Subsidy Debate: Can Atiku, Obi Match Tinubu’s Development Record Ahead of 2027?

 

Subsidy Debate: Can Atiku, Obi Match Tinubu’s Development Record Ahead of 2027?

By Akin Alade

As the controversy over fuel subsidy removal and the trillions of naira accruing to the three tiers of government intensifies, the debate ahead of the 2027 presidential election may ultimately have to move beyond political rhetoric to a direct comparison of records between President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his major opponents.

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has demanded greater accountability over revenues generated following the removal of petrol subsidy, questioning how the additional resources have translated into better living conditions, infrastructure and economic opportunities for Nigerians.

The All Progressives Congress (APC), however, has defended President Tinubu’s economic reforms, arguing that reversing the subsidy policy could weaken government finances, threaten investments in critical sectors and return Nigeria to an unsustainable fiscal arrangement.

But beyond arguments over subsidy, a bigger question is emerging: What are the development records of those seeking to replace Tinubu in 2027?

If former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi want Nigerians to believe that they offer better alternatives, the coming campaign should provide an opportunity for their records in public office to be placed alongside Tinubu’s for Nigerians to examine.

Tinubu, Atiku, Obi: Let Records Determine the Debate

The 2027 presidential contest should not simply be about who makes the loudest criticism.

Nigerians deserve a debate based on verifiable records.

Let each major contender present the people who worked with him, the policies implemented under his leadership, infrastructure delivered, investments attracted, jobs created and reforms introduced while holding public office.

Tinubu’s supporters argue that the scale of infrastructure projects and economic reforms being undertaken by his administration deserves greater recognition, particularly considering the difficult economic environment inherited by the government.

From major highway projects and transportation infrastructure to reforms in education, taxation, energy and social investment, the administration has embarked on projects intended to reposition the economy for longer-term growth.

That does not mean Nigerians are not experiencing hardship. Inflation, food prices, transportation costs and the general cost of living remain genuine concerns that the government cannot dismiss.

The more important question is whether the current sacrifices are creating foundations capable of producing sustainable economic growth.

Development Comes With Difficult Decisions

No serious economic reform is painless.

Removing a decades-old subsidy system, reforming foreign exchange management and restructuring government finances were always going to produce consequences for businesses and households.

Anyone seeking Nigeria’s presidency must therefore explain not only what he intends to change, but how those promises will be funded and sustained.

It is easy during an election campaign to promise cheaper fuel, lower prices and increased government spending simultaneously. Governing a federation of more than 200 million people requires considerably more difficult choices.

The APC has warned that returning to the previous subsidy arrangement could reduce resources available for salaries, pensions, education, healthcare and infrastructure.

President Tinubu’s opponents are entitled to challenge that position, but Nigerians should equally demand detailed alternatives rather than slogans.

Peter Obi’s Anambra Record Should Also Face Scrutiny

Peter Obi has built much of his national political appeal around prudence, accountability and his record as governor of Anambra State.

That record should therefore be subjected to the same scrutiny being applied to Tinubu’s presidency.

Questions surrounding industrial disputes, infrastructure, healthcare, education and local government administration during Obi’s tenure deserve examination alongside the achievements frequently highlighted by his supporters.

The purpose should not be to dismiss Obi merely because he governed a state rather than the federation. It should instead be to establish whether his record provides sufficient evidence that his proposed policies can be successfully implemented on the much larger and more complicated Nigerian stage.

Equating state administration directly with governing the Federal Republic also requires caution.

Nigeria’s president must manage national security, foreign affairs, monetary and fiscal pressures, federal infrastructure, energy policy and relationships involving 36 states and 774 local government areas.

That scale of responsibility should form part of any serious comparison ahead of 2027.

Tinubu Administration’s Industrial Relations Record Deserves Balanced Assessment

One area where the present government can point to efforts at maintaining industrial stability is its engagement with organised labour and professional unions.

However, describing the administration as completely strike-free would be inaccurate. Resident doctors have undertaken industrial actions during Tinubu’s presidency.

What can be examined instead is the government’s response to such disputes and its ability to prevent some disagreements from developing into prolonged shutdowns.

For example, recent intervention by the Presidency helped produce an agreement with resident doctors over outstanding salary, promotion and allowance issues, leading to the suspension of a planned industrial action.

That ability to negotiate and resolve disputes quickly should form part of the government’s record, just as unresolved disputes should also remain open to public scrutiny.

ADC’s Trillions Question Cannot Simply Be Ignored

While the APC has reasons to defend its reforms, the opposition’s demand for accountability over additional government revenues is also legitimate in a democracy.

The ADC has questioned how increased revenues resulting from subsidy removal have translated into schools, hospitals, roads, transportation systems and improved living standards.

That question deserves a clear answer.

The best response from the government should therefore not merely be political counterattacks. Federal, state and local governments should demonstrate where increased allocations have gone and allow Nigerians to judge the results themselves.

Accountability would actually strengthen the argument of those defending subsidy removal if citizens can see tangible projects resulting from the additional revenues.

2027 Should Be a Contest of Records, Not Propaganda

As Nigeria moves closer to another presidential election, Tinubu, Atiku, Obi and other contenders should be subjected to the same standard.

What did you accomplish when you had power?

How many roads were constructed? What happened to education and healthcare? How were workers treated? What investments were attracted? What institutions were strengthened? What opportunities were created for young people? And, most importantly, what measurable improvements did citizens experience?

President Tinubu must defend his record, but those asking Nigerians to remove him must equally present theirs.

Economic reforms undoubtedly come with pain, but hardship cannot become an indefinite justification for government policy. The administration must demonstrate that today’s sacrifices will produce tomorrow’s prosperity.

At the same time, opposition leaders must show Nigerians that their alternatives are economically realistic and not simply attractive campaign promises.

Ultimately, the 2027 election should become a contest between records, policies and measurable achievements rather than propaganda and political sentiment.

If Tinubu’s opponents believe they can govern Nigeria better, the challenge is straightforward: bring out the records, present the evidence and allow Nigerians to compare.