Reverse This, Cancel That, Bring Back Subsidy: Is Everything Suddenly Easy During Election Season?

Circular Road, Coastal Highway and Fuel Subsidy: Should Voters Trust Promises to Reverse Government Policies?

As political activities intensify ahead of Nigeria’s next general elections, voters are likely to hear increasingly attractive promises about reversing, cancelling or modifying projects and policies implemented by the current administration.

One issue already generating political debate in Oyo State is the Ibadan Circular Road project, where opponents of aspects of the development have called for the government to revert certain decisions concerning the road corridor and land acquisition.

The 110-kilometre Rashidi Ladoja Circular Road is a major infrastructure project intended to open new residential, commercial and industrial corridors around Ibadan and reduce pressure on the city’s existing road network. According to information published by the Oyo State Government, the original 150-metre right-of-way—75 metres on either side—was acquired and compensated for in 2005.

However, the project has also generated protests from affected residents over land acquisition, demolition and compensation. Some residents have demanded that the government restrict the corridor to the original 150-metre alignment and follow due process for any additional acquisition.

The Oyo State Government, meanwhile, has continued its compensation programme. In April 2026, the state approved ₦5.813 billion for more than 900 affected property owners, in addition to earlier compensation payments.

Against this background, any political promise to simply "return" acquired or developed land raises an important question: What exactly would be reversed, what legal processes would be required, who would be compensated, and what would happen to investments already made?

The same question applies at the federal level.

The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway has faced substantial criticism from opposition politicians, civil-society groups and affected property owners. Critics have questioned aspects of its cost, procurement, alignment, land acquisition and compensation, while the Federal Government has defended the project as a major infrastructure investment. In 2026, the Works Minister, Dave Umahi, said construction had progressed across several sections of the planned 700-kilometre highway.

Affected landowners have also raised legal and compensation concerns, including allegations surrounding the acquisition of properties along parts of the alignment.

Therefore, when politicians promise voters that they will stop, reverse or fundamentally alter major infrastructure projects, citizens should ask practical questions rather than relying solely on campaign rhetoric: What is the legal basis? What will it cost? Who will bear the financial consequences? What happens to existing contracts and investments? And what alternative plan will replace the project?

A similar debate has emerged around petrol subsidy.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has recently pledged to restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027. This represents a significant change from his publicly stated position in November 2022, when he supported completing the removal of the subsidy. The State House has also highlighted this change in position.

The broader lesson for Nigerian voters is straightforward: campaign promises deserve scrutiny, regardless of which political party or candidate makes them.

Promises to reverse policies may sound attractive, particularly when citizens are experiencing economic hardship. But reversing a government decision is not always as simple as announcing that it will be reversed. Contracts, compensation, legislation, financial commitments, property rights and investments may already be involved.

As political campaigns approach, voters should therefore examine not only what politicians promise, but also how they intend to deliver it, what it will cost, what laws must change, and what consequences may follow.

Democracy gives citizens the power to choose their leaders. That power is strongest when political promises are examined carefully and judged against facts, records, feasibility and clearly stated implementation plans.