Fuel subsidy

By Ukasha Sani

As the ruling party, the APC, launches its presidential campaign in a bid to re-elect President Bola Tinubu, the question is no longer whether Nigerians can survive the present hardship, but whether they can survive its continuation.

Based on the last three years’ trajectory, a second victory for President Tinubu will not renew hope, as we have already lost it; it will only deepen hardship. All the tragic events in the country today, from the increase in fuel prices, insecurity, kidnapping and banditry to poor economic policies, are at their worst in the last three years. He has not reformed any sector; rather, they are more like abandoned projects that have worsened under his administration.

What if Tinubu wins? Then the economic hardship we call temporary becomes permanent policy.

They [the government] have comfortably watched the naira lose its dignity, from N460/$1 as of 29th May, 2023 to N1,475/$1 today.

They have watched fuel subsidy removal turn from a textbook reform into a daily punishment, from buying petrol at N200/litre in May 2023 to N1,440/litre today.

They have watched food inflation turn the market into a place of tears, where a bag of rice sells at N65,000 today compared to N30,000 in May, 2023. We are living in an economy where a bag of rice swallows the minimum wage. This government tells us the reforms are painful but necessary. But you should ask: necessary for whom? The hardship is not shared. The political class still convoys in new SUVs, still budgets billions for renovation and entertainment.

A second term means that the model stays. No reversal, no cushion, only more lectures about patience.

And amid this suffocation, they present NELFUND as an achievement to be applauded.

Let us be clear about NELFUND. It is not a grant. It is not a scholarship. It is not free education. It is a LOAN. A debt trap dressed as help. This is the only thing this government is proudly beating its chest about, yet it exposes its entire contradiction.

You cannot deny a man the peace and means to feed his family, deny him security on his farm, deny him a stable economy to run his shop, and then call yourself a saviour because you gave his daughter a loan to pay tuition. What happens after graduation? She graduates into the same jobless economy, into the same insecurity, with a loan on her neck before her first job. This is not empowerment; it is enslaving the future to pay for the present’s failure.

A government that truly wants to educate the poor would have made education affordable, not loanable.

What if Tinubu wins? Then insecurity gets a new uniform.

Banditry is no longer an emergency; it is an industry. Kidnapping has become a multi-million-dollar enterprise.

People are being picked off the streets for ransom, picked from their homes, schools, parks and every other place, without seeing any visible effort by the government to address it. It only amplifies the PR bots that come online and tell us not to “politicise” insecurity. What it means is, if he wins, we will continue to have a government that negotiates from a position of weakness, that condemns attacks today and forgets the victims tomorrow.

Dear PR bots, the insecurity you defend today, because you are paid or promised to be paid to do so, is coming back to haunt you tomorrow. Kidnappers and bandits are not going to spare you because you are a Tinubu supporter.

What if Tinubu wins? Then partisanship becomes the constitution.

Appointments, projects, even palliatives are prioritised through ethnicity and party loyalty. Trying every possible way to conquer all 36 states, leaving no governor in the opposition. The National Assembly has become an extension of Aso Rock. A second Tinubu victory will entrench this winner-takes-all politics. It will be the final burial of independent institutions. Dissent will be called treason, and criticism will be tagged as hate speech. This is where movements like Tinubu Must Go were denied access to exercise their constitutional rights.

And what if Tinubu wins? Then corruption will be legalized by silence.

The subsidy is gone, but where did the subsidy money go? Billions saved, yet borrowing increases. Customs revenue hits record highs, yet hospitals have no drugs. Politicians with existing corruption cases are contesting elections. Under a continued Tinubu administration, accountability will remain selective. The opposition’s corrupt will be prosecuted; the ruling party’s corrupt will be given a chance to govern again.

The government has nothing to show to justify its re-election next year.

After three and a half years of serial governance disasters, it is clear this government has no clue how to tackle the challenges facing this country. They have failed, and perhaps that is why the president himself decided to send his representatives to campaign for him, because he has nothing to show to justify his re-election bid next year. That is also why his PR bots are struggling to explain his failures. This is why some Villa big boys from the North are selling him through the lens of religion and tall tales. Some of them call him “Malam, Al-Sheikh, Muhammad Bola Tinubu,” while others say he is from Kano and that even the name Tinubu is a corruption of Tanimu. It is only your favourite Sheikh who is brazen enough to tell us that the North is well secured, that all those incidents of kidnapping and banditry are mere tales and not what is actually happening. That people can travel freely in all corners of the region at night.

What if Tinubu wins? It means Nigerians must prepare for four more years of explaining to their children why they cannot afford school fees, why the lights are still off, why they must check the road before travelling, why they must take a loan to learn in their own country, and why those who stole yesterday are leading today.

After three and a half years, why do they need more time, given they’ve been the most disastrous government since amalgamation?

Sir, even a bachelor’s degree—which has technically become harder to get than winning a presidential election for some lucky individuals—only gives you a 2-year probation period to meet the required CGPA, and failure to do so will result in you being asked to leave. So why do you need more time?

Unfortunately, despite all these nerve-wracking issues, Tinubu may still win his next election, not because he deserves it, but because the opposition is too sentimental and self-centred to drop their ego for the common man.

May Nigeria prosper

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Federal Government’s plan to introduce a tax on petroleum products has triggered criticism from Nigerians, who fear the move could increase their financial burden amid rising living costs and high fuel prices.

The Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, recently disclosed the plan, explaining that the tax would only take effect when the economy had stabilised and income levels had improved enough to accommodate the additional cost.

Speaking on the sidelines of the 2026 International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings in Bangkok, Thailand, Oyedele said revenue from the proposed levy would support road infrastructure and the development of a fuel reserve to cushion the effects of future price shocks.

He explained that implementing the tax while petrol was subsidised would have meant the government effectively paid the charge itself. Introducing it immediately after the removal of the subsidy, he added, would have placed further pressure on Nigerians.

“The objective should be that instead of trying to suppress prices, which hasn’t worked for us or for any country in the world, not one, and instead of trying to suppress prices, we should think about how to grow income faster than prices rise.

“That’s how you bring prosperity and grow the middle class, and that is exactly what we are doing, as led by Mr President himself.

“At the appropriate time, when the economy is stabilised and income levels are able to accommodate it, those taxes will come. Not because we want to impose taxes,” Oyedele said.

The proposal has revived concerns over the financial consequences of the fuel subsidy removal, particularly among small business owners who depend on petrol-powered generators because of unreliable electricity supply.

Oyedele said the proposed fuel reserve would “help moderate prices of fuel products if anything happens.” He added that the government could temporarily waive the tax during future price shocks to reduce the burden on consumers.

He also explained that the existing legal framework requires the finance minister to issue an order published in the Official Gazette before the surcharge can take effect.

“The good thing is that the law says that tax cannot come into effect until there is a gazette. There has to be an order published in the gazette by the finance minister, which means we can’t do it in secret. Plus, we have no intention of doing stuff in secret.

“At the appropriate time, it will be clear to everyone why it needed to be done, and the benefits will be clear also to every Nigerian,” he said.

The proposed levy is linked to a five per cent surcharge on chargeable fossil fuel products provided for under Nigeria’s tax framework. The framework exempts household kerosene, cooking gas, compressed natural gas and clean or renewable energy products.

On June 16, 2026, the government had dismissed reports that it was introducing fresh taxes on petroleum products following recommendations in the International Monetary Fund’s Article IV consultation report. It said the value-added tax waiver on petroleum products remained in place and that no process to activate the fuel surcharge was then under consideration.

Oyedele noted that taxes account for between 20 and 80 per cent of pump prices in some countries, while several African nations impose between six and 10 different charges on petroleum products.

He also discussed the sequence of the petrol subsidy removal and foreign exchange reforms, explaining that the government initially removed support for petrol prices before allowing the naira to adjust gradually.

“That is the reason why there was still a bit of subsidy in 2023. It was to manage that process because you need to be mindful of the impact on the people.”

According to the minister, the petrol subsidy was completely removed in October 2023, leaving no government support for either petrol prices or foreign exchange.

However, the proposal has drawn criticism from citizens who argue that the government should prioritise measures to ease the effects of existing economic pressures rather than introduce another charge.

A tailor, Niyi Osundare, said the proposed tax could worsen the difficulties faced by small businesses already struggling with high operating costs.

“Why is this government so wicked? How can anybody be thinking of putting a tax on fuel when we are complaining that a litre of fuel is selling for N1,400?

“Do you know that businesses are folding up because their owners can no longer cope with the situation?

“For instance, there is hardly any electricity for small businesses to operate, so most of us rely on generators. And then, you ask yourself, how much fuel at N1,400 per litre are you prepared to buy every day?

“We are running at a great loss, and that’s why most businesses are closing down. And somebody is talking about a fuel tax, which will automatically push up the price of fuel again.

“What is wrong with the APC government? What sort of thing is this? How can people decide that the only thing they will do to their citizens is inflict pain and more pain on them?

“This is wickedness, and Nigerians should rise up. This cannot be like the announcement that ‘subsidy is gone’, which was what brought us to where we are today.

“We are crying that we can’t afford the price of fuel as it is currently sold, and somebody is telling us that the government wants to introduce a fuel tax when the economy stabilises and people’s incomes improve. When will that be?

“Can this government ever do that? It is not possible. Since 2023, when this government came in, it has been one promise after another, and all of them have ended up bringing agony and sorrow to Nigerians.

“So, this time around, they can tell their story to the marine because we will not accept any fuel tax; it won’t happen,” he stated.

A lawyer and public affairs analyst, Kunle Onatade, also questioned the government’s plan to channel the revenue into infrastructure and a fuel reserve.

He argued that Nigerians had previously been assured that savings from the removal of the fuel subsidy would support infrastructure development, but he disputed whether the expected benefits had materialised.

“Who is deceiving who? Where is all the money made from the fuel subsidy removal? Has this government, in three years, not borrowed more than Buhari in eight years? What are we talking about?

“This fuel tax move is just another avenue for making more money available for them to steal. They don’t care about the citizens as long as they keep amassing wealth for themselves.

“These are a bunch of heartless and corrupt politicians masquerading as political leaders; they don’t care about anybody. Nigerians should not listen to them. The fuel tax will bring about more hardship for Nigerians,” he said.

Business groups have also raised concerns about the possible effects of an additional fuel charge on production expenses, transportation costs and consumer prices.

The Association of Small Business Owners of Nigeria called on the government to prioritise relief for households and businesses, warning that another fuel-related levy could further strain their finances.

While the Federal Government maintains that the tax would only be introduced when economic conditions permit, critics insist that any additional charge on petroleum products could deepen the pressure on Nigerians.

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

Dr Tijjani Ahmad, an accountant and lecturer at Hussaini Adamu Federal Polytechnic, Kazaure, has criticised the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) assessment of the Nigerian economy, questioning the benefits of economic growth amid widespread poverty and food insecurity.

In a Facebook post, Ahmad argued that the IMF’s reported economic growth of 4.2 per cent and its claim that reforms had strengthened the economy’s resilience contrasted sharply with the hardship facing millions of Nigerians.

He cited figures in the report indicating that poverty affected about 63 per cent of the population, or roughly 140 million people, while 27 million Nigerians faced food insecurity.

“If growth leaves people poorer and hungrier, what exactly is growing?” Ahmad asked, describing the situation as one in which the government had become richer while citizens became poorer.

He, however, identified what he considered a deeper contradiction in the IMF’s position on Nigeria’s fuel subsidy policy, arguing that the debate should go beyond simply removing or restoring the subsidy.

According to him, Nigerians had experienced the consequences of both prolonged subsidy arrangements, which he described as corrupt, and the hardship associated with subsidy removal.

Ahmad maintained that the central issue was not necessarily whether the subsidy should be removed or restored, but how the government managed whichever policy it chose.

He proposed that if the government decided to maintain subsidy removal, it should ring-fence the reported N15.8 trillion in savings for investment in transport and healthcare, expand targeted assistance beyond the N25,000 support scheme, and ensure that domestic refineries operated effectively to help reduce fuel prices.

He also called for a reassessment of the country’s economic policy, urging the government to develop solutions suited to Nigeria’s circumstances rather than simply follow external prescriptions.

“We need to go back to the drawing board and redesign a Nigerian solution, not just take orders,” Ahmad said.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has cautioned the Nigerian government against restoring blanket petrol subsidies, advising it to direct financial support towards vulnerable households struggling with rising fuel and transportation costs.

Rodrigo Valdés, Director of the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department, gave the advice on Wednesday during the IMF and World Bank Group Annual Meetings in Bangkok, Thailand.

He was responding to growing calls for the reinstatement of petrol subsidies in Nigeria amid rising energy prices and political pressure ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Valdés acknowledged that increases in petrol and diesel prices could create significant political challenges for governments. However, he warned that subsidising fuel consumption for everyone could place an additional burden on public finances.

He said, “At the end of the day, it’s very tempting politically speaking because it’s not trivial the political effect of the price of oil, of fuels, of gasoline, of diesel.

“But you have to explain that this is a global shock, first. Second, that it’s very, very expensive for the country not to recognise that shock.

“And third, it’s much better to use some of that money that would be spent in the subsidies channelled towards more vulnerable people.”

The IMF official argued that targeted assistance would offer greater benefits to low-income households than a universal subsidy that applies to all consumers, regardless of their financial circumstances.

He also proposed transport support as a possible alternative to reducing petrol prices across the board.

“Yeah, gasoline could go up, and perhaps bus fees may be subsidised in a way. That is a much better policy at the end of the day than just a blanket subsidy for everybody,” Valdés said.

The IMF has consistently argued that universal fuel subsidies can strain public finances while disproportionately benefiting wealthier households, which typically consume more petroleum products.

FG Introduces Temporary Petrol Price Relief

The IMF’s warning comes amid renewed concerns over petrol affordability in Nigeria, where rising international energy prices have increased pressure on household budgets and transport operators.

In response, the Federal Government recently introduced a 30-day petrol price discount at Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC) retail outlets, with public transport operators listed among the priority beneficiaries.

The Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, said the arrangement required NNPC Retail to temporarily forgo its profit margin and sell petrol at cost to provide relief to consumers.

Oyedele stressed that the measure was a temporary intervention and did not represent a return to the former petrol subsidy system.

IMF Raises Concern Over Fuel Demand

Beyond the financial implications, Valdés warned that keeping fuel prices artificially low during periods of supply disruption could encourage consumption and worsen pressure on global petroleum supplies.

According to the IMF’s position, allowing fuel prices to reflect market conditions can encourage consumers to moderate demand when supplies are limited.

The fund’s recommendation places emphasis on targeted support for vulnerable Nigerians, particularly those most affected by rising living costs, rather than a nationwide subsidy that benefits consumers across all income groups.

The debate over petrol pricing remains a major economic and political issue in Nigeria, as the government faces pressure to ease the cost-of-living burden while maintaining fiscal stability.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has said his proposed fuel subsidy policy will focus on supporting crude supplied to Nigerian refineries rather than subsidising imported petrol if he wins the 2027 presidential election.

Atiku, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, said the policy is designed to lower the cost of petrol through cheaper crude feedstock for domestic refineries.

He made the clarification in a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, on Friday.

The statement followed criticism of Atiku’s proposal to restore fuel subsidy, particularly concerns over whether such a policy could compel private refineries to sell petrol below their production costs.

Atiku said recent comments from Dangote Refinery about government-imposed petrol prices had been misrepresented by the administration of President Bola Tinubu.

“Dangote raised a legitimate business concern. The presidency turned it into a campaign of fear,” the statement reads.

“A refinery that has invested billions of dollars cannot be commanded to sell indefinitely below cost and absorb the losses.

“That would be reckless, economically destructive and unfair to any private investor. But that is precisely why our proposal is different.”

‘We’ll Subsidise Production, Not Imports’

According to Atiku, his proposed model would redirect fuel subsidy towards crude supplied to local refineries instead of imported petrol.

“We are restoring subsidy through a production subsidy model, not an import subsidy model,” he said.

“The difference is simple enough for every Nigerian to understand. Import subsidy spends public money supporting petrol refined abroad and brought into Nigeria.

“Production subsidy supports crude refined here in Nigeria so that Nigerian refineries can produce fuel more cheaply and Nigerians can pay less.”

The former vice-president compared the proposed approach to government support for farmers, where assistance is provided to reduce the cost of producing food rather than subsidising imported food.

“That is exactly what we are proposing for fuel. We are restoring subsidy but moving it from importation to production. The subsidy follows the barrel refined in Nigeria,” he said.

He said qualifying domestic refineries would receive support through a transparent and capped system subject to independent verification. The arrangement, he added, would reduce the cost of crude used by the refineries.

“If the crude entering a refinery becomes cheaper, the cost of producing petrol should also come down,” he said.

“That reduction should then reach the average Nigerian while preserving legitimate refining costs and a reasonable commercial margin.”

Atiku also rejected the suggestion that his proposal would require private refineries to sell their products at a loss.

“The Tinubu Presidency knows this. If it pretends otherwise, then it is not confused. It is deliberately misleading Nigerians,” Atiku.

‘No Subsidy For Foreign Refineries’

Atiku said his proposed intervention would be restricted to crude refined within Nigeria, with local refineries, workers, businesses and consumers expected to benefit from the policy.

“Under our plan, support will be tied strictly to crude refined in Nigeria. Nigerian refineries will benefit. Nigerian workers will benefit. Nigerian businesses will benefit. Nigerian consumers will benefit,” he said.

“If you do not refine in Nigeria, you do not qualify. This is not a subsidy for foreign refineries. It is not a subsidy for importers. It is not a subsidy for middlemen. It is a subsidy for Nigerian production.”

The ADC candidate further said his administration would not dictate an arbitrary petrol pump price to domestic refineries.

“If government wants to provide additional relief beyond what lower crude-input costs can sustainably deliver, then government must pay for that relief openly,” he said.

“It must be budgeted. It must be capped. It must be audited. Nigerians must know exactly what is being spent and what they are receiving in return.”

Atiku said the government should not set a politically attractive petrol price while leaving private refiners to absorb the resulting losses.

“You cannot announce a politically convenient petrol price and quietly dump the cost on the refinery,” he said.

“That is not policy. That is confiscation by another name.”

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has pledged to restore the petrol subsidy if elected president in the 2027 general election.

Atiku, who is the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), made the declaration during an interview on Wednesday.

He said he did not oppose the removal of the subsidy but questioned how the funds saved from the policy had been used by the government.

“I did not oppose the removal of the oil subsidy, but where is the money? Where did it go? It was intended to reduce poverty and help children attend school. Where is the money now? It seems they are just stealing it,” Atiku said in Hausa.

He added, “If elected, I will bring back the oil subsidy, and whoever stole the money must refund it.”

According to Atiku, the removal of the subsidy would have been acceptable if the government had invested the resulting savings in projects that would improve the lives of Nigerians.

“The government successfully removed the subsidy, but we do not know where the money went. If they had used the money for development, to solve security problems, for education, and to create opportunities for the youth, it would be different. If elected, I can remove the subsidy and use the money to do all these properly.”

President Bola Tinubu announced the end of the petrol subsidy in his inaugural address on May 29, 2023.

The policy was followed by a sharp rise in the cost of living as petrol prices increased and the cost of goods and services rose across the country.

However, some state governors have said their monthly allocations from the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) increased considerably after the subsidy was removed.

The Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, said on Wednesday that the removal of the subsidy had generated N15.8 trillion in additional resources for the federation between June 2023 and December 2025.

Oyedele attributed the increase partly to higher revenue collections, particularly the naira value of transactions denominated in US dollars after the exchange-rate reforms.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Nasarawa State now receives between N14 billion and N16 billion monthly from federal allocations, compared with about N3.8 billion to N4.5 billion before the removal of the petrol subsidy, Governor Abdullahi Sule has said.

Sule made the disclosure on Saturday in Lafia, the state capital, when he received journalists and members of the presidential media team who were in the state to inspect federal and state government projects.

The governor attributed the increase in revenue available to the state to economic reforms introduced by President Bola Tinubu.

He said the reforms had created more fiscal space for state governments to implement projects without depending heavily on loans.

Sule said Tinubu “took bullets” for state governors after the removal of the petrol subsidy, which he said resulted in higher allocations to the states.

According to the governor, Nasarawa previously received between N3.8 billion and N4.5 billion monthly, while the state’s local governments received between N1.9 billion and N2.5 billion.

He said the state’s monthly allocation has since increased by more than twice its previous level.

“All the projects we are doing in Nasarawa state today, without borrowing from the bank, are as a result of president Bola and his support,” he said.

“So, you must give him the credit for that. Without the reforms, we would not have had the resources to do what we are doing. So, I can’t take credit for those projects.

“The office of the SSG is better than my own office. And there is nothing wrong with that because at the time they built my own office, Tinubu was not there. We didn’t have the resources that we have today. So, there is nothing wrong with me doing it better today because we are receiving the resources better today.

“I came from the private sector, so for every contract, I give the amount that we are spending on that contract so that people can make a difference with the kind of money we are receiving. I can tell you for free.

“You are right when you say that president Tinubu took the bullet on our behalf. In my first four years, everybody knows the federal government was sharing between maybe N590 billion to about N620 billion a month as the total FAAC allocation.

“For Nasarawa state, what we were getting was between maybe N3.8 billion and about N4.5 billion for the state. For the local government, it was between N1.9 billion and N2.5 billion every month.

“With the removal of the fuel subsidy, I can tell you for free that Nasarawa state today is receiving an average of N14 to N16 billion a month. But you have to go back and find out [about] our expenses. That is why Onanuga said president Tinubu took the bullet on our behalf.

“That is why they accused me of being very straightforward in criticising anything not right, arguing that I am no longer a straightforward person now that I am commending the government. So, anytime I tell the truth about the good thing happening, I am no longer a good person.”

Sule said his administration had undertaken several projects without obtaining bank loans. He maintained that the increased revenue had made it possible for the state to finance more development projects.

Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, also said state governments were benefiting from the removal of the petrol subsidy through the implementation of major projects across the country.

By Lawal Dahiru Mamman

On 29 May 2023, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu used his inaugural address to sever Nigeria’s decades-long dependence on fuel subsidies. It was a definitive end to a fiscal drain that had consumed trillions of naira annually, a broken system that long benefited smugglers, middlemen, and the elite far more than ordinary citizens.

Three years into this economic regime change, the ledger presents a duality. While the policy has successfully unlocked unprecedented nominal revenues for the Federation Account, its real-world impact remains polarising.

As the nation reflects on the administration’s third anniversary in 2026, the question changes from whether the subsidy needed to go to who is actually winning from its absence.

In reality, the elimination of the subsidy did not result in a dedicated, untouchable savings account. Instead, it stopped a bleeding artery by wiping out the ₦4–5 trillion annual “under-recovery” losses previously absorbed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL).

Consequently, direct remittances to the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) have increased to historic highs. In 2024, annual savings reached roughly $7.5 billion, which translates to approximately ₦12 trillion at prevailing rates. This drove a 79% jump in total FAAC disbursements, skyrocketing from ₦16.28 trillion in 2023 to ₦28.78 trillion in 2024, with sub-national governments swallowing ₦15.26 trillion of that pool.

The momentum carried firmly into 2025, yielding an estimated $7–8 billion in savings. In the first quarter of 2025 alone, federal petroleum savings surged by over 500%, leaping from ₦154 billion to ₦836 billion. State governments have been the primary beneficiaries of this windfall, utilising the massive inflows to clear ₦1.85 trillion in backlogged debts, stabilise payrolls, and kickstart stalled regional projects.

While a November 2025 National Orientation Agency (NOA) policy document claims that over $84 billion has been saved and channelled into 40 road projects, independent macroeconomic realities suggest that this cumulative figure is mathematically improbable over a two- to three-year window. The actual cumulative benefit more closely aligns with World Bank estimates ranging between ₦11 trillion and ₦20 trillion, heavily caveated by severe naira depreciation.

Because these funds flow directly into general revenue pools rather than a ring-fenced fund, precise tracking has become an administrative nightmare. This lack of transparency has triggered fierce pushback from civil society organisations such as SERAP and BudgIT, which demand that states account for their newfound wealth rather than sink it into urban aesthetics or overheads.

The federal government has defended the pain of the reform by pointing to vital interventions across key sectors. In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, an initial ₦5 billion per state and the FCT was deployed via grants and loans for food and fertiliser distribution to cushion the shock.

Social safety nets saw a modest boost, with ₦3.2 billion allocated to expand conditional cash transfers through the National Social Register.

On the human capital front, the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) has disbursed ₦206.29 billion to over 1.1 million student beneficiaries. While NELFUND is technically funded via the Development Levy, the subsidy removal created the fiscal breathing room necessary to establish it.

Massive shifts have also been targeted toward transit and structural development. Over ₦100 billion has been injected into the Presidential Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Initiative to build conversion centres and roll out mass transit buses.

Increased liquidity has sustained funding for critical federal projects, including the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway, the Abuja–Kano Road, the Kano–Maradi rail line, and a $1 billion modernisation commitment for key seaports like Apapa, Tin Can, and Calabar.

Furthermore, a massive portion of the savings has been absorbed by debt servicing, exceeding ₦15 trillion in recent budget cycles. While this aggressive rebalancing crowds out routine capital expenditure, it narrowed the fiscal deficit from roughly 5.4% to 3.0% of GDP, effectively averting a total sovereign bankruptcy.

Despite the triumphant-looking government balance sheets, the microeconomic reality for the average Nigerian is brutal. The savings on paper feel a world away from the hardships on the ground, creating a paradox between macro-stabilisation and micro-deprivation.

The most devastating blow has been the cost-of-living crisis. Fuel prices ballooned from under ₦200 to over ₦1,300 per litre across the federation, unleashing a wave of transportation and food inflation that has left millions of households financially insecure.

At the same time, citizens watch trillions of naira being unlocked, only to see it swallowed by prior borrowing patterns and rising interest costs, while the government’s appetite for fresh debt remains stubbornly high. This problem is compounded by severe currency depreciation and inflation.

In nominal terms, FAAC allocations are setting records at ₦2–3 trillion per month. In real terms, however, rampant inflation and a weakened naira mean this money buys far less infrastructure, healthcare, and education than it would have three years ago.

Bottom Line

Three years on, the structural necessity of President Tinubu’s May 2023 declaration is undeniable; it freed Nigeria from a fiscal death trap and dismantled an unsustainable system. Yet, the victory remains largely confined to government ledgers.

For the man on the street, the benefits of the reform have been thoroughly muted by inflation, currency devaluations, and execution gaps.

The fundamental challenge of Nigerian governance remains unresolved: the inability to translate state wealth into public welfare efficiently. As the calendar turns deeper into 2026, public trust is running thin.

If this reform is to be remembered as a historic transformation rather than just a massive tax hike on the poor, the government must shift from celebrating nominal revenue milestones to delivering tangible, unmistakable improvements in its citizens’ daily lives. The sacrifices have been made; it is time for the dividends to appear.

Lawal Dahiru Mamman writes from Abuja, and he can be reached via: dahirulawal90@gmail.com.

By Lawan Bukar Maigana

At a birthday lecture titled “Weaponisation of Poverty as a Means of Underdevelopment: A Case Study of Nigeria,” organised in honour of former Governor Rotimi Amaechi at the Continental Hotel in Abuja, the Emir of Kano, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, bitterly complained about the unprecedented hardship Nigerians face today. 

According to him, the inflation and poverty gripping the nation are the direct consequences of loving to rule over people rather than loving them through developing favourable policies. That’s what I understand from his statement. But isn’t the fuel subsidy removal connected mainly to the realities he pointed out? 

Many might forget, or conveniently overlook, that this same Sanusi Lamido Sanusi has been one of the strongest advocates for removing fuel subsidies since 2012. Years ago, I heard him proudly state on BBC Hausa that he had repeatedly advised President Muhammadu Buhari to remove subsidies and shut down Nigeria’s borders. 

Respectfully, Buhari granted only one of his two wishes—closing the borders while leaving fuel subsidies intact. The subsidies lingered for years, postponed amid fears of political backlash.

Under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the fuel subsidy has finally been removed. The impact on ordinary Nigerians has been brutal—prices for fuel and essential commodities have surged, sending inflation into uncharted territory. People are being hunted by hunger and economic hardship like never before.

In this context, I believe Sanusi’s recent criticisms miss the mark. If anyone deserves celebration, it is President Tinubu,who dares to implement what Sanusi himself recommended years ago. Blaming Tinubu alone, even though Sanusi didn’t mention his name, for the hardship is unfair because he and other elite policymakers never offered concrete solutions or mitigating measures to cushion the blow on the poor when pushing for subsidy removal.

It is important to remind Nigerians that the blame for this economic situation is shared, not the fault of any one individual or administration. As the former Governor of the Apex Bank, Sanusi is part of the problem he now publicly laments. He advocated for the policy without proposing corresponding safety nets or economic reforms to soften the impact. The failure to plan has cost Nigerians dearly.

At the Abuja event, Sanusi asked a question that cut to the heart of leadership in Nigeria: “Do we as leaders truly love Nigerians, or do we just like ruling over them?” The answer is painfully obvious: too many leaders are interested in power for power’s sake. They seek to rule over the masses rather than serve them by crafting policies that uplift the poor.

This question should prompt serious reflection. If policymakers want to see genuine progress, they must remember that leadership is more than advising harsh policies; it is about standing with the people during the painful transitions these policies cause. It is about preparing the ground and providing support systems before asking citizens to bear the burden of economic reforms.

Nigeria’s elites, including Sanusi, need to own their history, yesterday. They must remember their past advocacies and be willing to share responsibility when those policies create hardship. It is easy to blame the current government for long-advocated but poorly planned decisions. It is far harder to admit one’s role in the consequences.

The harsh reality is that many elites conveniently forget their yesterday—the positions they took and the policies they championed. When those policies are finally implemented, and Nigerians bear the consequences, those same elites criticise the outcomes as if they had no hand in shaping them.

The lesson here is clear: policymaking in Nigeria must be holistic. It must consider not only economic theories but also social realities. Removing subsidies may be necessary, but without effective mitigation strategies, it becomes a weapon of poverty, inflicting untold suffering on the most vulnerable.

So, as Nigerians struggle with inflation and hardship, we should remember the true colours of our elites. They must be held accountable—not only for the policies they recommend but also for the human cost of those policies.

Lastly, I ask again: Should those who recommend harsh policies also bear part of the responsibility for their outcomes? The answer is a resounding yes. True leadership demands not just bold ideas but also the courage to accept the consequences and work tirelessly to protect the people.

Lawan Bukar Maigana is a journalist, humanitarian, Pan-Africanist, and social commentator. He’s known as Ibn Maigana on Facebook.

By Muhammad Sulaiman

Abdulrasheed Bawa, former chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), has released a revealing new book that exposes the depth of corruption in Nigeria’s petroleum subsidy regime.

Titled The Shadow of Loot & Losses: Uncovering Nigeria’s Petroleum Subsidy Fraud, the book offers a detailed, insider account of one of the country’s most expensive financial scandals. Drawing from his experience as a lead investigator in the 2012 probe into fuel subsidy fraud, Bawa unveils how trillions of naira were siphoned through fraudulent schemes.

According to the book, corrupt practices ranged from ghost importing and over-invoicing to manipulating shipping documents and round-tripping—all of which were aimed at exploiting the subsidy payment system. 

Bawa also highlights the roles played by both complicit officials and private sector actors, citing systemic weaknesses and widespread collusion.

“This is not just a chronicle of fraud,” Bawa said. “It is a call to action — a demand for transparency, accountability, and reform in Nigeria’s public finance management, especially in the oil sector.”

Published by CableBooks, an imprint of Cable Media & Publishing Ltd, the book is now available nationwide through RovingHeights Bookstore. It is already being hailed as essential reading for policymakers, journalists, and anyone concerned with governance and accountability in Nigeria.