N70,000 Transport Allowance: Relief Or Stopgap For Nigerian Workers?

The Nigerian Government’s proposed N70,000 monthly transport allowance has sparked a fresh debate over what meaningful economic relief looks like for Nigerian workers. Intended to run for six months from November 2026, the allowance emerged from talks with the Nigeria Labour Congress, but the Trade Union Congress has rejected it, arguing that workers need lasting salary improvements rather than another temporary intervention. SOLA SHITTU writes

For Nigerian workers already struggling to balance transport fares, food bills, rent, school expenses and healthcare costs against their monthly earnings, the Federal Government’s proposed N70,000 monthly transport allowance has opened a fresh debate over what constitutes meaningful economic relief.

The allowance, intended to run for six months from November 2026, emerged from discussions between the Federal Government and the leadership of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC). But the Trade Union Congress (TUC) rejected the proposal, arguing that workers need a more lasting improvement in their salaries rather than another temporary intervention.

The disagreement exposes a difficult policy question: should the government offer immediate assistance to workers facing high commuting costs, or priori­tise permanent salary adjustments that could help them cope with the broader cost of living?

For millions of Nigerians, the answer may depend on how much of their in­come disappears before they arrive at work and how much remains when they return home.

In a statement issued on 28 October, TUC President Festus Osifo and Secre­tary-General Nuhu Toro said the con­gress had rejected what it considered inadequate temporary relief.

The union argued that the govern­ment could increase salaries without waiting for another minimum-wage negotiation. It proposed raising the pay of the lowest-paid federal worker from N70,000 to N300,000, with appropriate consequential adjustments for other salary levels.

The proposal is the TUC’s demand, not an agreed government salary scale.

Speaking in an interview, Osifo ar­gued that a salary increase and a min­imum-wage negotiation were separate matters.

“An increase in salary and the mini­mum wage are very different,” he said, maintaining that the government could improve workers’ earnings without making a new minimum-wage negoti­ation a precondition.

The TUC also cited concerns over the implementation of the N40,000 wage award introduced in 2023. The union al­leged that some workers did not receive the benefit and that others received only part of what was due.

That history, it said, had weakened confidence in fresh temporary promises.

The government’s transport allow­ance, however, was agreed through a conciliation process involving the NLC. The TUC’s rejection does not, by itself, establish that the arrangement has been cancelled. The government must clarify the scope of the agreement, the catego­ries of beneficiaries, and the next steps following the dispute.

For workers who commute every day, transport costs are not an abstract eco­nomic indicator. They are a recurring deduction from household income.

A civil servant travelling from a distant suburb into Abuja’s city centre may have to pay for several transport connections each day. A worker in Lagos may face long journeys involving buses, trains or other commercial transport. In other cities, the cost of getting to work can also rise when workers live far from employment centres or when affordable public transport is unavailable.

An allowance of N70,000 could pro­vide useful short-term assistance to an eligible worker. Its actual value, however, would depend on commuting distance, the number of working days, house­hold circumstances and whether fares remain stable.

An Abuja civil servant, Adoyi Aba, said he had to reduce his trips to the of­fice to twice a week because the cost of transport to and from the office came to N6,000 a day.

“That is from my home at Gwagwala­da to Abuja, and if I have to include an okada ride from my house to the main road, that is an additional cost. I have a car, but the cost of maintenance is high, so I park it at home and choose to use public transport,” he said.

According to him, if he had to go to the office ten times a month, that would be a minimum of N60,000. “If I multiply that by 30 days, that is N180,000 a month on transport alone,” he said.

The government’s proposal offers an immediate and time-limited inter­vention. If paid promptly, it could help eligible workers manage commuting expenses during the six-month peri­od.

The TUC’s argument is different. It says workers face a general erosion of purchasing power, not merely a transport problem. A salary increase, it maintains, would provide more de­pendable income and could help em­ployees meet a wider range of essential expenses.

The distinction matters. A transport allowance is targeted at one cost, while salary is available for transport, food, housing, healthcare and other needs. But a permanent salary adjustment also creates a recurring obligation for govern­ment and employers, with implications for budgets and payroll costs.

The question is therefore not whether permanent salary increases are desir­able in principle, but what level is fiscally sustainable, how it would be funded and whether the adjustment would adequate­ly protect workers against inflation.

Economists have welcomed the pros­pect of immediate relief for workers but cautioned that the proposed allowance must be accompanied by measures ca­pable of reducing commuting costs over the longer term.

Dr Muda Yusuf, Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise and former Di­rector-General of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the al­lowance could provide support to low-in­come earners struggling with the rising cost of living.

“So whatever support we get, I think we must welcome it,” Yusuf said.

However, he urged the government to invest in affordable mass transit, in­cluding subsidised buses, while encour­aging public institutions and private employers to provide staff buses. He also suggested that employers consider reducing the number of days employees must commute where their duties can be performed remotely.

Ayodeji Ebo, Chief Executive Officer and Partner at MDU Capital Limited, also welcomed the intervention, noting that transport was a significant house­hold expense alongside food.

Ebo, however, urged the government to disclose the programme’s funding ar­rangements, arguing that its affordabili­ty would depend on the verified number of beneficiaries. He called for sustainable funding and greater investment in af­fordable mass transit, including buses and urban rail, to provide relief beyond the proposed six-month payment period.

The phrase “workers across all lev­els” requires careful clarification. The government should disclose the eligibil­ity rules, the number of beneficiaries, the expected total cost, and the arrange­ments for paying the allowance.

It should also explain how the scheme relates to employees of state and local governments, private-sector workers, and people in the informal economy.

A federal intervention cannot au­tomatically be assumed to cover every Nigerian worker. Millions earn their liv­ing through trading, transport services, small businesses, casual employment and self-employment. Many of these peo­ple face transport and living costs with­out the protection of a regular salary.

Ado, a commercial driver in Abuja, lamented that the petrol pump price was taking a large chunk of his earnings, even though transport fares had risen by more than 300 per cent.

“As a commercial driver, I find that the cost of maintaining the vehicle swal­lows whatever you may think you have made from the increase in transport fares,” he said.

Gift, a secretary in a law firm, said she earns N100,000 a month but spends the entire amount on transport.

“I have to look for a side hustle to survive; otherwise, there is no way I can survive in Abuja,” she said.

The government should also clarify whether the allowance will be paid along­side other outstanding entitlements and how workers can report non-payment. A benefit that exists in an agreement but fails to reach its intended recipients can­not deliver the relief promised.

The TUC’s objection is partly about the amount being offered and partly about trust. Its reference to the 2023 wage award raises questions about how previ­ous agreements were implemented.

The Federal Government should pub­lish a reconciliation of the earlier award, showing the number of eligible workers, payments made, outstanding arrears, and the steps taken to resolve disputes.

It should similarly make the terms of the new transport intervention publicly available, including commencement dates, payment procedures, and the re­sponsible agencies.

The government also needs to explain the broader economic strategy behind the intervention. If transport expenses are rising because of fuel costs, inad­equate mass transit or the distance between affordable housing and em­ployment centres, a temporary allow­ance may cushion the impact without addressing its causes.

Affordable public transport, reliable urban bus services, staff buses, better route planning and more accessible housing near employment centres could reduce commuting expenses over time. Such measures would require invest­ment and coordination, but they could benefit workers beyond the public ser­vice.

The Federal Government should be given the opportunity to explain why it selected N70,000, how it arrived at the fig­ure, whether the allowance is affordable over six months, and what it intends to do after the programme ends.

It should also clarify whether the al­lowance is a temporary bridge to wider wage or cost-of-living measures, or a stand-alone intervention.

The NLC should explain the terms of the understanding reached with the gov­ernment, while the TUC should provide evidence supporting its proposed salary adjustment and outline how it believes the government can fund the increase.

Workers deserve a debate based on transparent figures rather than compet­ing announcements.

For a worker earning the statutory minimum wage of N70,000, an addition­al N70,000 a month would be substantial if paid in full and on time. For a work­er whose commuting costs consume a large share of income, it could provide breathing space.

But the benefit would expire after six months unless the government an­nounced and implemented a further arrangement. Meanwhile, food, hous­ing, education and healthcare expenses would continue.

The TUC’s demand for permanent salary increases raises its own questions about affordability, implementation and the potential effect on public finances. Yet rejecting temporary relief also leaves workers in need of immediate support while negotiations continue.

The challenge for government and organised labour is to avoid turning the welfare of workers into a contest over an­nouncements. They must establish what workers actually spend, which groups are most vulnerable, what public financ­es can sustain, and which measures can deliver lasting results.

At the end of the day, the success of any intervention should be judged by what changes in the lives of Nigerian workers: whether they can reach their workplaces without sacrificing essential household spending, whether their sala­ries can cover basic needs, and whether agreements are honoured.

For workers waiting for relief, the cen­tral issue is not the size of an announce­ment. It is whether the money arrives, whether it makes a meaningful differ­ence, and what happens when it stops.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Independent Newspapers Limited, registered on July 17, 2001 (RC No: 419927), commenced publication on October 1, 2001. With registered office at 15b, Daranijo Street, off Odusami street, off Wemco road, Ogba, Ikeja