BY
JIMOH L. ADEWALE- ATOBA. Ph.D
waleatoba11@gmail.com
Obaagun, Osun State
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has fixed January 16, 2027, for the presidential and national assembly elections in Nigeria and lifted the embargo on campaigns. Political parties with presidential candidates have begun to unveil their strategies. While many issues will shape the contest, none has dominated public debate in recent weeks as much as the fate of the petrol subsidy. The question which needs an answer before the January 2027 presidential election is: Should we retain the removal of the fuel subsidy or restore its payment?
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of a major opposition party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), described the removal of the fuel subsidy as a wrong policy by President Tinubu, saying that it has deepened hardship for the masses.
It would be recalled that President Tinubu declared during his inauguration on May 29, 2023, that “fuel subsidy is gone.” The announcement triggered an immediate shock. Petrol prices rose from N185 to over N1,000 per litre. Inflation surged. Transport fares climbed. Food prices jumped. For many households, purchasing power collapsed.
Atiku argues that the promised benefits have not materialised. “I initially did not oppose the removal of the fuel subsidy, but now that it has been removed, where is the money? It was intended to reduce poverty and help children attend school. Where is the money? It seems they are just stealing it,” he said in a recent interview.
The opposition presidential candidate, former vice president Atiku Abubakar, has made it clear that if Nigeria elects him as the next president in 2027, he would ensure that subsidy payments are restored, but with a new paradigm.
According to Atiku “the new model will be targeted, capped, budgeted, and independently audited. It will be tied to domestic refining. Both public and private refineries would receive domestic crude at preferential prices, with strict conditions to ensure benefits reach consumers. There would be “no phantom cargoes, no fictitious imports, no unverifiable under-recoveries, and no retrospective claims.” The subsidy, he added, would operate within an annual fiscal ceiling and shrink gradually as local refining capacity expands.
Atiku and his supporters frame the removal as “economic shock therapy” that has made millions poorer while the government celebrates higher allocations. For them, relief must come first.
The Tinubu administration maintains that subsidy removal was unavoidable. Government officials, including the Minister of Finance, Mr. Taiwo Oyedele, argue that the reform has already generated an estimated N15.8 trillion for the Federation between June 2023 and December 2025. Of this, N5.43 trillion went to the Federal Government, N6.52 trillion to the States, and N3.88 trillion to the 774 Local Governments.
President Tinubu made a similar point during a visit by Governor Ademola Adeleke of Osun State. He recalled that before 2023, 27 states could not pay full salaries, a situation that earned some governors unflattering nicknames. “The infrastructure you embark upon — road networks, housing, schools, rehabilitation and resuscitation of healthcare — are part of your responsibilities,” the President told the Governor, adding that higher allocations were now making those projects possible.
One of the arguments of the present government in favour of the subsidy removal is that it has introduced the free market for the production and/or exportation of petroleum products and cut the monopolistic structure of Nigeria National Petroleum Company (NNPC)
Proponents also point to structural changes. They gave an example of the newly constructed Dangote Refinery, which has changed the narrative for the better in the fuel market in Nigeria. Critics of a return to subsidy ask: how would subsidies work with a deregulated, private-sector refinery? FCT Minister Nyesom Wike put it bluntly: “Are they going to give a fuel subsidy in the Dangote refinery?”
The argument for subsidy removal continues as one of President Tinubu's spokespersons, Bayo Onanuga, emphasised that restoring subsidies would lead to petroleum scarcity, undermine local refineries, discourage investment, and result in petrol scarcity in Nigeria. He further accused Atiku of inconsistency, noting that he had pledged to remove the subsidy within 100 days if elected in 2023. They ask how a restored subsidy would be funded without more debt or cuts to education, health, and infrastructure.
Northern Nigeria has been a determining factor in the emergence of any president in the country because of its population, as shown in the 2023 presidential election, which gave victory to President Tinubu. The opposition has exploited the opportunity to oppose the subsidy removal and make its restoration a front-end campaign. This has prompted the ruling party to adopt a stronger defensive stance on the policy.
As 2027 approaches, the contest is shaping up as a clash between two ideas: fiscal discipline versus social protection. The government argues that short-term pain will yield long-term gains — in roads, student loans, and salary payments. The opposition counters that the pain has become unbearable and the gains are not felt on the streets.
Voters will decide on January 16, 2027. They will decide whether to return to subsidy payments or endure the current hardship in hopes of a more productive, self-reliant economy.
The question before Nigerians is not just economic. It is political: Do we allow subsidies to re-enter our economy, or do we stay the course of reform and demand accountability for the savings already made?
0 Comments