Why have media outlets focused almost exclusively on the recurring fuel subsidy debate while paying little attention to the broader and more fundamental concerns raised by Atiku Abubakar?
It is now a matter of public record that the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has promised to restore the fuel subsidy if elected president in the 2027 presidential election. His argument is that Nigerians have yet to see benefits commensurate with the economic pain caused by the removal of the subsidy.
The removal of the petrol subsidy resulted in a significant increase in the price of petrol. This, in turn, contributed to higher transportation costs, which subsequently pushed up the prices of food and other goods and services. For millions of Nigerians already struggling with declining purchasing power, the reform has translated into a severe increase in the cost of living.
Nigeria reportedly generated an estimated ₦15.8 trillion in additional public resources from the removal of the petrol subsidy and the floating of the naira between May 2023 and December 2025. These funds did not remain as idle cash in government coffers. Rather, they were distributed among the three tiers of government providing additional resources to governments amid mounting economic pressures on citizens. According to the figures, state governments received approximately ₦6.52 trillion, while the federal government received ₦5.43 trillion. Local governments received about ₦3.88 trillion.
The substantial increase in revenue was expected to help governments cushion the effects of rising inflation, worsening living conditions, and other economic difficulties associated with the reforms. Yet, despite the enormous resources made available, fundamental questions remain about how effectively the funds have been utilised.
This is where the conversation should go beyond the recurring question of whether the fuel subsidy should be restored. Atiku Abubakar raised legitimate concerns about transparency, accountability, prudent management of public resources, and measurable outcomes. Nigerians have every right to ask what has been achieved with the additional revenue accruing to the three tiers of government. African Democratic Congress presidential candidate has argued that the increased allocations have not translated into improvements commensurate with the scale of the resources made available.
The absence of sufficiently clear and comprehensive public reporting on how the additional funds have been spent has further fuelled concerns about whether the revenue generated from the reforms is achieving its intended purpose.
The presidential candidate of the ADC also vowed that anyone responsible for looting or mismanaging funds accrued from past fuel subsidy savings should be made to account for their actions and, where necessary, make full restitution.
More importantly, he questioned what has become of the savings generated by the removal of the subsidy, asking where the funds have gone and why Nigerians have not seen corresponding improvements in their living conditions.
According to his argument, if the money saved from subsidy reforms had been transparently invested in critical sectors such as healthcare, education, security, infrastructure, and youth empowerment, Nigeria would be in a far better position today.
Whether one agrees with Atiku’s proposal to restore the subsidy or not, should these questions not be given serious consideration? The debate should not be reduced to a simple contest between those who support subsidy removal and those who favour its restoration. The more fundamental issue is how public resources are managed and whether Nigerians are receiving tangible value from the enormous revenues available to government.
Abbah Dukawa, Abuja. abbahydukawa@gmail.com.
