By Cliff Stanley
“Economic reform is not measured by the pain it imposes, but by the prosperity it ultimately produces.”
Nigeria’s renewed fuel-subsidy controversy is fast becoming more than an economic disagreement between President Bola Tinubu’s administration and former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar; it is becoming a test of political credibility, economic competence and the social contract between government and citizens.
The Presidency has accused Atiku of confusion and political opportunism after conflicting explanations from his camp over whether a restored petrol subsidy would be temporary or remain until domestic refining capacity, supply and competition make affordable prices possible.
Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga has demanded that Atiku explain the cost, beneficiaries, funding mechanism and exit conditions of his proposed “targeted subsidy.”
That criticism cannot simply be dismissed. Atiku must do better. If he intends to make subsidy restoration a central component of his 2027 economic programme, Nigerians deserve a fully costed and transparent policy not a campaign slogan. His argument must demonstrate how government can subsidise petrol without recreating the opacity, corruption, smuggling and fiscal distortions associated with the previous subsidy regime.
Yet the Presidency equally faces a difficult question: if subsidy removal has strengthened Nigeria’s fiscal position and macroeconomic stability, why do millions of Nigerians still struggle to feel its dividends?
The International Monetary Fund provides an important nuance. Its 2026 Article IV assessment acknowledges that ending fuel subsidies, alongside exchange-rate and monetary reforms, has strengthened macroeconomic stability, reduced fiscal vulnerabilities and improved external buffers. But the same report notes that estimated fuel-subsidy savings up to 2 percent of GDP did not appear to have accrued to the budget in 2025, while a statistical discrepancy of 2.7 percent of GDP raised questions about fiscal transparency.
This is precisely where the government’s narrative becomes vulnerable.
Macroeconomic stability is important, but stability on government balance sheets is not enough when stability is absent in the kitchen, marketplace and household budget. The IMF estimates that poverty had reached about 63 percent, while approximately 27 million Nigerians faced food insecurity in late 2025. It also observed that higher fuel and food prices could further increase poverty and food insecurity.
Therefore, Nigerians are justified in asking: where is the dividend of the sacrifice?
The Presidency is correct that petrol prices are not the only drivers of inflation. Food production, insecurity, logistics, exchange rates, storage, agricultural inputs and supply constraints matter enormously. It is also economically reasonable to argue that subsidising one petroleum product while leaving other products exposed creates distortions. But government cannot use complexity as an excuse for failing to demonstrate the tangible benefits of reform.
Atiku, meanwhile, must recognise that Nigerians are not necessarily asking for a return to the old subsidy regime. What they want is affordable energy, functional refineries, reliable electricity, lower transportation costs, food security and accountable management of public resources. His proposed targeted subsidy can only gain broad acceptance if it forms part of a wider strategy involving domestic refining, competition, transparent crude allocation, social protection and a credible pathway towards market efficiency.
The subsidy debate therefore exposes a deeper Nigerian problem: we have become accustomed to debating the cost of government policies without adequately debating the quality of governance that follows them.
The Tinubu administration deserves credit where the evidence supports it. The IMF confirms that the reforms have improved macroeconomic stability. But the government must also accept that economic reform requires a corresponding social compact. Citizens cannot be expected indefinitely to endure higher prices while being told that prosperity is somewhere ahead.
Atiku, on the other hand, must resist the temptation to convert genuine public frustration into an easy electoral promise. Restoring subsidy without a credible financing mechanism could merely postpone the crisis and return Nigeria to the same fiscal trap it sought to escape.
The choice before Nigerians should therefore not be framed as “subsidy versus no subsidy.” The real choice is between opaque government and transparent government; waste and accountability; consumption without productivity and investment that creates prosperity.
“The Nigerian people do not need politicians who merely promise to remove their pain; they need leaders capable of explaining the pain, accounting for the sacrifice and delivering the prosperity that makes the sacrifice worthwhile.”
Until that happens, the Presidency cannot simply declare victory because the macroeconomic numbers are improving, and Atiku cannot assume that public hardship automatically makes subsidy restoration the answer.
Nigeria needs neither propaganda from government nor populism from opposition. It needs evidence, accountability, affordable energy and a social contract in which every naira saved from subsidy is visibly converted into public value.
That is the debate Nigeria deserves and ultimately, the Nigerian people, not the Presidency or Atiku, must decide who has the more credible answer.
Cliff Stanley
Political Scientist, Public Theologian, Cliffstanley3@gmail.com
07032826319