By Halimah Nuhu Sanda
For three years, Nigerians have been told to endure the pain of fuel subsidy removal because the country could no longer afford the old system. We were told that the resources previously spent subsidising petrol would be redirected towards infrastructure, healthcare, education, security and other investments capable of producing a stronger economy.
Three years later, the subsidy debate has returned with renewed force, this time as one of the emerging fault lines of the 2027 presidential contest. Atiku Abubakar says he will restore subsidy. President Bola Tinubu says bringing it back would be economically reckless. Peter Obi says subsidy removal was necessary but its proceeds have been badly managed. Other presidential contenders have offered variations ranging from targeted intervention to a complete rejection of the assumptions underlying the current policy. Beneath all these political arguments, however, lies a much simpler question ordinary Nigerians have every right to ask: what exactly are we getting in return for the sacrifice?
Atiku’s intervention has reopened a wound that never really healed. He has insisted that if elected, he would restore petrol subsidy, although his position has subsequently been framed as targeted support rather than a return to the old import-subsidy regime. Atiku argues that Nigerians are carrying the consequences of higher energy and transportation costs and that government must restore purchasing power. His argument resonates because the consequences of subsidy removal have travelled far beyond the price displayed at filling stations. Fuel costs have affected transportation, food, small businesses and household budgets. For many Nigerians, the reform is experienced not as an abstract fiscal adjustment but as the reason virtually everything costs more.
Yet Atiku’s position deserves scrutiny as much as the government’s does. He supported subsidy removal during the 2023 presidential campaign, making his current position an obvious target for criticism. His camp has also spent part of this week clarifying whether the proposed subsidy would be temporary or open-ended before Atiku himself reiterated that his position had not changed. A subsidy may provide relief, but Nigerians deserve to know how much it would cost, who would benefit, how it would be funded and how the country would prevent the corruption and opacity that characterised the old system.
President Tinubu’s argument, on the other hand, is that Nigeria could not continue with a system that placed an enormous burden on public finances while creating opportunities for abuse. The administration maintains that subsidy removal was a necessary reform and that returning to the old model would simply recreate the problems Nigeria had decided to confront. According to the Finance Ministry, the reforms associated with subsidy removal and foreign-exchange liberalisation generated N15.8 trillion in additional resources for the Federation between June 2023 and December 2025, with N5.4 trillion accruing to the federal government and N10.4 trillion distributed to states and local governments.
But this is where the government’s argument encounters the reality of the Nigerian household. A fiscal improvement is important, but it cannot be the only measure of a successful economic reform. If government tells citizens that a painful policy is necessary because it will free resources for development, citizens are entitled to ask where the development is. Government has explained that the resources have been absorbed by increased expenditure, debt servicing, higher wages and other fiscal pressures. Yet the ordinary Nigerian is not measuring the reform by government accounting. They are measuring it by the cost of getting to work, feeding their families, sending their children to school and accessing healthcare.
Peter Obi’s intervention is therefore significant because he refuses to accept the easy argument that hardship automatically proves subsidy removal was wrong. Obi has explicitly said that he still supports subsidy removal and that the mismanagement of the proceeds should not be a reason to reverse the policy. His criticism is that Nigerians were not given an adequate alternative use for the resources recovered from subsidy.
That distinction deserves much more attention. Perhaps the greatest weakness of Nigeria’s subsidy reform was not that the government removed the subsidy, but that it failed to build a sufficiently visible social contract around the reform. When citizens are told that they must pay more today so that the country can become stronger tomorrow, tomorrow cannot remain an indefinite promise. People need to see the connection between their sacrifice and better public transportation, functioning hospitals, stronger schools, food security and opportunities for productive enterprise.
The other presidential contenders make the debate even more interesting. Omoyele Sowore represents the argument that subsidy itself should not necessarily be treated as the enemy and that the real problem is the corruption and inefficiency surrounding its administration. His position provides an important counterpoint to those who regard subsidy removal as inherently necessary.
Seyi Makinde, meanwhile, has criticised the simultaneous removal of subsidy and floating of the naira as a double shock that required stronger cushioning measures for Nigerians. His argument moves the conversation towards sequencing and social protection rather than simply asking whether subsidy is good or bad. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim has offered another variation, arguing for a more targeted and transparent intervention rather than a return to the old system. These positions remind us that the choice is not necessarily between unlimited subsidy and complete abandonment of government intervention.
And then there is Donald Duke, whose argument I find perhaps the most intellectually provocative. Rather than simply accepting the language of the debate, Duke has challenged the premise itself, questioning whether what Nigeria called fuel subsidy was ever a genuine and transparent subsidy system in the first place. His intervention forces us to ask a more fundamental question: what exactly are we trying to remove or restore? If the system itself was opaque and corrupt, simply arguing about whether to bring it back may be missing the point.
Taken together, these positions reveal that Nigeria’s political class is not actually debating one question. They are debating several. Should government subsidise petrol? Should it subsidise vulnerable Nigerians instead? Should the savings from subsidy removal be invested in public services? Should domestic production be supported to bring prices down? Should government intervene temporarily during periods of economic shock? And perhaps most importantly, how do we protect citizens from the consequences of necessary economic reform without recreating the fiscal leakages that made the old system unsustainable?
This last question deserves to become the centre of Nigeria’s conversation.
Subsidising petrol is not necessarily the same thing as subsidising Nigerians. A universal subsidy benefits everyone who buys petrol, including those who can comfortably afford its true market price. A targeted social protection system could instead concentrate scarce public resources on poor households, public transport users, farmers, small businesses and other groups most exposed to energy-price shocks. Such a system could be accompanied by investment in mass transportation, domestic refining, food production, healthcare and other measures that reduce the transmission of fuel prices into the cost of living.
This is where the subsidy debate should ultimately take us. Nigeria does not have to choose between pretending that petrol can remain artificially cheap forever and abandoning citizens to absorb every consequence of market reform. There is a middle ground, but it requires something Nigeria has historically struggled to provide: transparent, accountable and disciplined government.
The question, therefore, should no longer be simply whether subsidy should be removed or restored. The harder and more important question is what kind of economy Nigeria wants to build after subsidy.
If government chooses to remove subsidy, it must demonstrate what Nigerians are receiving in return. If an opposition candidate promises to restore it, that candidate must explain how it will be financed, targeted and protected from the corruption of the past. If another candidate supports its removal, that candidate must explain how the resulting fiscal space will translate into better lives. And if someone proposes a middle path, Nigerians deserve to see the numbers, the safeguards and the implementation plan.
Because Nigerians do not necessarily need cheap petrol forever. They need an economy in which they can afford the petrol they buy.
The success of subsidy removal was never going to be measured simply by whether government could stop paying the subsidy. It should be measured by whether the country could turn that difficult sacrifice into a more productive economy, stronger public services and a better quality of life. Until Nigerians can see that connection, the subsidy debate will continue to return, election after election, because the real issue has never been only the price of petrol. It is the price Nigerians are being asked to pay for reform, and whether anyone can convincingly show them what that sacrifice is buying.
Comments
Post a Comment