The Presidency’s declaration that Atiku Abubakar’s proposal to restore petrol subsidy is “retrogressive” and “fiscally unsustainable” may sound authoritative, but political authority does not automatically make an economic argument correct. If the Presidency truly believes Atiku’s proposal would damage Nigeria’s economy, then Nigerians deserve something more substantial than adjectives. They deserve the figures, the projections, the fiscal implications and the evidence. An alternative policy is not defeated by calling it retrogressive; it is defeated by demonstrating that it cannot work.
Let us begin with a point of fairness: Nigeria’s old subsidy regime had serious weaknesses. It was expensive, poorly targeted and vulnerable to corruption, manipulation and opaque accounting. No serious advocate of reform should pretend otherwise. But there is a fundamental difference between rejecting a defective subsidy system and declaring that every possible form of subsidy or government intervention is economically backward. A failed policy design does not make every alternative design a failure.
Subsidy is not an economic religion. It is a policy instrument. Governments across the world intervene in strategic sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, transportation, energy and manufacturing when circumstances demand it. The relevant questions are simple but important: who benefits, how much does it cost, how is it funded, how long will it last, and what safeguards prevent abuse? If Atiku is proposing a redesigned, targeted and accountable intervention, then the proposal should be judged against those criteria rather than dismissed because it challenges the administration’s existing policy.
Petrol also occupies a peculiar position in Nigeria’s economy. It is not merely another commodity purchased at filling stations. Its price affects transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, logistics and household expenditure. When petrol prices rise sharply, the shock travels through the economy, increasing the cost of moving people, food and goods. Consequently, the success or failure of subsidy removal cannot be assessed solely by examining government revenue. The welfare of the citizens who ultimately bear the cost must also be part of the calculation.
The Tinubu administration has argued that subsidy removal has improved government finances and released additional resources to the three tiers of government. That argument deserves recognition. Fiscal discipline matters, and Nigeria cannot afford an endlessly wasteful system that drains public resources while creating opportunities for fraud. But fiscal savings and social prosperity are not synonymous. Government revenue can rise while household purchasing power falls; foreign reserves can improve while transportation remains unaffordable; and investors can become more confident while small businesses struggle with rising operating costs.
This is where the Presidency must answer the question Nigerians are asking. If the resources saved from subsidy removal have created greater fiscal space, what measurable improvements have those resources produced in the lives of ordinary Nigerians? How much has gone into infrastructure, healthcare, education, security, employment and productive investment? How much has translated into lower living costs or greater purchasing power? A government cannot permanently ask citizens to endure sacrifice without clearly demonstrating what that sacrifice is producing.
Atiku’s proposal therefore deserves a more sophisticated interpretation. He should not be understood as simply demanding a return to the exact subsidy structure of the past. The more constructive proposition is to redesign energy support around vulnerable Nigerians and productive sectors while imposing strict fiscal and institutional safeguards. That means a targeted intervention, independent auditing, digital monitoring, transparent accounting, a clearly defined fiscal ceiling and a sunset mechanism that prevents subsidy from becoming an uncontrolled permanent burden.
Such a policy could also be linked directly to Nigeria’s long term energy strategy. Government can simultaneously accelerate domestic refining, strengthen mass transportation, support productive sectors affected by energy costs and reduce dependence on imported petroleum products. In that context, temporary and targeted subsidy becomes not a substitute for reform, but a bridge through reform, protecting citizens while structural solutions are developed.
If the Presidency believes even such a redesigned intervention is fiscally unsustainable, then it should prove it. Publish the projected cost. Show the impact on the national budget. Demonstrate the consequences for borrowing, infrastructure and social investment. Explain the opportunity cost. Let economists interrogate the figures. That would be an economic rebuttal. Simply attaching the word “retrogressive” to Atiku’s proposal does not answer any of those questions.
The Presidency has also questioned Atiku’s changing position on subsidy. That is a legitimate political issue. Nigerians are entitled to ask why a politician changed his position and whether the change is based on principle, evidence or political convenience. But economic policy is not a religious oath. Circumstances change, global oil prices change, exchange rates change, domestic refining capacity changes and the economic condition of citizens changes. The more important question is therefore not merely, “Why did you change your mind?” but “What evidence justifies the position you are taking today?”
Atiku must answer that question convincingly. If he wants to restore subsidy, he must provide Nigerians with a detailed economic blueprint. He must explain the projected cost, the funding source, the beneficiaries, the duration, the anti corruption safeguards and the relationship between subsidy and domestic refining. He must demonstrate that his proposal is not simply politically attractive but financially credible and administratively practicable. A promise of cheaper petrol without a credible financing and implementation model would be inadequate.
But the same standard must apply to President Tinubu. If his reforms are delivering sustainable economic transformation, Nigerians deserve to see the evidence. If government finances have improved, the administration should show how those gains are being converted into infrastructure, jobs, security, productive investment and improved living standards. If today’s hardship is the necessary price of tomorrow’s prosperity, government must clearly demonstrate the pathway and convince Nigerians that the destination is both real and attainable.
This is why describing Atiku’s proposal as “retrogressive” is too simplistic. A policy is not retrogressive merely because it involves government intervention. If an intervention protects vulnerable households, supports productive activity, reduces the shock of energy prices and operates within strict fiscal limits, it may be a legitimate component of a broader economic strategy. The real test is design, affordability, transparency and measurable outcomes.
Nigeria therefore does not need another ideological war between “subsidy” and “no subsidy”. What Nigeria needs is a serious conversation about what form of intervention can protect citizens while moving the country towards energy security and fiscal stability. We need domestic refining. We need efficient public transportation. We need productive industries. We need targeted social protection. We need strong institutions capable of preventing corruption. Above all, we need policies that recognise that economic reform must serve the people, not merely improve government spreadsheets.
The Nigerian worker wants purchasing power. The farmer wants affordable transportation to move produce. The manufacturer wants predictable energy costs. The trader wants manageable logistics. The student wants affordable mobility. The small business owner wants an environment where productivity can translate into meaningful returns. These are not abstract economic variables. They are the human realities against which every economic policy should eventually be judged.
Therefore, if Atiku is wrong, prove him wrong with evidence. If subsidy restoration would damage Nigeria’s finances, show Nigerians the numbers. If his proposal is genuinely retrogressive, demonstrate precisely how and present a superior alternative. But if the Tinubu administration’s reforms are producing the transformation Nigerians were promised, then the government should equally prove it with results. The burden of persuasion cannot belong exclusively to the opposition.
The 2027 election should consequently be a contest of competing economic visions, not competing insults. Let Tinubu defend his reforms with evidence. Let Atiku defend his alternative with a credible blueprint. Let economists interrogate both. Let Nigerians examine the records, compare the policies and decide which programme offers the strongest combination of fiscal responsibility, economic growth, social protection and human welfare.
Because in the final analysis, governance is not about who can attach the most frightening adjective to an opponent’s proposal. It is about who can present a solution that works in the real lives of citizens. If the Presidency has the better economic argument, it should win with facts. If Atiku has the better alternative, he should prove it with a workable plan. But Nigerians deserve neither slogans nor insults. They deserve leadership capable of turning economic policy into tangible improvement.
And that is the real issue. Atiku should not be condemned merely because he proposes a different economic path, just as Tinubu should not be praised merely because he calls his own path reform. Both must be judged by the consequences of their policies. In 2027, Nigerians should not simply ask who can defend a policy most eloquently. They should ask who has the more credible plan to make Nigeria work for the Nigerian people.
Akin Samuel KAYODE.
Member, The Narrative Force.
21082026.
@all
