By Unity Times Desk
Nigeria’s 2027 presidential contest is already becoming a referendum on one of the most consequential economic decisions of the Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration: the removal of the petrol subsidy.
Grow your business with us
The disagreement has moved beyond economics into the political arena, with opposition figures offering markedly different prescriptions for how Nigeria should manage the consequences of the reform.
Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has argued for a return to a form of petrol subsidy, presenting it as part of a broader strategy to make fuel more affordable for Nigerians.
But former Anambra State governor and Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate Peter Obi has rejected the argument that Nigeria should reverse the policy.
Speaking at a Nigerian Bar Association conference in Port Harcourt, Obi maintained that subsidy removal itself was necessary, but criticised the government’s management of the resources generated from it.
His argument is significant because it separates the policy of subsidy removal from the question of what government does with the savings.
“Mismanagement of the proceeds shouldn’t be the reason for not removing it,” Obi said.
He argued that the savings should have been redirected towards productive sectors and measures that cushion the effect on ordinary Nigerians.
The money question
The controversy intensified after Finance Minister Taiwo Oyedele disclosed that the removal of petrol subsidy generated an estimated ₦15.8 trillion in resources for the federation between June 2023 and December 2025.
According to the government’s figures, the Federal Government received about ₦5.4 trillion, while approximately ₦10.4 trillion went to states and local governments through increased allocations.
For the Tinubu administration, the figures demonstrate that the reform created fiscal space that Nigeria desperately needed.
The government has repeatedly argued that subsidy payments had become financially unsustainable and were consuming resources that could otherwise be deployed to infrastructure, salaries, security, health and education.
The Presidency has also pointed to the fiscal crisis inherited in 2023, with Tinubu arguing that numerous state governments had struggled to meet their obligations to workers.
The Federal Government’s position was reinforced recently by Information Minister Mohammed Idris, who said the reforms had strengthened Nigeria’s fiscal position and created resources for infrastructure, security, human capital and social protection.
But the household economy tells another story
For millions of Nigerians, however, the debate is less about macroeconomic theory and more about the price of getting to work, transporting food, paying school fees and keeping businesses open.
The removal of subsidy coincided with a dramatic rise in petrol prices, transport costs and the prices of goods and services.
The naira’s sharp depreciation following foreign-exchange reforms compounded the pressure.
Reuters recently reported that although the reforms have been welcomed by investors and international lenders, they have intensified a severe cost-of-living crisis and reduced purchasing power.
This creates a difficult political question for 2027: Can an administration persuade voters to endure economic pain today in exchange for promised prosperity tomorrow?
That may become one of the defining questions of the election.
Tinubu fires back
President Tinubu has rejected calls to reverse the subsidy reform, describing the argument for returning to the old system as evidence of what he called “serious ignorance on governance and the economy.”
The president’s political challenge, however, is that the success of the reform will ultimately be judged not by government statistics alone but by whether ordinary Nigerians experience an improvement in living standards.
2027’s economic referendum
The emerging disagreement between Atiku and Obi is particularly significant because both are positioning themselves as alternatives to Tinubu.
It demonstrates that the opposition may agree on the diagnosis of Nigeria’s economic problems without necessarily agreeing on the prescription.
The ruling APC, meanwhile, is betting that fiscal consolidation, investment and infrastructure will eventually translate into improved living standards.
The opposition is likely to argue that Nigerians cannot be asked indefinitely to wait for the benefits of reforms while confronting higher prices today.
The subsidy debate, therefore, is no longer simply about petrol.
It is becoming a battle over what economic model Nigerians want from their next president.
About The Author