The removal of fuel subsidy is rapidly becoming one of the defining political debates ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu appears to be shifting ground as he engages state governors on measures to make transportation cheaper, including an expanded reliance on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and government intervention in transport costs.
The development comes amid former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s promise to restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027. Atiku has argued that government must intervene to make energy affordable, while Tinubu insists that the better route is to use cheaper energy sources such as CNG and electric vehicles, alongside coordinated federal and state action to reduce transport fares.
Beneath the disagreement over methods, however, lies an important and somewhat unexpected convergence: both men now concede that Nigerians need affordable energy and transportation. That is some progress.
Why the Subsidy Debate Is Actually Democracy Working
The fierce argument over subsidy removal may be tearing Nigerians apart online, but there is another way to understand it: democracy is working exactly as it should.
Government policies should be contested. Opposition politicians should challenge policies they consider harmful, while those in power should be compelled to defend their decisions. Ultimately, Nigerians—not politicians—must decide which argument best addresses their daily reality.
Interestingly, Tinubu himself appeared to understand this before becoming president.
At his January 25, 2023 presidential campaign rally in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Tinubu promised Nigerians that fuel prices would come down. Reports of the speech quoted him as assuring Nigerians: “I will reduce the price of fuel. Be rest assured that I will solve the fuel crisis.” He also told the crowd that petrol prices would be brought down.
Those statements are worth remembering today, particularly because the political conversation has changed dramatically since the subsidy was removed in May 2023.
Atiku’s current position has reopened that conversation. He has said that, if elected in 2027, he would restore subsidy and questioned what Nigerians have received in return for its removal.
The Government Cannot Ignore Affordability
There is nothing inherently unusual about governments intervening in the cost of transportation and energy. Across the world, public transportation is frequently supported with public funds because mobility is regarded as essential to economic participation.
Canada, for example, is committing billions of dollars through its Canada Public Transit Fund to support public transportation infrastructure and affordability. Beginning in 2026–27, the programme is expected to provide an average of about C$3 billion annually.
Brazilian cities have similarly used public resources to support public transportation, with several municipalities operating subsidised or even fare-free systems. The underlying principle is straightforward: governments recognise that transportation costs affect workers, businesses, families and the wider economy.
Nigeria should therefore not treat the question of affordable mobility as an economic taboo.
The ‘Half Salary’ Argument
Tinubu recently reinforced his criticism of subsidy by recalling the period when some state governments struggled to pay salaries. He referred to the former Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola, as the governor associated with the “Half Salary” era.
The hardship suffered by affected workers was real, and the policy remains a legitimate subject of criticism. But there is another economic question that cannot be ignored: what is the value of a salary if its purchasing power has been destroyed by inflation?
Nigeria’s inflation trajectory since the Aregbesola years has dramatically eroded the value of the naira. The National Bureau of Statistics recorded headline inflation at 16.05 percent in July 2017.
Consequently, comparing yesterday’s nominal salaries with today’s salaries without considering purchasing power can produce a misleading picture of Nigerians’ economic welfare.
A worker receiving a “full salary” today may technically be better paid than a worker who received half a salary years ago, yet still be considerably poorer in real terms if food, transportation, rent, electricity and other essentials have risen much faster than wages.
The Debate Has Finally Changed
Atiku’s subsidy promise has, at the very least, forced the Tinubu administration to confront a truth that candidate Tinubu himself acknowledged in 2023: prohibitively expensive energy is bad for ordinary Nigerians and ultimately bad for an economy.
The two politicians disagree fundamentally on how affordability should be achieved. Atiku favours petrol subsidy; Tinubu is now pushing CNG, electric mobility and government-backed measures to reduce transportation costs.
Indeed, after meeting with governors, Tinubu announced plans for an additional 500 CNG refuelling stations, bringing the planned nationwide network to 1,000 stations. The Federal Government and states are also working toward reducing transport fares, with implementation targeted from October 1, 2026.
That is a significant shift in emphasis.
For years, Nigerians were essentially told to endure the immediate pain of reform because a better tomorrow would eventually arrive. The political argument is now moving toward a more practical question: how do we make life affordable today while building a sustainable economy for tomorrow?
That is the debate Nigerians should welcome.
And if the 2027 election forces every major political contender to compete over who can make energy, transportation and everyday life more affordable, then the subsidy controversy—however bitter it may be online—may ultimately be democracy doing what democracy is supposed to do: forcing government to listen to the people.
0 Comments