Nigeria’s opposition figures appear to have discovered a convenient political formula for 2027: condemn the government for removing petrol subsidy, promise to restore it, and leave Nigerians to figure out how the bill will be paid.
Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and former Anambra State governor Peter Obi once agreed that the petrol subsidy regime was unsustainable and needed to end. Today, both are promising to bring it back, albeit with different qualifications. Their changing positions raise a fundamental question: are these men offering Nigerians carefully considered economic alternatives, or simply telling voters what they want to hear?
In 2022, Atiku described the subsidy as a drain on public resources and pledged to resolve the regime within his first 100 days in office. Obi went further, describing it as an organised crime and advocating the redirection of savings into education, healthcare and infrastructure.
They were right to recognise the problem then. What is difficult to understand is why the economic realities that informed those positions appear to have receded from their calculations now that subsidy removal has become politically unpopular.
Politicians can change their minds. Circumstances change, and sound leadership sometimes requires a reassessment of policy. But when candidates reverse positions on an issue as consequential as petrol subsidy, they owe the public a rigorous explanation of what has changed, how their new proposals will work and what they will cost.
So far, the central questions remain unanswered.
The economic reality they cannot wish away
Nigeria did not remove petrol subsidy merely because President Bola Tinubu wanted to make petrol more expensive. The old arrangement had become an enormous burden on public finances, diverting scarce resources from development and creating opportunities for corruption, smuggling and arbitrage.
According to the World Bank, petrol subsidy costs rose from 1.1 per cent of total government revenue in 2020 to 32.4 per cent in 2022. In that year alone, the subsidy cost approximately 2.2 per cent of gross domestic product and exceeded the combined budgetary allocations for health, education and social protection.
The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited also accumulated subsidy-related arrears of about ₦2.8 trillion by the end of 2022. Meanwhile, the price differential between subsidised Nigerian petrol and prices in neighbouring countries created incentives for cross-border smuggling.
These figures expose the fundamental absurdity of the old policy. A country struggling to finance roads, schools, hospitals, security and other essential services was committing a substantial portion of its revenue to keeping petrol artificially cheap.
The arrangement was also poorly targeted. The World Bank estimated that poorer households purchased only about three per cent of subsidised petrol, meaning wealthier consumers captured a disproportionate share of the benefits.
In a country of more than 200 million people, with enormous development needs and limited fiscal resources, such a policy was neither equitable nor sustainable. Every naira spent sustaining it was a naira unavailable for other priorities, unless the government borrowed more or found additional revenue.
This is the economic argument for subsidy removal. It is not that Nigerians should pay more for petrol or that the hardship resulting from reform is unimportant. It is that the government cannot indefinitely absorb the cost of subsidising a globally traded commodity without compromising other obligations or undermining fiscal stability.
The Tinubu administration must nevertheless be held accountable for the consequences of its decision. Higher petrol prices have increased transportation costs and intensified pressure on household budgets and businesses. Removing the subsidy was not the end of reform; it was the beginning of the harder task of managing its consequences.
That task requires efficient public transport, targeted support for vulnerable households, productive investment and transparent accounting for the savings. The government must demonstrate that Nigerians are receiving tangible benefits from the sacrifices they have been asked to make.
But the alleged failure to manage reform effectively does not automatically make the abandoned policy economically sound.
Where is the opposition’s alternative?
Atiku says he would restore a capped and targeted subsidy. Obi argues that corruption is the real problem and promises to bring the subsidy back after tackling it.
These proposals may sound reassuring to struggling Nigerians, but reassurance is not an economic programme.
Atiku must explain how much his proposed subsidy would cost, where the money would come from, who would qualify and how the government would prevent diversion and fraudulent claims. If petrol could return to ₦300–₦400 per litre under his proposal, what assumptions support that price? How long could it be sustained, and what expenditure would be sacrificed to finance it?
A targeted subsidy could, in principle, be designed differently from the old universal arrangement. But its merits must be established through a credible fiscal framework, not through campaign declarations.
Obi’s argument is equally incomplete. Eliminating corruption would reduce waste, but it would not eliminate the underlying cost of selling petrol below its market price. Even a perfectly administered subsidy must be funded. The question is not simply whether corruption can be reduced, but whether Nigeria can sustainably afford the intervention after accounting for all its competing obligations.
If subsidy savings have been mismanaged, the answer is transparency, independent auditing and accountability. Restoring the subsidy without addressing the underlying fiscal arithmetic would risk recreating the very problem these candidates once condemned.
Having spent considerable periods in public office, both men should understand that the presidency is not a platform for announcing attractive intentions. It is an office that demands choices among competing priorities, with consequences for public finances and citizens’ welfare.
Where are their comprehensive economic plans? Where are the cost estimates, funding arrangements, implementation timelines and measurable outcomes that would allow Nigerians to assess their proposals?
The opposition cannot spend years arguing that the government has mishandled the consequences of subsidy removal and then offer restoration as though it were a self-financing solution. If they believe the policy was wrong, they must demonstrate how their alternative would deliver relief without undermining the economy.
Campaign rhetoric is not economic leadership
The same concern applies to the broader tone of the opposition campaign. At an African Democratic Congress stakeholders’ meeting in Benin City, Rotimi Amaechi, Atiku’s running mate described Tinubu’s economic policies as reckless and declared that only a madman would vote for the President in 2027. He also claimed personal credit for completing the Lekki Deep Seaport.
Such rhetoric may generate headlines, but it does not answer the questions that matter to citizens. Insults do not lower inflation, finance infrastructure or explain how a government will meet its obligations. Nor can a major infrastructure project’s development history be reduced to a personal ownership claim without examining the contributions of the public institutions and private investors involved.
Nigeria needs an opposition that interrogates government performance, exposes waste and presents credible alternatives. It should be explaining how to strengthen public transport, improve domestic refining, protect vulnerable households and ensure that fiscal savings translate into better public services.
Instead, too much of the emerging debate appears driven by political convenience: policies condemned when they were less costly to oppose are now being revived because the consequences of reform have become unpopular.
That is the danger of campaign promises detached from economic reality. Their fraudulence lies not necessarily in the impossibility of every proposal, but in advertising the benefits while withholding the costs, risks and funding arrangements.
The 2027 election should be a contest of credible programmes, not a competition to offer the most comforting promises. Nigerians deserve candidates who understand that a resource-constrained country cannot finance every desirable outcome simultaneously.
If Atiku and Obi believe subsidy restoration is economically justified, they should publish their plans and defend the numbers. They must show how the policy would be financed, who would benefit and how it would avoid the failures of the previous regime.
Until then, their reversals invite a troubling conclusion: that their earlier support for subsidy removal was not matched by sufficient preparation for the responsibilities of governing, and that their present promises may be driven more by electoral calculation than by a coherent economic philosophy.
Nigeria cannot afford to govern by political convenience. The opposition must do more than tell Nigerians what they want to hear. It must demonstrate that it understands what governing the country will actually require.
The question is not who can promise cheaper petrol. It is who can explain, credibly and transparently, how Nigeria can afford it.