By Oscar Okhifo
The Presidency has estimated that the proposed petrol subsidy plan of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, could cost Nigeria about ₦19.1 trillion annually, intensifying the debate over fuel pricing and economic policy ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
The Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Digital and New Media, Otega Ogra, said the projected cost was based on an estimated crude oil price of $80 per barrel and a subsidy component of about $40 per barrel.
According to him, the arrangement could translate to about ₦52.3 billion daily and ₦1.5 trillion monthly.
The controversy followed Atiku’s renewed pledge to restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027.
The former vice president, who supported subsidy removal before the 2023 election, has argued that Nigerians have not benefited sufficiently from the savings generated by the policy and that government needs to introduce a targeted intervention to make petrol more affordable.
The position has, however, drawn scepticism from critics who see the proposal as a political response to widespread economic hardship.
Atiku would also face the challenge of convincing voters that he would implement the promise if elected, rather than “belly-up” on it after assuming office.
Reacting to the proposal, Ogra challenged Atiku to explain how the crude oil and funding required to sustain the subsidy would be secured.
The presidential aide said, “So for Alhaji Atiku, my question to you here is, where are the barrels for your subsidy going to come from? Where is the money that you’re going to give to your billionaire friends using your own plan?”
Ogra also questioned the assumptions behind the proposal, saying Atiku had not provided sufficient details about its financial implications or limits.
“You failed to put the estimates in your plan, you failed to put the cap in your plan, you failed to put how many barrels of oil Nigeria is going to need in your plan,” he added.
However, the subsidy controversy goes beyond the political contest between President Tinubu and Atiku.
Petrol subsidy has remained one of Nigeria’s most contentious economic issues for decades. The decision by former President Goodluck Jonathan to remove subsidy in January 2012 triggered nationwide protests, with organised labour and civil society groups mobilising against the policy.
Some of the political forces that opposed Jonathan’s decision later became part of the political establishment that supported the removal of the subsidy after Tinubu assumed office in May 2023.
The Tinubu administration has consistently defended the decision, arguing that the subsidy had become fiscally unsustainable and that resources previously devoted to it could be redirected to development.
Government officials have also pointed to increased allocations to states and local governments as evidence that the benefits of the reform are reaching the federating units.
Finance Minister Taiwo Oyedele said savings from petrol subsidy removal and foreign-exchange reforms generated ₦15.8 trillion in resources for the Federation between June 2023 and December 2025.
Yet, many Nigerians remain unconvinced.
They argue that higher government allocations have not translated into a corresponding improvement in living standards, as citizens continue to contend with high food prices, transportation costs, electricity bills and declining purchasing power.
Critics have also accused some state governments of spending increased revenues on projects they consider low-priority or extravagant rather than using the additional resources to cushion the impact of economic reforms.
The debate has been further complicated by Nigeria’s rising debt burden.
Some Nigerians question why the government continues to borrow despite the removal of petrol subsidy, which was partly justified on the grounds that the reform would free public resources and ease pressure on government finances.
Nigeria’s total debt stock stood at about ₦159.35 trillion by March 2026, compared with about ₦12.6 trillion at the end of 2015, according to figures cited by Reuters from official data.
The Finance Ministry has maintained that much of the savings from subsidy removal has been absorbed by higher debt-servicing costs and increased government expenditure.
For millions of Nigerians, however, the central issue remains the same: the cost of living has risen sharply since the subsidy was removed, while the promised benefits of the reform remain difficult to perceive in their daily lives.
It is against this backdrop that Atiku’s proposal has gained political traction.
His challenge will be to demonstrate that the proposed intervention is economically sustainable, clearly funded and capable of delivering relief without recreating the fiscal pressures associated with the former subsidy regime.
He must also convince voters that the promise would survive the realities of governing Nigeria.
For the Tinubu administration, the challenge is equally significant: to demonstrate that the resources freed by subsidy removal are producing tangible improvements in the lives of Nigerians.
As the 2027 election approaches, the subsidy debate could therefore become a referendum not only on petrol prices but also on economic management and political credibility.
For voters who have witnessed governments make and abandon major promises, the question may ultimately be straightforward: if Atiku says he will restore subsidy, what assurance is there that he will not “belly-up” on the promise when confronted with the realities of governing Nigeria?
The battle over petrol subsidy is unlikely to disappear from the political front burner anytime soon. With Atiku seeking to turn the hardship associated with its removal into an electoral issue and the Presidency warning of its enormous fiscal cost, the policy is set to remain one of the defining economic issues of the 2027 campaign.