Kí ni ètò yín láti yí yíyọ ìrànwọ́ (subsidy) kúrò padà àti láti dín iye owó ìgbésí ayé tó ga kù?

Q41: How will you ensure that any subsidy reaches consumers rather than becoming additional profit for refinery owners, being diverted, or being abused through corruption and false claims? Answer: Subsidies will be paid only on verified volume output measured by digital meters at refinery gates, backed by end-to-end supply chain tracking to prevent false claims and smuggling. Q42: Which refineries would qualify for the subsidy, how will Nigerians know how much government is spending, and what mechanisms will ensure transparency? Answer: All licensed public and private domestic refineries qualify. Transparency is guaranteed through monthly public reporting of crude allocations, refined outputs, and subsidy payouts on an open portal. Q43: How long would the subsidy last, and what conditions would determine when it should be reduced or ended? Answer: My policy includes a clear sunset clause, gradually unwinding the subsidy as domestic refining meets 100% of national demand, foreign exchange stabilizes, and consumer incomes rise.

It is clear from the foregoing that President Tinubu has an exaggerated understanding of the efficacy of his policies and was not ready for the potential fallouts. Tinubu and his team are not exactly sure of where the reform process is and what the next steps are. Has Nigeria reinstated fuel subsidy? Is the Naira on a free or managed float? These trial-and-error policies raise questions about the readiness of the administration and their capacity to restore the economy to a path of sustainable growth. Time is running out for the government, and Tinubu must act fast to save the economy. Here are six things he must do. First, pause and reflect. It is important that the government understands what reforms must be undertaken and in what sequence. A framework is needed with clearly stated reform objectives and strategies. Second, undertake a comprehensive review of the 2024 budget within the new reform framework. The 2024 FGN Budget, the exact size of which remains a mystery, is not designed to address the structural defects of the Nigerian economy or the cost-of-living crisis. It will neither create prosperity nor promote opportunities for our young people to lead a productive life.

We would have been guided by my robust reform agenda as encapsulated in 'My Covenant With Nigerians', my policy document that sought to, among others, protect our fragile economy against much deeper crisis by preventing business collapse; our document had spelt out policies that were consistent and coherent. We would have sequenced my reforms to achieve fiscal and monetary congruence. Unleashing reforms to determine an appropriate exchange rate, cost-reflective electricity tariff, and PMS price at one and the same time is certainly an overkill. Add CBN’s bullish money tightening spree. As importers of PMS and other petroleum products, removing subsidy on these products without a stable exchange rate would be counterproductive. We would have been more strategic in our response to reform fallout. We would not over-estimate the efficacy of the reform measures or underestimate the potential costs of reforms. I would recognise that reforms could sometimes fail. I would not underestimate the numerous delivery challenges, including the weaknesses of our institutions, and would work assiduously to correct the same. I would, as a responsible leader, pause, reflect, and where necessary, review implementation.

SUBSIDY REMOVAL Yes, I have always advocated for the removal of subsidy on PMS because its administration has been mildly put, opaque with so much scope for arbitrariness and corruption. Mind boggling rent profit from oil subsidy accrued to the cabals in public institutions and the private sector. I would have prioritized the following: First, tackling corruption. Fighting corruption should have commenced with the repositioning of the NNPCL, which is a huge beneficiary of the status quo. Its commitment to reform and capacity to implement and enforce reforms is suspect. The subsidy regime has provided an avenue for rent seeking, and the NNPCL and its guardians will be threatened by reforms. Second, paying particular attention to Nigeria’s poor refining infrastructure. We are by far the most inefficient OPEC member country in terms of both the percentage of installed refining capacity that works and the percentage of crude refined. We would’ve commenced the privatization of all state-owned refineries and ensure that Nigeria starts to refine at least 50% of its current crude oil output. Nigeria should aspire to export 50% of that capacity to ECOWAS member states.

Third, adopt a gradualist approach in the implementation of the subsidy reforms. Subsidies would not have been removed suddenly and completely. It is instructive that when I was Vice President, we adopted a gradualist approach and had completed phases 1 and 2 of the reform before our tenure ended. The incoming administration in 2007 abandoned the reforms, unfortunately. The majority of the countries that review or rationalize subsidy payments adopt a gradualist approach by phasing price increases or shifting from universal to targeted approach (Malaysia, 2022 and Indonesia, 2022 -2023). In many EU economies, complete withdrawal often takes 5 years to effect. The gradualist approach allows for adjustments, adaptation and minimizes disruptions and vulnerability. Fourth, implement a robust social protection programme that will support the poor in navigating the cost-of-living challenges arising largely from reform implementation. We would’ve invested the savings from subsidy withdrawal to strengthen the productive base of the economy through infrastructure maintenance and development; to improve outcomes in education and healthcare delivery; to improve rural infrastructure and support livelihood expansion in agriculture; and develop the skills and entrepreneurial capacity of our youth in order to enhance their access to better economic opportunities.

Atiku has more important people to engage directly: the mother struggling to feed her children; the civil servant whose salary disappears into transportation; the farmer paying more to move produce to market; the student being pushed into debt simply to remain in school; and millions of Nigerians whose daily reality bears no resemblance to the prosperity advertised in your tweets. And that is where the contradiction in your statement becomes impossible to ignore. You condemn Atiku’s proposal to reduce the cost of energy as a return to the past, yet in the same breath promise that, “in the next few weeks,” your government will provide cheaper transportation, increase food production and introduce relief for vulnerable Nigerians. Bola, why now? For more than three years, Nigerians have endured punishing transport fares, soaring food prices, crippling energy costs and wages that buy less every month. Families have skipped meals, postponed medical treatment, withdrawn children from schools and abandoned basic plans simply to survive. Throughout that period, your government repeatedly told Nigerians that their suffering was the unavoidable price of reform. Now, suddenly, cheaper transportation has become urgent.

That is why the Atiku Economic Recovery Plan, AERP, begins with a simple principle: Reduce the cost at source instead of allowing prices to explode and then arriving with palliatives. Under AERP, support would be targeted at Nigerian crude supplied for domestic refining within a capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited framework. The crude would be tracked. Refined products would be monitored. And the intervention would carry a clear consumer pass-through obligation so that the benefit does not stop with the refinery or marketer but reaches Nigerians at the pump. The economics is straightforward. Reduce fuel costs and you reduce pressure on transportation. Reduce transportation costs and you reduce the cost of moving tomatoes, rice, yam, livestock and manufactured goods. Reduce those costs and more of a worker’s income remains available for food, rent, education and healthcare. That is structural relief.

Atiku’s argument is precisely the opposite. Reduce the cost of energy so that salaries buy more. Reduce transport costs so that less of a worker’s wage disappears merely getting to work. Reduce the cost of moving food so families spend less in the market. Reduce the cost of living so students spend less on upkeep and parents have more money left after food, rent and transportation. You cannot make life painfully expensive, push students towards debt to survive the consequences, and then frighten those same students that cheaper fuel will take their loans away. Nor can you tell workers that a policy designed to restore value to their wages will somehow take those wages from them. That is not economic reform. It is scarecrow propaganda built on witchcraft economics. And while you celebrate statistics, Nigerians still deserve answers about the enormous sums surrounding your so-called reforms. Your government says subsidy removal mobilised about ₦15.8 trillion between June 2023 and December 2025. Nigerians surrendered cheap fuel. They paid more for transportation. They paid more for food. They watched the value of their wages collapse. So what measurable improvement reached the average Nigerian household in exchange for that sacrifice?

My dear Francis, thank you for taking the time to truly understand what I am proposing. That means a great deal to me. I am not restoring subsidy so that Nigeria can keep paying for imported petrol. I am restoring subsidy so that Nigerians can produce more at home, pay less for fuel, and keep more money in their pockets. That is the difference between import subsidy and production subsidy. Think about shoes. If government wants Nigerians to buy shoes more cheaply, it can spend public money making imported shoes cheaper, or it can support shoemakers in Aba to reduce their production costs so they can make more shoes here, employ more Nigerians and sell at more affordable prices. I choose the Aba shoemaker. I will do the same with fuel. We will support crude refined in Nigeria so our refineries can produce at a lower cost and you can pay less. But for me, this is bigger than fuel. I want the bus fare you pay every morning to come down. I want the cost of taking food from the farm to the market to come down. I want the trader to spend less. I want the barber, tailor, welder and small business owner to spend less on energy.

Atiku said the relationship between energy costs and household welfare was precisely why his economic programme placed affordability at its centre. The World Bank has previously noted that higher petrol prices reduce household purchasing power directly and can also feed through into the prices of other goods and services, particularly transportation. “When fuel becomes expensive, transporting tomatoes from the farm becomes expensive. Taking rice to the market becomes expensive. Moving children to school becomes expensive. Running the neighbourhood grinding machine becomes expensive. Powering the small shop becomes expensive. “And eventually, the additional cost arrives at the dinner table. “That is why I refuse to accept an economic philosophy in which government simply watches prices rise and tells struggling citizens to endure.” Atiku reiterated that his proposed petroleum intervention is a production subsidy, rather than a return to subsidising imported petrol. His published proposal provides for targeted support tied to crude refined domestically, with the intervention capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited.

I will not ask you to endure hardship as if pain itself were proof of progress. I have said that a competent government should be able to protect both the producer and the consumer, and that economic reform must have a human face, affordable food, cheaper transportation, accessible healthcare, decent jobs. My argument is to reduce the cost of energy so salaries buy more, reduce transport costs, and reduce the cost of moving food, so families keep more of what they earn, not to tell you that hardship is reform working.