By Julius Egbele
Texas, USA
Tinubu’s Moses Analogy, Fuel Subsidy Removal, and the Unfinished Promise of Economic Deliverance. Has Tinubu Really Led Nigerians Out of Egypt?
On October 19, 2026, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu invoked the biblical and Quranic accounts of Moses and the Israelites to defend his administration’s refusal to return to the former fuel-subsidy policy. He argued that asking his administration to reverse course was like asking Moses to return to Egypt. Earlier, in his October 1, 2026 Independence Day address, he declared that Nigeria had “passed through our own Red Sea.” These statements were reported by Nigerian news outlets and reflected in the president’s Independence Day address.
The president’s analogy raises an important question that Nigerians must not overlook: If Nigeria has passed through its Red Sea, where is the promised deliverance for the Nigerian people?
My argument is not that a president cannot use religious stories to explain public policy. It is that such comparisons must withstand scrutiny when they are used to defend policies that have profound consequences for millions of citizens.
The Israelites’ departure from Egypt was not merely a declaration by Moses that a historic event had occurred. It was a journey away from bondage toward freedom and a better future. The biblical narrative also describes the hardships that followed, including hunger and thirst, and the provision of manna, quail, and water.
If Tinubu wishes to use this story to explain Nigeria’s economic journey, he must also confront its uncomfortable lesson: a declaration of departure is not the same as the achievement of deliverance.
1. Tinubu’s Comparison With Moses Is Self-Serving
In my opinion, Tinubu’s use of the Moses analogy is self-serving because it places his economic policies within a powerful religious narrative of liberation. It encourages Nigerians to view the removal of fuel subsidies as an irreversible step away from an economic Egypt, without necessarily establishing that the resulting hardship has been sufficiently relieved or that the promised destination is within reach.
Moses is a profoundly significant figure in Israelite history and in the religious traditions that revere him. A modern political leader should therefore be cautious about invoking that legacy to justify his decisions. The comparison must be judged by what it actually demonstrates, not by the emotional or religious weight of the story.
The question is not whether the former subsidy system was perfect. It is whether the replacement arrangements have delivered sufficient benefits to ordinary Nigerians to justify the costs they have borne.
Have families become more financially secure? Can workers afford food, transportation, housing, electricity, and healthcare? Have small businesses gained the conditions they need to expand? Are young Nigerians finding productive employment?
These are the tests that matter.
A president cannot establish that Nigerians have been delivered from economic hardship merely by comparing his policies with the Exodus. The people must be able to identify the tangible improvements that justify the comparison.
2. Removing Fuel Subsidy Is a Policy Decision, Not Proof of National Deliverance
Tinubu has argued that continuing to pay fuel subsidies threatened Nigeria’s financial stability. That argument deserves examination on its economic merits. Subsidies can impose substantial fiscal costs, and governments must consider how public resources are used.
But removing a subsidy does not automatically guarantee prosperity. Its consequences depend on what happens next: whether public savings are accounted for transparently, whether resources are used effectively, whether corruption and waste are reduced, and whether the resulting economic benefits reach ordinary citizens.
Fuel prices affect transportation, food distribution, farming, manufacturing, and the cost of operating businesses. When fuel becomes more expensive, the effects can spread throughout the economy.
The relevant question is therefore not simply whether the government has removed the subsidy. It is whether the government has successfully managed the consequences of that decision and established a credible path toward broadly shared prosperity.
If the government maintains that returning to the former subsidy policy would be economically damaging, it should explain what alternative measures will protect vulnerable households and improve economic opportunity.
Critics who propose restoring some form of subsidy should also explain how it would be funded, administered, and protected against waste or abuse. Every proposal should be assessed on its merits.
However, the government cannot use the possibility of returning to the old system to avoid accountability for the system it has chosen.
The question is not merely whether Nigeria should return to Egypt. The question is whether the Nigerian people have actually escaped the conditions that make them feel economically trapped.
3. The Wilderness Is Not the Promised Land
The biblical account does not end when the Israelites left Egypt. The wilderness becomes a place of uncertainty, hardship, and testing. Their journey requires continued provision and leadership, That is precisely why Tinubu’s analogy deserves further scrutiny.
If the removal of fuel subsidy represents Nigeria’s departure from Egypt, what provisions have been made to help Nigerians survive the journey? What safeguards protect low-income households from the consequences of rising living costs? What investments are producing jobs, strengthening infrastructure, and expanding opportunities?
The point is not that a government must perform miracles. It is that it must demonstrate responsible leadership and provide credible, measurable results.
Nigerians are entitled to ask whether their sacrifices are producing the benefits promised to them. They are entitled to know how public resources are being used and whether economic reforms are improving their lives.
If the government says the destination is prosperity, it must explain the route, identify the milestones, and show the evidence that the country is moving in the right direction.
Otherwise, the language of deliverance risks becoming a justification for hardship without a sufficiently clear account of when or how that hardship will be relieved.
4. Where Is the Electricity Tinubu Promised?
Electricity provides a concrete example of why political promises must be measured against results.
In his inaugural address on May 29, 2023, Tinubu stated that electricity would become more accessible and affordable to homes and businesses, and that power generation should nearly double alongside improvements to transmission and distribution.
On August 4, 2023, he reiterated his commitment to stable electricity supply and addressed the need to resolve problems throughout the power sector.
These commitments provide a documented basis for asking the government to account for its performance.
Has electricity become sufficiently more reliable and affordable for Nigerian households and businesses? What progress has been made in generation, transmission, distribution, and access? What measurable improvements can citizens expect, and on what timetable?
Electricity is central to economic development. Hospitals need dependable power. Schools need it. Manufacturers need it. Farmers and food processors need it. Small businesses need it to operate competitively.
When businesses must rely on generators because public supply is inadequate, their costs rise. When households must pay for alternative sources of electricity, less money remains for food, education, healthcare, and savings.
A country aspiring to industrialise cannot treat electricity as a secondary concern.
Tinubu’s government should publish clear evidence of improvements against its commitments. If progress has been made, the public should be able to see it. If the targets have not been met, the government should explain why and what corrective measures are being taken.
A promise of light must be judged by the electricity Nigerians actually receive, not by the promise itself.
5. Nigeria Should Measure Itself Against Development, Not Political Metaphors
Rather than relying on religious comparisons to explain economic reforms, Nigeria should examine the development experiences of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, India, and Rwanda.
These countries differ substantially in size, resources, political systems, and economic circumstances. None should be treated as a perfect model for Nigeria. Nevertheless, each offers areas for study in economic planning, infrastructure, technological development, investment, public administration, or industrial policy.
Nigeria should ask what can be learned from their experiences and what can realistically be adapted to Nigerian conditions.
Why should a country with abundant human resources, a large domestic market, agricultural potential, and entrepreneurial citizens continue to struggle with fundamental infrastructure and widespread economic insecurity?
The purpose of comparison should be to identify practical lessons, not to manufacture an image of success.
Nigeria needs a national development strategy with measurable goals, transparent reporting, and public accountability. Citizens should be able to judge whether the country is making progress in electricity, employment, food affordability, public safety, education, healthcare, and industrial productivity.
National greatness is not established by a leader’s preferred metaphor. It is established by the opportunities and quality of life enjoyed by the people.
6. Repetition Cannot Substitute for Evidence
There is a danger in political communication when the repetition of a claim begins to substitute for proof.
A statement may become familiar because it is repeated frequently, but familiarity does not establish its truth. A government may repeatedly describe its policies as successful, its direction as correct, and its sacrifices as necessary. Those assertions must nevertheless remain open to independent examination.
This is my concern about the narrative of deliverance associated with Tinubu’s Moses analogy.
If the government insists that its policies are taking Nigerians toward prosperity, it should present evidence that citizens can scrutinise. It should explain the costs of its decisions, identify the intended benefits, acknowledge shortcomings, and report whether its targets are being met.
It is fair to recognise that economic reforms can involve difficult transitions and that some benefits may take time to emerge. But that explanation must be accompanied by measurable progress and a credible timeline. It cannot become a permanent justification for hardship.
Nigerians should examine changes in household purchasing power, food affordability, employment, electricity reliability, business costs, and access to essential services.
The truth of a political claim must be established by evidence, not by repetition or the expectation that citizens will eventually accept it.
7. Ordinary Nigerians Are Struggling to Survive
One of my greatest concerns is that many Nigerians are increasingly occupied with the struggle to meet their immediate needs rather than building secure and productive lives.
Our forefathers often relied on subsistence farming, local production, family networks, and community cooperation. Their labour had dignity and value. But modern Nigeria should be building on that foundation by expanding agricultural productivity, developing industries, improving infrastructure, and creating opportunities for citizens to earn, save, invest, and prosper.
Instead, many households appear trapped in a cycle in which their income is consumed almost immediately by food, rent, transportation, electricity, school fees, healthcare, and other necessities.
For many people, the question is no longer how to advance economically but how to make it through the month.
The World Bank has documented persistent poverty and structural challenges to economic opportunity in Nigeria. A serious national assessment must therefore consider not only economic growth figures but also whether growth is translating into improved living standards for ordinary households.
In my assessment, the contrast between political privilege and ordinary hardship is particularly troubling. While many citizens struggle to meet basic needs, those with privileged access to political power and public resources may enjoy opportunities unavailable to the broader population.
This is not a claim that every politician is wealthy or that every Nigerian is poor. It is a demand that the distribution of opportunity and the benefits of public policy be examined honestly.
A nation cannot measure its success solely by the prosperity of those at the top. It must also consider the circumstances of workers, farmers, traders, young graduates, pensioners, and families struggling to meet their obligations.
The purpose of economic development is not simply to keep people alive. It is to enable them to live with dignity, security, and hope.
8. The Government Must Answer the People’s Questions
The Nigerian government has a responsibility to explain its decisions and demonstrate their outcomes.
If fuel-subsidy removal was necessary to protect public finances, Nigerians deserve transparent information about the savings and how those resources have been used.
If the economy is improving, the government should show how that improvement is affecting real household incomes, food affordability, employment, electricity supply, and the cost of doing business.
If reforms require temporary sacrifices, the government should explain what protections exist for vulnerable citizens and when measurable benefits should become evident.
These are reasonable demands in a democracy. They are not evidence of disloyalty to the nation, nor do they automatically mean that critics wish to return to the past.
A citizen can oppose a policy without wishing to return to an earlier system. A citizen can acknowledge that a reform may have economic rationale while questioning its implementation, distributional effects, and social consequences.
The government must be willing to engage with those distinctions.
Nigeria’s future should not be reduced to a choice between accepting every government policy and returning to the policies of the past. There must be room for scrutiny, alternative proposals, corrective action, and public debate.
9. My Challenge to Tinubu’s Defenders
I challenge anyone who believes that Tinubu has genuinely led Nigerians out of their economic Egypt to demonstrate that claim with credible evidence.
Show us the measurable improvements in electricity reliability and affordability. Show us how the purchasing power of ordinary households has changed. Show us the progress in employment, food affordability, public safety, and opportunities for young Nigerians.
Explain how the savings from subsidy removal have been used, what benefits have reached the public, and what independent evidence supports the claim that the country is moving toward broadly shared prosperity.
If you believe the current hardships are necessary sacrifices for future benefits, present the evidence, the targets, and the timetable by which that claim should be judged.
If you disagree with my assessment, I invite you to challenge it with verifiable facts, reliable statistics, and examples that demonstrate meaningful improvements in the everyday lives of Nigerians.
I am willing to examine evidence that challenges my position. Serious public debate requires that willingness from everyone. But those who claim national deliverance must also accept the responsibility of proving it.
Do not answer questions about household hardship with slogans about national greatness. Do not use the story of Moses as a substitute for measurable achievements. And do not expect Nigerians to confuse the announcement of a journey with the successful arrival at its destination.
In conclusion, If We Have Left Egypt, Where Is the Deliverance?
President Tinubu is entitled to defend his economic policies. Nigerians are equally entitled to judge those policies by their consequences.
The question raised by his Moses analogy is not simply whether Nigeria should return to its former fuel-subsidy arrangements. It is whether the alternative path is delivering the promised improvements in the lives of the people.
If Nigeria has passed through its Red Sea, the government must explain what progress has been made on the other side. If prosperity is the promised land, Nigerians deserve to see credible evidence that the country is moving toward it.
A nation cannot be judged by its leaders’ speeches alone. It must be judged by the security, dignity, opportunities, and quality of life its citizens enjoy.
My position is that Tinubu’s claim of national deliverance remains open to challenge until it is supported by demonstrable improvements in the living conditions of ordinary Nigerians.
My final challenge is this: If you believe Tinubu has truly led Nigerians out of Egypt, come forward and prove it with facts, credible data, and tangible evidence. Show us the deliverance in the lives of the people, not merely in the speeches of their leaders.
Until that challenge is answered convincingly, Nigerians have every right to ask whether they have truly left Egypt or whether they are still struggling in the wilderness, waiting for the freedom and prosperity they were promised.
The true measure of leadership is not the biblical figure a president invokes. It is whether the people he leads are genuinely better off.
We Are Still In The Wilderness, Mr. President