By Ibrahim Bunu
ibrahimbunu2520@gmail.com
The Nigerian fuel-subsidy argument has entered a new and politically revealing phase.
The debate now sounds like this:
APC Apologists: “Where will Atiku get the money to pay subsidy?”
Atiku Supporters: “Where is the subsidy money that Tinubu removed?”
Both questions sound powerful.
But which side has the stronger argument?
And more importantly, which side is asking the wrong question?
The answer requires separating political propaganda from fiscal reality.
FIRST, LET US ESTABLISH THE FACTS
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu announced the end of the petrol subsidy at his inauguration on 29 May 2023.
The policy dramatically changed Nigeria’s fiscal structure and contributed to a sharp increase in petrol prices.
The reform was economically significant because the subsidy had consumed enormous public resources and distorted the petroleum market. The World Bank has also argued that subsidy reform can create substantial fiscal savings, although it has repeatedly stressed that the reform must be accompanied by measures to protect vulnerable households. (World Bank)
So when APC supporters say:
“Subsidy was expensive.”
They are correct.
But that is only half the story.
Because once government stops spending money on something, Nigerians are entitled to ask:
What happened to the fiscal space created by stopping that expenditure?
That is where Atiku’s argument becomes important.
THE NEW NUMBER THAT HAS CHANGED THE DEBATE
On August 19, 2026, Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister of the Economy Taiwo Oyedele disclosed that the removal of petrol subsidy mobilised approximately:
₦15.8 trillion
for the Federation between June 2023 and December 2025.
But here is the crucial clarification:
There was not a physical ₦15.8 trillion sitting in a special bank account labelled “Subsidy Savings.”
Oyedele specifically explained that the figure represented resources made available to the Federation because government stopped financing the subsidy. (Channels Television)
According to the government’s breakdown:
* ₦5.4 trillion accrued to the Federal Government.
* ₦10.4 trillion was distributed to states and local governments through the Federation Account. (Channels Television)
This distinction matters enormously.
Therefore, when someone says:
“Tinubu removed subsidy and collected ₦15.8 trillion.”
That is not technically accurate.
The more accurate statement is:
The government says the removal of petrol subsidy mobilised ₦15.8 trillion in additional resources for the Federation over the period.
That is a much more defensible claim.
SO WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?
This is where the APC side has a legitimate answer—but also where its political defence becomes vulnerable.
The government says the Federal Government’s share was only ₦5.4 trillion, while ₦10.4 trillion went through the Federation Account to states and local governments. (Channels Television)
And the Federal Government says its broader incremental resources between June 2023 and December 2025 amounted to ₦20.4 trillion, combining subsidy-related resources, additional independent revenue and borrowing.
At the same time, incremental expenditure reached about ₦30.64 trillion. (Channels Television)
The government’s explanation includes:
* about ₦9.39 trillion on wage adjustments, minimum-wage increases and allowances;
* about ₦9.37 trillion on external debt servicing;
* approximately ₦6.5 trillion on strategic infrastructure. (The Guardian Nigeria)
So the APC argument that:
“The money did not disappear; it was absorbed into government finances.”
has a factual basis.
But that does not mean Nigerians should stop asking questions.
THIS IS WHERE ATIKU HAS A STRONG POINT
Atiku’s supporters are asking:
“If subsidy was removed because it was consuming enormous public resources, where is the measurable benefit to Nigerians?”
That is a legitimate question.
It is not necessarily an argument for restoring the old subsidy system.
It is an argument for accountability.
And Nigerians should be asking it.
If government tells citizens:
“We have removed this expensive expenditure so that the resources can be redirected toward development,”
then citizens have every right to ask:
What development?
How much?
Where?
Who benefited?
What changed?
That is not anti-government.
That is democracy.
Indeed, the Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association has now called on states and local governments to account for the ₦10.4 trillion distributed to them. (Channels Television)
That is a significant development.
Because it means the accountability question is not merely an Atiku campaign slogan.
It is now a wider public-finance question.
BUT ATIKU’S SIDE ALSO HAS A PROBLEM
This is where Nigerians must resist partisan thinking.
Atiku cannot simply say:
“There was ₦15.8 trillion in subsidy savings, therefore I will restore subsidy.”
That would be economically incomplete.
Why?
Because the ₦15.8 trillion was not a permanent cash reserve sitting untouched in an account.
It represented resources that became available to the Federation over a period.
Much of that fiscal space has already been incorporated into government finances.
Therefore, if Atiku wants to restore a subsidy in 2027, he must answer a very straightforward question:
How much will the new subsidy cost annually, and what will finance it?
That is a legitimate challenge.
And this is where APC supporters have a strong argument.
BUT WAIT—ATIKU IS NOT PROPOSING EXACTLY THE OLD SUBSIDY MODEL
This is another point Nigerians need to understand.
Recent reporting indicates that Atiku has proposed an alternative subsidy model focused on domestic refining, rather than simply returning to the old system of subsidising imported petrol.
His proposal reportedly involves supporting Nigerian refineries, imposing spending limits, tracking crude allocation and introducing transparency and independent auditing. (The Whistler Newspaper)
That is materially different from saying:
“Let’s simply reopen the old subsidy regime.”
And that distinction matters.
If Atiku’s proposed model is genuinely:
domestic production + capped support + transparent accounting + independent auditing + gradual elimination,
then it deserves to be debated on its economic merits rather than caricatured as merely:
“Atiku wants to bring back the old subsidy.”
BUT ATIKU MUST STILL SHOW THE MONEY
This is where I would challenge Atiku directly.
If you want Nigerians to pay less for petrol through government intervention, tell Nigerians:
1. What is the annual fiscal ceiling?
Is it ₦1 trillion?
₦2 trillion?
₦5 trillion?
₦10 trillion?
Nigerians deserve a number.
2. Where will the money come from?
Will it come from:
* crude-oil revenue?
* taxes?
* reduced government expenditure?
* refinery dividends?
* reduced debt servicing?
* removal of other subsidies?
* savings from domestic refining?
* a special petroleum fund?
Tell Nigerians.
3. Who qualifies?
Is every litre subsidised?
Or only fuel produced by Nigerian refineries?
4. How will corruption be prevented?
This is critical.
Nigeria’s historical subsidy system became synonymous with allegations of fraudulent claims, opaque import arrangements and massive fiscal leakage.
A new system must not recreate those weaknesses.
5. When does the subsidy end?
If Atiku’s proposal is transitional, he should publish the timetable.
A serious economic programme needs an exit strategy.
NOW LET US EXAMINE THE APC ARGUMENT
The APC response is:
“Where will Atiku get the money?”
This is a reasonable question.
But it becomes intellectually weak when it is used to imply that removing subsidy automatically solved Nigeria’s fiscal problems.
It did not.
Nigeria still has:
* huge debt obligations;
* high government expenditure;
* exchange-rate pressures;
* infrastructure needs;
* security expenditure;
* social protection requirements;
* and a population experiencing substantial cost-of-living pressures.
Indeed, the government itself acknowledged that the fiscal savings have been absorbed by higher spending and debt-service costs. Reuters reported in July that Finance Minister Oyedele said subsidy and foreign-exchange reform savings had largely been consumed by higher debt servicing and increased government expenditure. (Reuters)
So the APC cannot simultaneously say:
“We saved enormous amounts of money.”
and then become offended when Nigerians ask:
“Where are the benefits?”
Those two questions naturally belong together.
THE BIGGEST LOGICAL ERROR IN THE APC ARGUMENT
The weakest APC argument is:
“If Atiku cannot tell us where he will get the money for subsidy, then Nigerians should not ask what happened to Tinubu’s subsidy savings.”
That is a false equivalence.
These are two different questions.
Question A:
Where will Atiku obtain money for a future subsidy programme?
That concerns future fiscal policy.
Question B:
How were the resources created by the removal of subsidy allocated and spent?
That concerns past and present fiscal accountability.
A government must answer Question B regardless of what Atiku proposes.
And a presidential candidate must answer Question A regardless of what Tinubu did.
WHO HAS THE BETTER ARGUMENT?
Here is my verdict.
ON ACCOUNTABILITY: ATIKU HAS THE STRONGER ARGUMENT.
If Atiku is asking:
“What measurable benefits have Nigerians received from the resources freed by subsidy removal?”
That is a legitimate and powerful political question.
The government has now provided part of the answer, including the ₦15.8 trillion Federation-wide figure and the ₦5.4 trillion federal share. (Channels Television)
But Nigerians can still demand detailed evidence of outcomes.
That is reasonable.
ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: APC HAS THE STRONGER QUESTION
If APC asks:
“How exactly will Atiku finance a new subsidy programme?”
That is also legitimate.
Atiku cannot simply promise cheaper petrol without presenting a credible fiscal framework.
If he wants a production-based subsidy, he should publish:
cost + funding source + eligibility + duration + audit mechanism + exit strategy.
Without those details, the promise remains politically attractive but fiscally incomplete.
SO WHO IS NOT MAKING SENSE?
The person who says:
“Tinubu removed subsidy, therefore nobody is allowed to ask where the fiscal benefit went.”
is not making sense.
But equally, the person who says:
“Tinubu removed subsidy and therefore there must be ₦15.8 trillion sitting somewhere waiting for Atiku to spend.”
is also misunderstanding public finance.
And the person who says:
“I will restore subsidy”
without explaining the annual cost, funding mechanism and safeguards against corruption has not yet presented a complete economic argument.
THE REAL QUESTION IS NOT “SUBSIDY OR NO SUBSIDY”
That is the political trap.
The real question is:
HOW DO WE MAKE ENERGY AFFORDABLE WITHOUT DESTROYING THE PUBLIC FINANCES?
That is the debate Nigerians should be having.
Because there are three possibilities.
OPTION ONE — PERMANENT UNIVERSAL SUBSIDY
Government keeps petrol artificially cheap.
Advantage: immediate relief.
Problem: enormous fiscal cost, market distortion and potential corruption.
OPTION TWO — COMPLETE MARKET PRICING
Government withdraws completely.
Advantage: better fiscal discipline and market efficiency.
Problem: households and businesses absorb the entire shock.
OPTION THREE — TARGETED, TRANSPARENT, TEMPORARY SUPPORT
Government supports vulnerable consumers or domestic production under a strict ceiling.
Advantage: attempts to protect citizens without reopening an unlimited subsidy regime.
Problem: requires extremely strong institutions, transparent accounting and political discipline.
For Nigeria, Option Three deserves serious examination—but only if the safeguards are real.
THE QUESTION THAT SHOULD TERRIFY EVERY POLITICIAN
Nigerians should stop asking merely:
“How much subsidy did you remove?”
And start asking:
“What did the Nigerian citizen receive in return?”
Because removing ₦15.8 trillion worth of fiscal pressure means very little to an ordinary family if that family experiences:
* higher transport costs;
* higher food prices;
* higher production costs;
* declining purchasing power;
* expensive electricity;
* and unemployment.
Conversely, restoring cheap petrol means very little if government becomes fiscally incapable of funding:
* hospitals;
* schools;
* roads;
* security;
* salaries;
* infrastructure;
* and social protection.
The real objective must therefore be:
LOWER THE COST OF LIVING WITHOUT BANKRUPTING THE STATE.
THE 2027 POLITICAL TEST
This debate is going to become one of the biggest economic issues of the 2027 presidential election.
Tinubu will essentially argue:
“I took the difficult decision previous governments postponed. Nigeria now has greater fiscal space and a more sustainable economic framework.”
Atiku will likely argue:
“The reform was badly implemented and Nigerians have paid too high a price without receiving sufficient benefits. I can redesign the system to protect consumers while supporting domestic refining.”
Both arguments contain elements of truth.
The electorate should therefore demand more than slogans.
From Tinubu:
Show us the measurable returns from the fiscal savings.
From Atiku:
Show us the mathematics behind your subsidy proposal.
From both:
Show Nigerians the full numbers.
THE FINAL VERDICT BY IBRAHIM BUNU
If the question is:
“Where will Atiku get the money to pay for subsidy?”
APC has a legitimate question.
If the question is:
“Where did the fiscal resources created by subsidy removal go?”
Atiku and his supporters have a legitimate question.
But if either side pretends that its question automatically answers the other, both sides are being intellectually dishonest.
The government has now disclosed that subsidy removal mobilised ₦15.8 trillion for the Federation between June 2023 and December 2025, with ₦5.4 trillion accruing to the Federal Government and ₦10.4 trillion distributed to states and local governments. (Channels Television)
Therefore, the APC cannot honestly tell Nigerians:
“There was no money.”
There was fiscal space.
But Atiku cannot honestly tell Nigerians:
“There is ₦15.8 trillion sitting somewhere ready to finance my subsidy.”
That is not what the figure means.
And that is the truth Nigerians need to understand.
Atiku currently has the stronger argument when demanding accountability for the benefits of subsidy removal.
APC currently has the stronger argument when demanding a credible funding plan for Atiku’s proposed subsidy policy.
But neither side has won the entire economic argument yet.
The winner should not be the politician who shouts the loudest.
The winner should be the candidate who can answer five simple questions:
How much?
From where?
For whom?
For how long?
And how do we know the money will not be stolen?
That is the standard Nigerians should apply to Tinubu, Atiku, Peter Obi, and every other presidential candidate.
Because Nigeria does not need another political promise.
Nigeria needs an economic contract whose mathematics can survive public scrutiny.
— Ibrahim Bunu
ibrahimbunu2520@gmail.com
