Again, FG, APC tackle Atiku over petrol subsidy return call

The Federal Government and the ruling All Progressives Congress have warned against any attempt to restore petrol subsidy, arguing that reversing the policy would reopen the fiscal pressures, distortions and economic uncertainties that forced the country to abandon the regime in the first place.

The warning came on Sunday as the APC National Chairman, Prof Nentawe Yilwatda, and the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, separately responded to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s proposal for a reversal of the subsidy removal.

Tinubu announced the end of the petrol subsidy regime in his inaugural address on May 29, 2023, saying the subsidy had become unsustainable and that resources previously devoted to it would instead be channelled into infrastructure, education, healthcare and job creation.

The President has since repeatedly defended the decision, arguing that the subsidy had imposed an enormous burden on government finances.

Atiku, the African Democratic Congress presidential candidate, however, said he would restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027, arguing that Nigerians have not seen sufficient benefits from the savings generated after the subsidy was removed.

He also demanded an account of the funds saved from subsidy removal, arguing that the money should have been channelled into poverty reduction, education, security and opportunities for young Nigerians.

His Economic Recovery Plan 2027 proposes a different model from the pre-2023 system: a targeted, capped and transparently budgeted production subsidy, rather than an opaque import-based subsidy.

The proposal, according to him, would involve supplying qualifying Nigerian refineries with crude at preferential prices under strict conditions, with the aim of lowering petrol costs and encouraging domestic refining.

On Sunday, Atiku again accused President Bola Tinubu-led government of double standards in its economic policies, arguing that while Nigerians are being subjected to the harsh effects of petrol subsidy removal, major petroleum investors are receiving tax credits and other fiscal incentives.

Reacting, Yilwatda described Atiku’s position as a “deeply troubling policy U-turn,” accusing the opposition of making an election-season promise without explaining how the huge cost of subsidising petrol would be financed.

According to him, the timing of the proposal, coming about four months before the 2027 general election, raised questions about whether the opposition had developed a coherent economic programme capable of addressing Nigeria’s structural challenges.

“Economic policy cannot be reduced to election-season promises. Nigerians deserve to know precisely where the money will come from, what sectors will bear the cost and whether such a policy can be sustained without reopening the fiscal pressures that necessitated reform in the first place,” Yilwatda said.

The APC chairman, speaking during a visit to the headquarters of the City Boy Movement in Abuja, argued that the removal of petrol subsidy, though painful, was a necessary decision, insisting that the appropriate response to the hardship associated with the reform was to strengthen social interventions and productive sectors rather than return to the old system.

Yilwatda said the 2027 election should be decided based on competing economic programmes rather than promises aimed at securing immediate political support.

He also questioned the ideological consistency of opposition politicians who, he alleged, had moved between political platforms while seeking to present themselves as agents of stability.

The APC chairman urged Nigerians to scrutinise the records of presidential contenders and assess whether their proposed policies could address the country’s long-term economic challenges.

He said the APC would continue to defend the Tinubu administration’s economic reforms while remaining open to credible alternatives.

His position was reinforced by Idris, who argued that subsidy removal had released trillions of naira for distribution among the three tiers of government and created fiscal space for infrastructure, social investment and other government obligations.

According to the minister, figures presented under the Federal Government’s Reform Scorecard showed that subsidy savings mobilised N15.8tn for the federation between June 2023 and December 2025.

He said about N5.43tn accrued to the Federal Government, while states and local governments received approximately N6.52tn and N3.88tn respectively.

Idris, however, clarified that the N15.8tn did not represent money sitting in a separate government account, but resources released within the broader fiscal system and made available to the three tiers of government.

He added that the additional resources had strengthened the ability of states and local governments to meet salary and pension obligations and fund infrastructure and essential services.

At the federal level, the minister said, the fiscal space had supported investments in strategic infrastructure, human capital and social programmes.

The minister cited approximately N6.47tn in additional expenditure on strategic infrastructure, including projects in transport, housing, agriculture and security.

He also said more than 10 million Nigerian households had benefited from social transfers, while more than N400bn had been committed to programmes including the Nigerian Education Loan Fund, the MOFI Real Estate Investment Fund and the Nigerian Consumer Credit Corporation.

Idris said reversing the subsidy reform would also threaten gains in the petroleum sector at a time when Nigeria was witnessing an expansion in domestic refining capacity.

“The renewed call for the restoration of petrol subsidy under any guise demands a clear-eyed examination of what Nigeria has gained from reform and what the country would have to surrender by reversing course,” he said.

He recalled that Nigeria spent about $10bn on fuel subsidies in 2022, at a time when oil production was declining, and government revenues were under pressure.

The minister argued that the subsidy regime had become increasingly difficult to sustain, with resources that could have been deployed to education, healthcare, infrastructure and social protection being channelled into keeping petrol prices artificially low.

The Federal Government also warned that returning to the old system could recreate fuel scarcity, encourage arbitrage and deepen the country’s fiscal difficulties.

According to Idris, the government’s Reform Scorecard projected that, without the reforms, petrol scarcity could have returned and prices on the black market could have risen above N3,000 per litre.

He further said the legacy Ways and Means financing, which stood at about N30tn in May 2023, could have doubled to N60tn or more had the previous policy framework remained in place.

The minister also drew attention to the cost of electricity subsidies, saying the country had spent another N3.14tn on electricity consumption subsidies between June 2023 and December 2025.

He warned that restoring petrol subsidy on top of the existing electricity subsidy would place additional pressure on government finances.

He said Nigerians should interrogate the sustainability of any proposal to restore subsidy by asking where the funds would come from and what programmes would have to be sacrificed to finance it.

“Do we restore petrol subsidy, or sustain student loans and consumer credit for young Nigerians? Do we restore subsidy, or preserve higher allocations to states and local governments? Do we restore subsidy, or continue funding roads, rail, power and security?” Idris similarly asked.

The renewed controversy over subsidy reflects one of the central economic fault lines likely to shape the 2027 presidential election.

While the Tinubu-led government has consistently defended subsidy removal as an unavoidable step towards restoring fiscal stability and attracting investment, opposition figures have continued to argue that the policy has imposed severe hardship on households and businesses.

Idris, however, maintained that the objective of the reforms was not simply to remove subsidies but to redirect public resources from subsidising consumption towards investment in infrastructure, human capital and productive capacity.

“We are not claiming that the reforms have solved all of Nigeria’s economic challenges; there is indeed still much work to be done to translate improved fiscal capacity into better services, jobs, infrastructure and living standards.

“But the proper response to the hardship associated with reform is not to dismantle the reform; it is to accelerate the benefits,” the minister said.

He added that Nigeria could not build a sustainable economy by returning to what he described as an unsustainable subsidy regime.

“We have moved beyond that model,” he added.

On Sunday, Atiku, in a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, described the celebration of subsidy removal by the Tinubu administration as “one of the biggest economic frauds being sold to Nigerians.”

He said the government could not consistently condemn intervention in the economy when it was designed to cushion the hardship faced by ordinary Nigerians while simultaneously deploying fiscal incentives to reduce the risks associated with major investments in the petroleum sector.

Atiku’s central argument was captured in his declaration, “You cannot subsidise capital and criminalise relief for citizens. You cannot offer cushions upstairs and call suffering downstairs reform.”

The ADC presidential candidate said the administration’s position was particularly difficult to reconcile with the incentives available to investors in the petroleum industry.

“Under Tinubu’s own Deep Offshore Oil and Gas Projects Incentives framework, qualifying petroleum developments can receive production tax credits beginning at $3 and $4.50 per barrel, with supplementary credits capable, in qualifying circumstances, of taking the combined benefit to as much as $11.50 per barrel,” he said.

He questioned why government intervention should be considered sound economic policy when it reduces the cost and risks borne by investors but becomes unacceptable when targeted at households struggling with rising transport, food and energy costs.

“So, what exactly is Tinubu’s objection: government intervention itself, or government intervention for Nigerians?” he asked.

• FAAC boost: Kaduna clears N18bn arrears, farm budget hits N100bn
• Ogoni oil talks: MOSOP alleges secret drilling, demands halt
• Yilwatda meets Emir Sanusi as APC begins 2027 mobilisation

Atiku contended that the government’s own financial records raised questions about the claim that subsidy had simply disappeared.

He cited the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited’s financial statements, claiming that the company recorded about N4.84tn in energy-security expenses and related shortfalls in 2023 and approximately N7.13tn in 2024.

According to Atiku, NNPCL had explained that the expenditure was partly linked to the difference between the exchange rate used to determine the regulated PMS ex-coastal price and the prevailing exchange rate when import obligations were settled.

“Where exactly did the subsidy go? If Nigerians were paying market prices because ‘subsidy is gone,’ why was the federation still carrying trillions of naira in under-recovery and energy-security costs?” he said.

NNPCL’s investor information confirms that its 2024 audited financial statements are publicly available, although the company now describes itself as a commercial, profit-driven entity operating under the Petroleum Industry Act.

Atiku argued that the terminology used by the government to describe such expenditures should not obscure their economic effect.

“Nigerians do not eat semantics. Whether government calls it subsidy, under-recovery, shortfall or energy security, public resources were being used to bridge a gap between economic cost and the price at which petrol was sold,” he added.

The ADC chieftain said the consequences of the subsidy removal had been particularly severe for households and businesses, with higher petrol prices feeding into transportation, food prices, production costs and household expenditure.

He accused the administration of applying “brutally savage capitalism” to poor Nigerians while pursuing “compassionate capitalism for big oil money operators.”

He continued, “The government can protect a multibillion-dollar oil investment from risk, yet it says protecting the Nigerian worker from crushing hardship is bad economics,” Atiku said.

He added that the government could not “roll out the red carpet for rich oil operators while leaving its citizens to walk barefoot through hardship.”

Lawmaker knocks Atiku

The member representing Agege Federal Constituency of Lagos State in the House of Representatives, Dr Wale Ahmed, rejected Atiku’s proposed subsidy reversal, warning it could derail Nigeria’s economic recovery.

Ahmed, in a statement issued on Sunday, described the proposal as economically unsustainable and politically expedient.

Ahmed said reversing the policy would return Nigeria to an expensive system that drained public resources and created opportunities for abuse.

“Nigeria cannot afford to return to the subsidy era. What we need is to consolidate reforms and ensure their benefits reach ordinary Nigerians,” Ahmed said.

He said the removal of subsidies had improved government revenues by freeing up resources previously committed to keeping petrol prices artificially low.

“The question should be how these additional resources are deployed to improve infrastructure, healthcare, education, transportation and security, not how we recreate an unsustainable subsidy regime,” he said.

Ahmed also challenged Atiku to explain how his proposed subsidy arrangement would be funded without worsening Nigeria’s fiscal position.

“Where will the money come from? Will government borrow again to finance subsidy? Will allocations to states and local governments be reduced? Nigerians deserve clear answers,” he said.

The lawmaker said the claim that subsidy savings had disappeared was misleading, noting that the resources accrued to the federation.

“The savings were not money kept in a vault by the Federal Government. They increased revenues available to the federation and were shared among the three tiers of government,” he said.

Ahmed urged Nigerians to distinguish between temporary adjustment pains and long-term economic restructuring.

“Nobody is denying the hardship. It is real. But returning to the policies that contributed to our fiscal problems cannot be the solution,” he said.

He urged the Federal Government to accelerate measures to reduce production and transportation costs, including improvements in electricity supply and agricultural investment.

ADC chieftains back Atiku

A chieftain of the ADC and former Edo State governorship aspirant, Kenneth Imasuagbon, has thrown his weight behind Atiku over his pledge to restore petrol subsidy if elected in 2027.

Imasuagbon, in a statement on Saturday in Benin City, described the criticism that greeted Atiku’s position from the Presidency and the ruling APC as “misplaced and politically motivated.”

He argued that the removal of fuel subsidy by Tinubu had further impoverished Nigerians, worsened inflation and inflicted unprecedented hardship on families across the country.

He said, “The removal of fuel subsidy has not translated into a better life for Nigerians. Instead, it has pauperised millions of citizens, destroyed the purchasing power of workers, increased the cost of transportation, food, healthcare and education, while businesses continue to shut down under the weight of unbearable operating costs.”

The ADC stalwart maintained that Atiku’s promise to restore the subsidy was not a sign of inconsistency but evidence of courageous leadership capable of reviewing policies that had failed to achieve their objectives.

“Atiku should not be attacked simply because he is prepared to reconsider a position he held in 2023. That is the mark of a compassionate and people-oriented leader,” he said.

Imasuagbon further argued that despite claims by the Federal Government that trillions of naira had been saved from subsidy removal, Nigerians had seen little evidence of prudent deployment of the funds.

“Where are the trillions reportedly saved? Nigerians deserve transparent answers.

“We still have collapsing infrastructure, worsening insecurity, failing hospitals, underfunded schools, mass unemployment and deepening poverty.

“If these enormous resources were truly invested in the people’s welfare, the ordinary Nigerian should have felt the impact by now,” he stated.

He insisted that the real debate should not be about whether subsidy should remain or be removed, but whether the policy had improved the quality of life of ordinary citizens.

The former governorship aspirant expressed confidence that Atiku possessed the experience, competence and economic understanding required to rescue Nigeria from what he described as the “economic quagmire” created by the APC-led Federal Government.

Also, the governorship candidate of the ADC in Sokoto State, Manir Dan’Iya, has backed Atiku’s proposal to reintroduce a targeted and accountable fuel subsidy regime if elected president.

Dan’Iya said the policy, if properly designed and transparently implemented, could help reduce the rising cost of transportation, food and other essential commodities currently putting pressure on Nigerian households.

In a statement issued to newsmen on Sunday by his Media Aide, Aminu Abdullahi, the ADC candidate said the economic hardship facing Nigerians required practical interventions that would cushion the impact of rising living costs.

According to him, the removal of petrol subsidy in 2023 contributed to increased transportation and production costs, with the consequences reflected in the prices of food and other necessities.

“At a time when Nigerian families are struggling to afford transportation, food and necessities, any credible policy capable of reducing the cost of living deserves serious consideration,” Dan’Iya said.

He, however, stressed that any subsidy regime under an Atiku administration must be targeted, transparent and accountable to prevent corruption and wastage.

Dan’Iya said Atiku’s proposal should go beyond simply returning to the previous subsidy arrangement by supporting domestic refining and reducing Nigeria’s dependence on imported petroleum products.

He described Atiku as a leader with the experience and understanding required to implement responsible economic reforms, strengthen institutions, create jobs and restore investor confidence.

“The 2027 election is an opportunity for Nigerians to choose a government that understands their hardship and is prepared to act.

“We must support policies that reduce the burden on our people, restore hope, strengthen institutions and put Nigeria back on the path of sustainable development,” he said.

Dan’Iya urged ADC members, supporters and Nigerians across the country to support the Atiku-led presidential ticket and other candidates of the party in the 2027 general elections.

He expressed confidence that an Atiku-led Federal Government, working with progressive state administrations, could address insecurity, unemployment, infrastructure deficits and economic hardship.