Atiku Stands Firm on Petrol Subsidy Return Despite Criticism, Economists Warn Against Reversing Reform
Atiku Stands Firm on Petrol Subsidy Return Despite Criticism, Economists Warn Against Reversing Reform
By Akin Alade
Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has doubled down on his controversial proposal to restore a targeted petrol subsidy if elected president, despite mounting criticism from the Presidency, political opponents and concerns over the enormous financial implications for Nigeria.
Atiku’s insistence has reopened one of Nigeria’s most divisive economic debates ahead of the 2027 general election: whether the country should return to subsidising petrol or concentrate on correcting the shortcomings associated with the subsidy-removal policy.
According to reports, Atiku maintains that the removal of petrol subsidy has worsened hardship, increased transportation and food costs and weakened the purchasing power of millions of Nigerians. He argues that a targeted intervention could provide relief while the country expands domestic refining capacity and improves competition in the downstream petroleum sector.
His position comes despite days of criticism over the proposal. The Presidency has demanded details on how such a subsidy would be funded, who would qualify as beneficiaries, how much it would cost taxpayers and under what circumstances the intervention would eventually be withdrawn.
Presidency Raises N19.1tr Funding Question
The debate became more intense after Senior Special Assistant to the President on Digital and New Media, Otega Ogra, estimated that Atiku’s proposed subsidy programme could cost Nigeria about N19.1 trillion annually.
The figure, however, should be presented as an estimate advanced by the Presidency, rather than an independently established cost of Atiku’s plan. Atiku has described his proposal as targeted and capped, while the government argues that important details required to properly cost the programme remain unclear.
This raises a fundamental question: Can Nigeria afford another petrol subsidy regime at a time when the country is struggling with competing demands for infrastructure, education, healthcare, security and debt servicing?
Economists’ Concern: Fix the Reform, Don’t Reverse It
For critics of subsidy restoration, Nigeria’s economic challenge is no longer simply whether subsidy removal was necessary, but whether the reform has been properly implemented and whether its benefits are reaching ordinary Nigerians.
From this perspective, returning to the previous subsidy structure could represent a major setback. The preferred solution would be to correct weaknesses in the current system through greater transparency, increased domestic refining, improved public transportation, stronger social protection and policies capable of reducing food, energy and transportation costs.
Information Minister Mohammed Idris has similarly argued that restoring petrol subsidy could weaken Nigeria’s fiscal position, undermine investor confidence and reverse gains associated with the economic reforms.
The Federal Government says subsidy removal mobilised about N15.8 trillion for the Federation between June 2023 and December 2025, with N5.4 trillion accruing to the Federal Government and N10.4 trillion going to states and local governments. That claim has itself generated demands for greater accountability over how the additional resources have affected citizens’ lives.
Atiku: Where Is the Subsidy Money?
Atiku, however, is turning that argument against the Tinubu administration.
The former Vice President has demanded greater accountability over resources freed by subsidy removal, arguing that Nigerians were promised that eliminating subsidy would create fiscal space for development but have instead faced higher petrol, transportation and food costs.
He has also rejected suggestions that his proposal simply means restoring the old subsidy arrangement. His camp describes the proposal as a targeted, capped and transparently budgeted intervention, accompanied by domestic refining, competition, mass transportation and measures to improve household purchasing power.
This distinction could become crucial as the political debate develops.
Subsidy Debate Could Become Major 2027 Election Issue
What started as an economic policy disagreement is rapidly developing into a major 2027 presidential campaign issue.
Atiku appears determined to position himself as an advocate of immediate relief for Nigerians struggling with high living costs, while President Bola Tinubu’s administration is defending subsidy removal as a difficult but necessary structural reform.
Yet beyond political exchanges, Nigerians will likely demand numbers and measurable plans from both sides.
Atiku will need to explain precisely how his proposed targeted subsidy would be financed without reopening the fiscal leakages associated with the old system. The Tinubu administration, on the other hand, faces pressure to demonstrate how the resources freed by subsidy removal have translated into tangible improvements in living standards.
Ultimately, the choice may not simply be between subsidy and no subsidy. The bigger challenge is developing an energy-pricing system that protects vulnerable Nigerians without returning the country to an expensive and potentially abuse-prone arrangement.
For critics of Atiku’s proposal, reversing the reform would take Nigeria backwards; the better option is to fix its implementation, strengthen accountability and ensure that Nigerians finally experience the benefits promised when petrol subsidy was removed.
