President Bola Ahmed Tinubu announced the removal of Nigeria’s petrol subsidy in May 2023, a decision his administration has consistently defended as one of the major pillars of its economic reforms. The government maintains that the era of direct petrol subsidy payments is over.
Yet, a growing controversy over how the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) accounts for certain fuel-related expenses has given fresh ammunition to critics who argue that the subsidy may have disappeared in name without completely disappearing in practice.
The issue gained renewed political attention after African Action Congress presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore alleged on Arise Television on August 11, 2026, that the government is still subsidising petrol and the naira, only through different mechanisms and terminology.
> “The government is still paying fuel subsidy under a different name.”
Sowore argued that the government has not necessarily eliminated the economic burden associated with subsidy but has changed the way it is described. He specifically alleged that the government is also “quietly and secretly” subsidising the naira in an attempt to support its exchange rate against the US dollar.
But what makes the allegation particularly interesting is that questions about post-subsidy fuel-related liabilities are not coming from Sowore alone.
The N17.5 Trillion Question
A major part of the controversy revolves around NNPCL's reported ₦17.5 trillion in claims and under-recovery-related costs.
According to reporting based on NNPCL's 2024 financial records, the figure included approximately ₦7.13 trillion categorised as energy-security and pipeline-protection expenditure, alongside other claims and under-recovery costs.
The terminology matters.
“Under-recovery” generally refers to a situation where the cost associated with supplying petroleum products is higher than the amount recovered through sales. Critics therefore argue that if government ultimately absorbs such costs, the economic effect can resemble a subsidy even when the expenditure is not formally labelled “petrol subsidy.”
Indeed, former NACCIMA president Dele Kelvin Oye described the ₦17.5 trillion liability owed to NNPCL by the Federal Government as “fuel subsidy by another name.” He argued that expenses described as energy security, under-recovery and other receivables could represent a continuation of the subsidy regime under a different description.
That does not, however, automatically prove that Tinubu secretly restored the old subsidy regime.
The Government’s Position
The distinction is important.
The administration's position remains that the old petrol subsidy system was removed. Furthermore, Finance Minister Taiwo Oyedele recently explained that the savings generated from fuel-subsidy removal and foreign-exchange reforms have not simply been sitting untouched in government accounts.
According to Oyedele, the savings have been absorbed by increased debt-servicing costs, higher wages following the new minimum wage, student-loan commitments and other government expenditures.
Reuters also reported that Oyedele said the combined cost of the former fuel subsidy and what he described as an implicit foreign-exchange subsidy had been equivalent to about 5% of Nigeria's GDP before the reforms.
This introduces another important dimension to Sowore's argument.
Fuel Subsidy, Naira Support — Or Something Else?
Sowore's broader contention is that Nigerians are being told that subsidies have disappeared when government interventions may still be producing subsidy-like economic effects.
That argument should not be confused with proof that Tinubu is secretly paying the exact same petrol subsidy that existed before May 2023. There is insufficient evidence to make that categorical claim.
What can reasonably be established is that NNPCL's accounts contain substantial fuel-related under-recovery and energy-security expenses, while government officials acknowledge the existence of major fiscal interventions and the former implicit FX subsidy.
The real question, therefore, is not simply whether the word “subsidy” appears in a budget document.
It is who ultimately bears the cost when petrol is supplied below its full economic cost, how those costs are recorded, and whether taxpayers eventually absorb them.
That is where Sowore's argument becomes politically significant.
Tinubu's government says the subsidy was removed.
Sowore says it was re-engineered and renamed.
And the reported ₦17.5 trillion NNPCL figure ensures that the argument is unlikely to disappear merely because the official terminology has changed.
The debate now requires something Nigerians have repeatedly demanded: **full transparency over NNPCL's accounts, under-recovery claims, energy-security expenditure and exactly who ultimately pays the bill.**
0 Comments