ABIODUN OLUWADARE contends that reform should not be judged solely by its discomfort
The 2027 presidential contest has barely begun, yet one important thing has already changed: the political conversation is gradually moving beyond the personalities and histories of the candidates towards the policies that will determine the daily lives of Nigerians. That is a welcome development. Elections should ultimately be contests over competing visions of how to govern the country, strengthen its economy and improve the welfare of its citizens. In this context, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s recent position on petrol subsidy deserves attention. Atiku now says that, if elected president in 2027, he would restore a form of subsidy, although he has clarified that he is not proposing a return to the old import-subsidy regime but a targeted, capped and transparently budgeted production subsidy tied to domestic refining. There is nothing inherently wrong with proposing an alternative policy. Indeed, that is what democratic elections should permit. But the proposal raises an important question that Nigerians are entitled to ask: what changed between 2023 and 2026?
During the 2023 presidential campaign, Atiku did not oppose subsidy removal. His position was explicit. He said he had chaired a committee on subsidy removal and would continue from where previous administrations had stopped, remove subsidies completely and redirect the resources into the economy. His policy document similarly proposed ending fuel subsidies within his first 100 days in office. That was not an incidental position; it reflected an economic argument that a system consuming enormous public resources while creating opportunities for fraud, smuggling and rent-seeking was unsustainable. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu subsequently acted on essentially the same diagnosis. The important difference is that Tinubu inherited the problem and accepted the political consequences of confronting it. On 29 May 2023, Tinubu announced the end of the subsidy regime, knowing that the decision would have immediate and painful consequences for households, commuters and businesses. The hardship that followed has been substantial and should not be minimised. Nigerians experienced higher transportation costs, rising food prices and declining purchasing power, and the government has a responsibility to acknowledge those realities. Yet acknowledging the hardship associated with reform is not the same as accepting the argument that the reform itself was unnecessary. That distinction is at the heart of the present debate.
