Fuel Subsidy: The debate Nigeria never finished

For three years, Nigerians have endured the pain of fuel subsidy removal, told that the money previously spent on the system would be redirected towards investments for a stronger economy. Now, the debate has resurfaced as a potential fault line in the 2027 presidential race. Atiku Abubakar insists he would restore fuel subsidy if elected, while President Bola Tinubu argues that returning to the old system would be economically reckless.

Peter Obi maintains that subsidy removal was necessary, but its proceeds have been poorly managed. Other candidates have suggested targeted interventions or rejecting the current policy altogether.

The real question for ordinary Nigerians is what they receive in return for the sacrifices they make. Atiku's proposal reignites a contentious issue that never truly resolved itself. He argues that the removal of subsidy has burdened citizens with higher costs, affecting transportation, food, and household budgets. Atiku's position is not without criticism, having previously supported subsidy removal during the 2023 election campaign.

President Tinubu contends that Nigeria cannot sustain a system that strains public finances and creates opportunities for corruption. The Finance Ministry reports that the reforms associated with subsidy removal and foreign-exchange liberalisation generated N15.8 trillion in additional resources for the government and its state counterparts between June 2023 and December 2025. However, the average Nigerian citizen is more concerned with the cost of daily necessities, such as transportation, food, education, and healthcare.

Peter Obi's intervention adds an important perspective to the debate. He still supports subsidy removal but criticizes the mismanagement of the resources recovered. He argues that Nigerians deserve a clear alternative use for the funds generated by subsidy removal. This distinction highlights the need for a more visible social contract surrounding reform, connecting citizens' sacrifices to tangible improvements in public transportation, healthcare, education, food security, and economic opportunities.

Other candidates offer varying viewpoints, emphasizing the importance of sequencing reforms, addressing corruption, and providing targeted interventions. Donald Duke's argument suggests a more nuanced approach to the debate, moving beyond the simple question of whether subsidy is inherently good or bad.

Ultimately, the debate reveals that the choice is not solely between unlimited subsidy and complete abolition of government intervention. The conversation must focus on building a more transparent and accountable system, ensuring that the sacrifices made by Nigerians translate into meaningful improvements in their daily lives.