The Federal Government’s planned N70,000 monthly transport allowance for public sector workers has sparked controversy over its coverage, with unemployed Nigerians, private-sector employees and state government workers reportedly excluded from the initiative.
The development comes amid disagreements between the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) over the proposed intervention, which is expected to commence on November 5, 2026.
President Bola Tinubu, through the Minister of Labour, approved the N70,000 transport allowance following pressure from organised labour over rising petrol prices and demands for improved welfare amid the declining purchasing power of the N70,000 minimum wage.
The approval followed the NLC’s threat to shut down the country over the rising cost of fuel and its demand for measures to cushion the economic hardship facing Nigerian workers.
However, the proposed allowance has raised questions about the millions of Nigerians who work outside the Federal Government’s public service structure and those without formal employment.
According to data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), approximately 71.2 million Nigerians are self-employed, while 3.32 million work in the public sector. The statistics also put the number of formally employed private-sector workers at 9.64 million, based on the 2024 Labour Force data.
The figures suggest that a substantial proportion of Nigeria’s working population will not benefit from the planned Federal Government intervention.
The exclusion has attracted attention as households continue to grapple with rising living costs, expensive transportation and food prices.
DAILY POST reports that food inflation stood at 19.59 per cent in September 2026, while petrol prices reportedly ranged between N1,370 and N1,429 per litre, further increasing the financial pressure on households earning the N70,000 minimum wage.
Although the Tinubu administration has presented the transport allowance as a measure to ease workers’ financial difficulties, public affairs analysts have questioned its adequacy, coverage and long-term sustainability.
Arise Television presenters Reuben Abati and Oseni Rufai have also criticised the proposed intervention in separate comments.
While Abati described the policy as discriminatory, Rufai argued that N70,000 would not adequately cover the transportation expenses of many workers.
Meanwhile, NLC President Joe Ajaero and his Trade Union Congress counterpart, Festus Osifo, have reportedly disagreed over the planned allowance.
Opposition figures, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, have also criticised the initiative, particularly with the 2027 general election approaching.
Tinubu’s N70,000 Transport Allowance Is a Bribe to Win 2027 Election – Onyekpere
Speaking to DAILY POST, Lead Director of the Centre for Social Justice, Eze Onyekpere, described the proposed transport allowance as an attempt by the Federal Government to appease voters ahead of the 2027 general election.
Onyekpere argued that rather than introduce a temporary financial incentive for a limited category of workers, the government should adopt a structured approach to reducing transportation costs across the country.
He acknowledged that Nigerian workers required financial relief to cushion the impact of rising transportation expenses but maintained that unemployed citizens and informal-sector workers were equally deserving of government support.
“The President’s offer to give workers a N70,000 transport allowance is not the way to go,” he said.
“Why do I say so? Workers need relief, I agree, to cushion the effects of transportation. Other Nigerians, particularly the unemployed and other informal sector workers, also need that relief,” he added.
The policy expert proposed that the government should prioritise the provision of affordable public transportation by making more Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses available through local manufacturing and assembly plants.
According to him, such buses should be produced or assembled locally rather than imported, with the government subsidising their costs to make transportation more affordable.
“What one had expected was a structured approach to cheaper transportation.
“And this could have been done by maybe making available more CNG buses, not manufactured in China or America, but those that are manufactured by the local assembly and manufacturing plants, also assembly plants in Nigeria, and fully subsidise the cost,” he stated.
Onyekpere also called for a significant reduction in the cost of converting vehicles to CNG, arguing that the process remained too expensive for many commercial and private vehicle owners.
He claimed that some taxi drivers around him had been asked to pay between N500,000 and N700,000 for vehicle conversion.
According to him, CNG conversion should be provided at little or no cost to public transportation operators, while private vehicle owners should enjoy substantial discounts.
“That CNG conversion should have been almost free of charge for all public transport owners.
“And then, it should have been at a discounted price to the private people who are operating their own cars,” he said.
The Centre for Social Justice director further argued that the government could finance such interventions through savings from the removal of the petrol subsidy.
He maintained that commercial vehicle operators played an important role in the economy by transporting millions of Nigerians daily and should therefore benefit from policies designed to reduce transportation costs.
“Because, instead of, these things could have come from the savings, fuel subsidy savings. Instead of saying, oh, they are individuals, no, they are still carrying other people,” he said.
Questions Sustainability of Allowance
Onyekpere also questioned the timing and sustainability of the proposed N70,000 allowance, expressing concern that the government might discontinue the intervention after the 2027 general election.
He argued that temporary financial incentives should not be introduced primarily to secure political support without a clear and sustainable implementation framework.
“It’s not something you would do simply because elections are near and you want to appease people.
“After three, four or six months, and then the election is over, what happens?” he queried.
He further suggested that the government could withdraw the allowance after securing another electoral victory, leaving beneficiaries without the promised support.
