When Alhaji Atiku Abubakar recently said he would restore petroleum subsidy if elected president, he tapped into a familiar frustration. Fuel prices are high, transport costs bite, and households are feeling the squeeze. That pain is real. But the promise to bring back the old subsidy regime is not relief. It is a return to a policy that bled the treasury, starved the states, and kept Nigeria dependent on borrowing to buy fuel.
For decades the subsidy was sold as a welfare program for the poor. In practice it became the most expensive welfare program for smugglers, marketers, and a handful of importers. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company would claim billions monthly, and no one could audit where the product actually went. That was not social protection. That was fiscal leakage at scale.
The first and most immediate benefit of subsidy removal is fiscal breathing room. In 2022 alone, subsidy gulped over 4 trillion naira. That was more than we spent on education, health, and capital projects combined. When that money stopped going to fuel, it did not disappear. It stayed in government coffers, and a large share of it flows directly to the sub nationals through FAAC.
The sub nationals are where the difference is being felt most. States and local governments now receive significantly higher monthly allocations. Governors in Rivers, Lagos, Kano, and others have reported FAAC receipts nearly doubling compared to pre-removal levels. That is money that can pay teachers, fix primary health centers, and clear pension arrears without waiting for Abuja bailouts.
In Rivers State, for example, the additional resources have allowed the state government to accelerate road projects, expand the school feeding conversation, and invest in water and sanitation. Across the country, states are using the windfall to clear salary backlogs and to fund security. That is the direct link between subsidy removal and better services at your doorstep.
Beyond recurrent needs, the removal unlocked capital spending. With subsidy gone, the federal government and states are no longer borrowing just to keep petrol cheap. Instead, we are seeing commitments to CNG buses, mass transit, student loans, and conditional cash transfers. These are targeted interventions. They reach the vulnerable without subsidizing a businessman in Cotonou who drives across the border to buy cheap fuel.
One of the quietest but biggest wins is the end of the subsidy-driven smuggling economy. When Nigerian petrol was artificially cheap, an estimated 30 to 40 percent was leaving our borders daily. That drained our forex and rewarded criminal networks. With prices aligned to market, the incentive to smuggle collapsed almost overnight. That saves dollars and restores integrity to our supply chain.
Sub nationals also gained policy space. Before, states were trapped. They could not raise IGR fast enough to match their responsibilities because the center was spending all its revenue on fuel. Now, with more money coming from FAAC and with subsidy no longer a federal albatross, states can plan medium-term budgets. They can borrow for infrastructure knowing their revenue base is real, not propped up by a phantom fuel bill.
The macroeconomic case is just as strong. Subsidy removal freed up foreign exchange that was being used to import and “subsidize” fuel. That pressure contributed to naira volatility. With the drain gone, the CBN has more room to stabilize the market, and investors see a government willing to make hard choices. Confidence matters for FDI, and FDI builds factories, not just fuel stations.
Let us be honest about the counterargument. Atiku and others argue that Nigerians cannot afford the current prices and that government should cushion the pain by restoring subsidy. The compassion is understandable. But the method is wrong. A blanket subsidy is the bluntest tool possible. It subsidizes the rich who own three cars, it subsidizes generators in malls, and it subsidizes our neighbors.
Targeted support is both cheaper and fairer. The savings from subsidy removal are already funding student loans, nano-grants, and public transport reforms. Those programs can be scaled. If we put 1 trillion naira directly into transport, health insurance, and food support, the impact on the poor will be ten times what the same 1 trillion did when spread thinly across every liter of petrol.
International experience backs this. Indonesia, India, and Ghana all removed fuel subsidies and redirected the savings to health, education, and cash transfers. In each case there was short-term pain, followed by stronger public services. Countries that reversed course and brought subsidies back, like Egypt in 2014 before its second reform, ended up in deeper debt crises.
Restoring subsidy now would also reverse private sector investment. Since the removal, private companies have begun investing in refineries, CNG conversion centers, and logistics. Dangote Refinery, modular refineries, and gas infrastructure are viable only because prices reflect costs. If we announce that subsidy will return, those investors pause. That means fewer jobs in Port Harcourt, Warri, and Lagos.
For the sub nationals, a return to subsidy is a direct pay cut. FAAC would shrink again. States would go back to borrowing to pay salaries. Projects started with the new revenues would stall. Local governments, which depend almost entirely on federal transfers, would be the first to feel it. That is not theoretical. We lived it for 20 years.
Atiku’s argument rests on the idea that the timing was wrong and the palliatives were insufficient. Fair critique. But the solution to poor implementation is better implementation, not abandoning the reform. We should demand faster rollout of CNG buses, more transparency in how FAAC windfalls are spent, and stronger monitoring of state budgets. We should not demand a return to the policy that caused the weakness.
The subsidy was also a corruption magnet. It created a system where claims were king and verification was optional. Removing it broke that cycle. Bringing it back without fixing the governance structure is inviting the same fraud, only now with higher global oil prices and a weaker naira.
There is also a climate and energy angle. Cheap petrol discouraged gas adoption and kept us locked into generators. With market pricing, CNG, electric tricycles, and solar become economically sensible. States can lead this transition because they now have the funds to subsidize conversion kits, not fuel itself.
Politically, the promise to restore subsidy sounds popular in the short term. But governance is about trade-offs. The trade-off here is clear: cheap fuel for a few months versus hospitals, roads, and jobs for years. Sub nationals have already shown what they can do with the extra money. To take it away is to punish the very level of government closest to the people.
Finally, debt. Subsidy was financed largely by borrowing and by unpaid arrears to NNPC. That debt was crowding out everything else. Every naira we do not spend on subsidy is a naira we do not have to borrow. That lowers interest payments, which in turn frees more money for states and local governments.
Nigeria does not need a return to the past. We need to finish the work of this reform. That means plugging leakages, auditing state spending, and scaling targeted support so no family is left behind.
Alhaji Atiku is a respected Nigerian, but on this point he is wrong. Restoring subsidy would undo the single most important fiscal correction we have made in a generation. It would hurt the states, weaken the naira, and put us back on the borrowing treadmill.
The better path is forward. Keep the subsidy gone. Let the sub nationals keep the resources. And let government prove that the savings can translate into tangible relief. That is how we turn pain into progress, and that is how we build a Nigeria that works beyond election cycles.
CHINEDUM ENYINNAYA ORJI writes from Amaokwe Ugba, Umuahia Ibeku and the All Progressives Congress Candidate for Ikwuano Umuahia Federal Constituency.
