Workers Between Transport Costs & Low Salaries: Is Nigeria’s ₦70,000 Allowance Enough?
By JOANNA ILUSANMI
The Growing Cost of Earning a Living
FOR millions of Nigerian workers, getting to work has become an increasingly expensive part of earning a living. Transport fares, fuel prices and long commuting distances now consume significant portions of household income. Consequently, the Federal Government’s proposed ₦70,000 monthly transport allowance has triggered a wider debate about the country’s approach to workers’ welfare.
The proposed payment is expected to last six months, beginning in November 2026. It followed discussions between the government and the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), which participated in the conciliation process that produced the arrangement.
However, the Trade Union Congress (TUC) has rejected the proposal. Instead, the congress wants the government to improve workers’ salaries permanently, arguing that employees need a more dependable source of income to cope with rising living costs.
The disagreement exposes a central weakness in the current debate over economic relief. Workers face several financial pressures simultaneously, yet the proposed intervention addresses only one of them.
Transport may consume a large share of monthly earnings, but employees must still pay for food, rent, healthcare, education, electricity and other essential services. Therefore, even a useful transport allowance may not provide lasting protection against the broader squeeze on household finances.
A Union Dispute Over the Meaning of Relief
The TUC made its position public in a statement issued on October 28. Its President, Festus Osifo, and Secretary-General, Nuhu Toro, said the congress had rejected the proposed allowance because it considered the intervention inadequate and temporary.
The union argued that the government should raise salaries without waiting for another minimum-wage negotiation. Specifically, it proposed increasing the salary of the lowest-paid federal worker from ₦70,000 to ₦300,000, alongside consequential adjustments for other salary levels.
This remains the TUC’s proposal, not an approved government pay structure.
Osifo maintained that the government could increase salaries independently of the statutory minimum-wage negotiation process. He insisted that the two issues should not be treated as the same exercise.
“An increase in salary and the minimum wage are very different,” he said.
For the TUC, the distinction matters because workers need improvements that extend beyond transport expenses. A higher salary could help employees meet a wider range of household obligations, while a transport allowance would remain tied to a specific purpose and expire after the agreed period.
Yet the union’s objection also reflects its concerns about the implementation of previous agreements.
It cited the ₦40,000 wage award introduced in 2023, alleging that some workers never received the benefit and that others received only part of their entitlements. According to the congress, the experience has weakened confidence in another temporary arrangement.
That concern raises an important question for government: how can workers trust a new intervention if disputes surrounding an earlier award remain unresolved?
Nevertheless, the TUC’s rejection should not be confused with the cancellation of the transport allowance. The arrangement emerged from discussions involving the NLC, and the government must clarify its status, scope and next steps.
The Real Cost of the Journey to Work
Behind the policy disagreement are workers whose daily experiences reveal the financial pressure created by commuting.
In many Nigerian cities, employees travel considerable distances because affordable housing near major employment centres remains difficult to secure. Others depend on several connections to complete their journeys, adding to their daily expenses.
Abuja provides a clear illustration. Workers living in communities outside the city centre often have to combine commercial buses, taxis and motorcycle rides to reach their offices.
Adoyi Aba, a civil servant who lives in Gwagwalada, said his transport expenses had forced him to reduce his office visits to twice a week.
According to him, travelling to and from work costs about ₦6,000 daily. The amount could rise further if he includes a motorcycle ride from his home to the main road.
Although he owns a car, he has parked it because maintenance expenses have become too high. Public transportation, despite its own rising costs, has become his preferred option.
Aba estimated that ten office visits in a month would cost him at least ₦60,000. He also cited a possible monthly transport bill of ₦180,000 when describing the cumulative burden of commuting.
His experience demonstrates how transport expenses can undermine the value of a monthly salary. For an employee earning a relatively modest income, the money spent reaching the workplace may leave little for other responsibilities.
Across Lagos and other urban centres, workers face similar pressures, although their experiences differ according to distance, available transport services and household circumstances.
Consequently, a ₦70,000 allowance could make a noticeable difference to eligible employees. However, its value would depend on how much they currently spend, how often they travel and whether transport fares continue to rise.
Why a Transport Allowance Cannot Solve Every Household Problem
The proposed intervention offers a targeted response to a specific economic burden. If government pays the allowance promptly, workers could use it to offset commuting costs during the six-month period.
However, the TUC believes that the wider problem requires a different response.
A salary is available for different household expenses. Employees can allocate it to transport, food, rent, school fees, healthcare and other needs according to their circumstances.
By contrast, a transport allowance focuses on commuting. Even when it frees up part of a worker’s existing salary, it does not directly address the rising cost of other essentials.
This difference explains why the TUC has called for a permanent salary adjustment. It wants the government to improve workers’ general purchasing power rather than provide another payment that will eventually expire.
Still, a permanent salary increase has financial implications that cannot be ignored. Government must consider the number of employees affected, the total payroll commitment, available revenue and the ability to sustain higher salaries over time.
The proposed increase from ₦70,000 to ₦300,000 would also require consequential adjustments across other salary grades, according to the TUC’s demand. Such a change would therefore need a detailed financial assessment and a clear implementation framework.
The policy debate should consequently examine both immediate hardship and long-term affordability. Workers need relief now, but government must also establish a credible plan for sustaining any permanent adjustment.
Economists Look Beyond Cash Payments
Economic analysts have argued that the transport allowance could help vulnerable workers, but they have also urged government to address the conditions that make commuting so expensive.
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, welcomed the possibility of immediate support.
He observed that low-income earners were struggling with rising living costs and said workers should welcome assistance that could ease their burden.
“So whatever support we get, I think we must welcome it,” Yusuf said.
However, he maintained that government should complement financial assistance with investment in affordable mass transit. Subsidised buses, in particular, could reduce the amount employees spend travelling to work.
He also recommended staff buses for public institutions and private companies. In addition, employers could reduce the number of required office days when employees can perform their duties remotely.
Ayodeji Ebo, Chief Executive Officer and Partner at MDU Capital Limited, similarly recognised the importance of transport expenses in household budgets.
He welcomed the proposed allowance but urged the government to disclose its funding arrangements. In his view, the programme’s affordability would depend on the verified number of beneficiaries and the availability of sustainable funding.
Ebo also called for greater investment in affordable transportation, including buses and urban rail systems.
Their recommendations suggest that a durable response must go beyond monthly payments. Without more accessible and affordable public transportation, employees may continue to spend heavily on commuting long after the proposed intervention expires.
The Question of Who Qualifies
Even if the government proceeds with the allowance, its eligibility conditions will determine how much of the workforce benefits.
The description of the proposed intervention as covering workers across different levels requires further clarification. Government must identify the employees eligible for payment and explain whether the scheme extends beyond federal public servants.
For instance, will state and local government employees qualify? What about private-sector workers whose employers do not provide transport support? Will the programme cover people working in informal occupations?
These questions matter because Nigeria’s workforce extends far beyond formal government employment.
Traders, artisans, commercial drivers, small-business operators, casual workers and self-employed people also spend money travelling to earn a living. Yet a federal intervention cannot automatically be assumed to cover all these groups.
The experiences of two Abuja residents illustrate the different pressures workers face.
Ado, a commercial driver, complained that petrol costs and vehicle maintenance expenses consume much of his earnings. Although transport fares have increased by more than 300 per cent, he said the higher charges have not translated into equivalent improvements in his income.
“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, described a different but equally difficult situation. She earns ₦100,000 monthly 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.
Their accounts demonstrate that rising transport costs affect people in different occupations. However, the proposed allowance’s coverage will determine whether employees in similar circumstances receive any direct support.
Government must therefore publish the eligibility rules, the projected number of beneficiaries and the total cost of the programme. It should also explain how the scheme will treat employees who receive other entitlements or transport benefits.
Previous Wage Awards & the Problem of Confidence
The TUC’s concerns about the 2023 ₦40,000 wage award deserve attention because implementation determines whether a policy delivers real benefits.
A government announcement does not automatically translate into money received by workers. Delayed payments, incomplete disbursements and unresolved eligibility disputes can weaken confidence in subsequent agreements.
For that reason, the Federal Government should publish a reconciliation of the earlier wage award. Such a document should show how many workers qualified, how many received full payment, what remains outstanding and how the authorities intend to resolve any outstanding cases.
Similarly, the new transport intervention requires clear administrative arrangements. Workers should know the commencement date, payment schedule, responsible agencies and procedures for reporting non-payment.
Transparency would also help the NLC and TUC explain their respective positions with supporting information.
The NLC should make the terms of its understanding with government clear, while the TUC should provide evidence for its proposed salary adjustment and outline how the government could finance it.
Without such information, the debate risks becoming a contest between competing announcements rather than a serious examination of workers’ needs.
Building a Transport System That Reduces Household Pressure
Beyond the immediate disagreement, Nigeria’s commuting challenges point to structural problems that require sustained policy attention.
High fuel costs, inadequate mass transit and the distance between affordable housing and employment centres all contribute to the amount workers spend travelling to work.
A temporary allowance may soften the impact, but it cannot independently resolve these conditions.
Government could reduce the burden through affordable public buses, reliable urban transport networks and better coordination of existing routes. Public institutions and private employers could also introduce staff transportation schemes where practical.
Furthermore, expanding access to affordable housing near employment centres could reduce the long journeys that force many workers to spend heavily on commuting.
Flexible work arrangements may provide another option for occupations that do not require employees to be physically present every day. As Yusuf suggested, reducing unnecessary office journeys could help workers retain more of their earnings.
However, these measures require planning, funding and cooperation among different levels of government, employers and transport operators.
The proposed allowance should therefore form part of a wider economic strategy rather than operate as an isolated response to rising transport costs.
What Happens When the Six Months End?
The timing of the proposed intervention raises another important issue. The allowance is expected to run for six months from November 2026, but workers will still face transport, food, housing and healthcare expenses when the programme ends.
Government must explain whether the payment is intended as a temporary bridge towards wider wage reforms or as a stand-alone intervention.
It should also disclose how it arrived at the ₦70,000 figure and whether the amount reflects the actual commuting expenses of eligible employees. Without that information, workers cannot properly assess whether the proposed payment will meet their needs.
At the same time, the TUC’s proposed salary increase requires a clear explanation of its funding and implementation. A permanent adjustment could provide broader assistance, but it must also be financially sustainable.
The two positions should therefore be examined through transparent figures, verified worker data and realistic assessments of public resources.
Measuring Relief by Its Impact on Workers
For a worker earning the statutory minimum wage of ₦70,000, an additional ₦70,000 monthly payment would be substantial if the employee qualifies and receives the full amount promptly.
Nevertheless, the allowance would not automatically resolve the broader financial pressures confronting Nigerian households. Its benefits would be temporary, while the cost of essential goods and services would continue to affect workers.
Equally, the TUC’s demand for permanent salary improvements cannot be assessed without considering funding, public finances and the practical consequences of consequential adjustments across salary grades.
What matters now is the ability of government and organised labour to move beyond disagreement and establish a credible framework for workers’ welfare.
That framework should combine immediate assistance with transparent implementation, affordable public transportation and a realistic approach to salary improvements.
Ultimately, the measure of relief should be visible in workers’ daily lives. Can they travel to work without sacrificing money meant for food? Can they pay rent, support their families and access healthcare without depending on additional jobs simply to survive?
For employees waiting for the proposed allowance, the announcement is only the beginning. The real test will come when payments reach beneficiaries, when the six-month period expires and when government demonstrates what lasting measures it intends to introduce.
