. Transport operators reported fare increases rather than decreases, highlighting the ineffectiveness of the palliative in the state. The manager of an interurban transport company in Rivers stated that they did not participate in the program due to a lack of notice and proper arrangements. This lack of coordination and communication further exacerbated the problem, leaving passengers burdened with higher travel costs. The disconnect between the government and transport operators underscores the need for more effective communication and coordination to ensure the successful implementation of such programs.
In contrast, Edo and Akwa Ibom states offered a glimpse of the palliative’s potential success when implemented effectively. Passengers in Edo confirmed benefiting from the scheme, paying half the usual fare for their journeys. In Akwa Ibom, the Chairman of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) praised the program’s success and the high level of compliance, noting the significant reduction in fares for inter-state travel. These positive reports highlight the feasibility of the palliative and suggest that the issues encountered in other states stemmed from implementation failures rather than inherent flaws in the program’s design.
The conflicting reports surrounding the transport palliative highlight a critical need for transparency and accountability. The Ministry of Transportation’s initial deflection of responsibility and subsequent promise of a statement following an internal review underscores the need for a more proactive and transparent approach to public programs. The discrepancies between the experiences of passengers in different states raise serious questions about the program’s implementation and call for a thorough investigation into the alleged fraud and sharp practices. A clear understanding of the successes and failures of this initiative is crucial for designing and implementing more effective palliative measures in the future, ensuring that public funds are utilized efficiently and truly benefit the intended recipients. The government must also establish robust monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance and address any discrepancies promptly, thereby building public trust and maximizing the impact of such programs.
