FAILURE of the government to correlate bus fares with fuel prices across the country is an anomaly that needs to be rectified.

The experience of the average Nigerian now is that transport prices either remain high or spike,even as fuel price dips.Nigeria has recently seen a reduction in petrol prices,although they are yet to stabilise.

From about N1,262 per litre in March 2025—excluding black market rip-offs—the price currently hovers around N800.

The reduction should have led to lower transport fares.However,this has not happened.

Fares,which skyrocketed when fuel prices rose,have remained high.

It is time the government brought its regulatory might to bear on transport operators in the public interest.

When the main driver of costs eases,there is no more justification for burdening Nigerians with high fares.

There is no complex science in the low fuel price-high bus fare situation,and operators in the sector need not bother inventing defensive arguments.

The truth points to a lack of proper enforcement and to the well-known scenario in which individual gain is allowed to harm citizens’well-being.

Many transport operators are aware that commuting is a daily necessity;hence,they capitalise on this fact to gain an advantage,given that passengers have few alternatives.

These operators cite a combination of expenses,such as vehicle maintenance,spare parts,excessive levies and often extortion by law enforcement agencies as reasons for their reluctance to lower prices.

While many of these explanations are verifiable,the government’s intervention,particularly at the state level,is critical to maintaining sanity.

The absence of such intervention is that impunity reigns,and fare increases are accepted as just another unfortunate trend to be endured,while reductions are delayed indefinitely.

The responsibility for putting in place regulations and ensuring they are enforced lies with the federal and state governments,a duty they have failed to discharge for too long.

Transparent fare-setting mechanisms,proper oversight,and monitoring are not overly complicated.What is lacking is political will.

Allowing transport operators to determine fares at their own discretion,or condoning excessive exploitation of touts in the guise of unionism,risks being interpreted as governance by indifference.

Other nations have demonstrated that fares can be adjusted based on factual cost indices,and Nigeria is not without examples it can learn from.

Singapore is one.Fare adjustments in the Southeast Asian country are not left to chance or the whim of unscrupulous operators.Its regulator,the Public Transport Council(PTC),employs a fare adjustment formula that is subject to yearly review.

This formula considers the consumer price index,wage indices for staff salaries,and energy indices governing fuel and electricity costs.

Under this framework,operators must apply for adjustments,and changes must be approved.

Similar regulatory frameworks exist in the United Kingdom,Australia,and the European Union,where price changes are predictable.

This is markedly different from what happens in the Nigerian transport sector,where oversight is minimal and accountability is often lacking.

Transport operators might state truly that fuel is not the only expense they incur.

They will also point to the fall in the exchange rate and the rising cost of living.Some of these arguments are not without merit.Vehicle parts have become quite expensive.

Maintenance costs have increased.Unions exact their daily cuts without failing.Also,operators need to cover their costs and make a profit.The commuter bears the brunt of all these.

Yet,for many transport operators,fuel remains the highest variable cost,and its impact on pricing is indisputable.When fuel prices rose,it was cited as the main reason for increasing fares.

Therefore,it is difficult to maintain the argument that fuel prices have suddenly become irrelevant,given their recent decrease.Fuel should not be a critical factor when prices are rising,but become of no consequence when prices are falling.

Even more disturbing than regulatory shortfalls or the disposition of shylock operators is the fact that Nigeria lacks viable public transport alternatives.In developed nations,affordable and reliable public transport systems keep private operators in check.

Given that public buses or trains provide decent service and competitive pricing,private hands have little option but to lower prices,or risk losing customers.

It is unfortunate that years of underfunding and poor management have left Nigeria with such an inefficient system and forced citizens to put up with a dysfunctional public transport infrastructure.

Rail was once a major means of transporting goods.Today,it struggles to manage a few routes,and even those operate at low capacity.

At least 189 derailments were reported nationwide between 2019 and 2025.While a few cities,like Lagos and Abuja,have made some progress with high-capacity bus systems,coverage remains insufficient.

Inland waterways,which could reduce road congestion,still lag.Consequently,commuters,with no choice but to pay whatever fares private operators demand,suffer the most.

The Federal Government must fulfil its duty.Important as fuel price adjustments are,they will not replace long-term investment in public infrastructure.

Even though fuel prices have gone down,ordinary Nigerians are better off unless public transport also improves.As long as transport remains too expensive,hard to access,or unreliable,then cheaper fuel alone would do little to reduce people’s daily hardship.

It is unlikely the market alone will fix this problem.Transport operators and their unions need to demonstrate greater accountability.

The government must strengthen its regulatory oversight,establish transparent fare-setting mechanisms,engage effectively with transport sector stakeholders,and—above all—invest in affordable public transport infrastructure that offers a real alternative to private operators.

Transport operators must acknowledge that their actions worsen the economic distress of the average Nigerian.A more patriotic approach would be to strike a balance between recovering costs and the satisfaction of fellow citizens,so that both the public and the operators benefit in the long term.

High bus fare challenges the government’s regulatory capacity and stakeholders’willingness to prioritise the public good.

The longer it persists,the greater the financial burden and damage to commuters and the broader economy.

Unless this contradiction is corrected,the current administration,whether state or federal,risks leaving behind a legacy in which,when Nigerians were buffeted by unjustified high transport fares,it looked the other way.