From medical trips abroad to private schools, and from air travel over failing highways to personal generators amid blackouts, the choices of those in authority keep raising questions about trust in public institutions
Our Managing Editor, in Abuja the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Ekuson Nw’Ogbunka I this analysis writes that in Nigeria’s public conversation, one pattern repeats: those who have held political office and those currently in office often seek medical care abroad, send their children to schools overseas or to expensive private institutions, travel by air over roads that citizens call dangerous, and power their homes with generators while the national grid struggles. The choices are legal and personal. The question they provoke is public. Do these options reflect a lack of confidence in the hospitals, schools, roads, and power systems built with public funds? This analysis examines that gap objectively, how it manifests, why it matters for governance, and what it suggests about policy priorities.
The trend in healthcare is visible. Many past and present political office holders travel abroad for medical check-ups, treatment, and surgeries, rather than rely primarily on public hospitals.
2. In education, the pattern is similar. Dependents of several officials attend universities abroad or enroll in high-fee private schools and universities within Nigeria. For leisure, holidays and retreats are also frequently taken outside the country.
On movement, air travel is the default for many in authority. Official convoys use airports, and personal trips avoid long road journeys. The reason cited publicly is security and time. The reality on the ground is that many federal and state roads are in poor condition, with potholes, delays, and safety concerns.
On power, the contrast is just as clear. While most households and businesses endure irregular electricity supply, those with resources can afford generators, fuel, and alternative power systems for their homes and offices. These choices do not break any law. But their visibility raises a central policy question: what does it signal about trust in the public institutions that budgets are meant to build and maintain?
From a governance standpoint, direct use of public services creates feedback. A leader treated in a public hospital experiences drug availability and equipment firsthand. A leader whose children attend public schools experiences strikes, infrastructure, and curriculum delivery directly. When that direct experience is missing, the urgency to fix systemic problems can weaken, even though the responsibility to fix them remains with government.
Public perception is often shaped by lived contrasts. Stories circulate of citizens who struggled with illness locally, traveled abroad, and recovered quickly, accounts that feed the idea of “two worlds” of service delivery.
In education, comparisons are drawn between graduates trained abroad or in elite private institutions and those trained in public universities. Advocates argue that closing that gap requires investment in labs, research, faculty welfare, digital infrastructure, and industry collaboration. Without those investments, even highly talented students may lack the same exposure, facilities, and networks available elsewhere.
On transportation, the argument made by citizens is straightforward: if decision-makers regularly used the same roads as the public, the pressure to rehabilitate and secure those roads might increase.
Security considerations make mandatory road travel for top officials impractical. The policy point, however, is about prioritization and funding for road maintenance, not about forcing personal risk.
On electricity, the disparity is between national grid performance and private alternatives. The ability to afford generators and fuel creates a buffer for some, while businesses and households without that buffer face downtime and higher costs.
To address these divides, some have proposed legislation to restrict public officials from seeking medical care abroad or enrolling dependents in foreign schools, except where specialized services are not available domestically. Such proposals raise constitutional, ethical, and practical questions around personal rights, medical necessity, and how to define “unavailable” services locally.
Policy experts generally point to institution-building as the more sustainable path. That includes predictable funding, transparent procurement, performance contracts for hospitals and universities, and long-term maintenance plans for roads and the power sector.
When public hospitals are well-equipped, when universities are competitive, when roads are motorable, and when power is stable, the incentive to seek alternatives abroad or privately naturally reduces for everyone.
Ultimately, the issue is about alignment. Leadership is measured not only by policy statements but by the condition of the systems citizens use daily. Closing the gap between public services and private options will require consistent investment, accountability, and a focus on outcomes. When that happens, the distance between those in authority and the led narrows, and confidence in public institutions has room to grow.
