By Franklin Onoben

There is a narrative about Nigeria’s fuel subsidy that has been repeated so often that many people now accept it as settled fact:

“Tinubu removed the subsidy and gave the money to the governors.”

I think we need to be more precise.

Before 2023, my personal position was that fuel subsidy should eventually go—but only after we had built functional refineries and strengthened the systems needed to cushion the impact on Nigerians.

After 2023, my position changed somewhat. The subsidy has been removed. Rather than continually looking backwards, I believe we should now look forward and ask what we can do with the resources that would otherwise have gone into subsidy.

For me, one obvious priority should be the very thing I had advocated before subsidy removal: functional refineries and a more productive domestic petroleum industry.

But two parts of the current narrative deserve clarification.

First: “Tinubu removed the subsidy.”

President Tinubu certainly announced and implemented the termination of the subsidy regime in May 2023. But the fiscal context matters. The 2023 budget approved before he assumed office provided for petrol subsidy only through June 2023.

So the fuller story is not simply that a president woke up, found an endless subsidy provision, and personally decided to stop paying it. The existing budgetary arrangement was already approaching its end. His inauguration-day announcement brought that policy position into immediate effect.

Second: “Tinubu…gave the money to the governors.”

This framing is also misleading.

The revenues accruing to the Federation are not the President’s personal money to distribute as he wishes. Nigeria’s constitutional framework provides for revenue accruing to the Federation to be distributed among the relevant tiers of government through the established allocation system. The Constitution provides the framework for the Federation Account and revenue allocation, while the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission has statutory responsibilities around monitoring and revenue allocation.

So when allocations to states increased after subsidy payments stopped, it is more accurate to say that the reduction in subsidy expenditure affected the amount available within the federation’s fiscal pool, rather than saying the President simply “gave the subsidy money to the governors.”

Now, Nigerians have every right to decide whether they want subsidy restored.

That is democracy.

If Nigerians decide that they want a government that will reverse the reform, that is their choice. Political candidates are equally entitled to campaign on that promise.

But we should have an honest conversation about the cost, sustainability and consequences of such a reversal—not merely present it as though subsidy disappeared solely because one individual chose to take Nigerians’ money away.

Interestingly, before the 2023 election, the major presidential contenders had all, in one form or another, expressed support for ending the subsidy regime. Today, as Nigerians struggle with the consequences of its removal, the political conversation has understandably shifted.

That is politics.

But we should not allow politics to replace facts.

The question I would rather ask is:

Now that the subsidy era has ended, what are we going to do with the resources that have been released from it?

Can we build and maintain functional refineries?

Can we reduce our dependence on imported refined petroleum products?

Can we invest in public transportation and infrastructure?

Can we create a more productive economy that makes the removal of subsidy less painful for ordinary Nigerians?

Those are the questions we should be debating.

Facts first. Choices second.

And ultimately, an enlightened citizen is not easy to manipulate.