FromNdubuisi Orji,Abuja and Chukwuma Umeorah

Thedebate over Nigeria’s economic direction has intensified ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with African Democratic Congress (ADC) candidate, Atiku Abubakar, and Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) candidate, Donald Duke, faulting aspects of President Bola Tinubu’s economic policies, while Accord Party candidate, Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim, and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) rejected Atiku’s proposed reversal of petrol subsidy removal.

While Hashim challenged Atiku over what he described as a sudden reversal of his earlier position as an advocate of subsidy removal, APC National Chairman, Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda, and a member of the House of Representatives, Dr Wale Ahmed, argued that restoring subsidy would undermine the country’s economic recovery.

The competing positions have placed fuel subsidy, fiscal sustainability, household welfare, investment incentives and the broader direction of economic policy at the centre of the emerging 2027 presidential campaign.

Atiku, in a statement by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, accused the Tinubu administration of removing subsidy from consumers while granting tax credits, concessions and other fiscal incentives to operators in the petroleum industry.

He argued that government could not reject intervention to reduce the burden of petrol prices on Nigerians while simultaneously providing fiscal support to oil investors.

“Tinubu stood at Eagle Square and declared that subsidy was gone. Petrol prices exploded, transportation costs soared, food prices followed, businesses buckled and household purchasing power collapsed,” Atiku said.

“But when major oil investors knock on Tinubu’s door, the sermon changes. Suddenly, government intervention is good economics; tax credits are necessary; fiscal concessions are strategic; and private investment must be ‘de-risked.’”

Atiku cited incentives under the government’s Deep Offshore Oil and Gas Projects Incentives framework, arguing that qualifying petroleum developments could receive production tax credits beginning at $3 and $4.50 per barrel, with supplementary credits capable, in qualifying circumstances, of taking the combined benefit to $11.50 per barrel.

He also questioned expenditure classified by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited as energy-security expenses and related shortfalls.

According to Atiku, NNPC’s 2023 accounts recorded approximately N4.84 trillion under energy-security expenses and related shortfalls, while its 2024 audited financial statements recorded about N7.13 trillion.

He said NNPC had attributed part of the expenditure to the difference between the exchange rate used to determine regulated PMS ex-coastal prices and the prevailing exchange rate when import obligations were settled.

Atiku argued that the expenditure showed that government continued to absorb petroleum-related price differentials after the formal removal of subsidy.

“Whether government calls it subsidy, under-recovery, shortfall or energy security, public resources were being used to bridge a gap between economic cost and the price at which petrol was sold,” he said.

He said his proposed Atiku Economic Recovery Plan did not envisage a return to the previous subsidy regime but a targeted, capped and transparently budgeted intervention backed by independent auditing, accelerated domestic refining, increased competition, mass transportation and measures to restore household purchasing power.

He also demanded disclosure of the beneficiaries and value of major petroleum tax credits, remissions and other incentives granted by government.

•Duke calls for change in economic direction

Duke, meanwhile, broadened the criticism beyond the subsidy question, declaring that Nigeria would not benefit from a continuation of the Tinubu administration’s economic policies.

The former Cross River State governor said the country needed an economic model focused on converting its natural resources and human capital into productive capacity.

“The Nigerian economy will not benefit from the continuation of the Tinubu administration’s economic policies.”

Duke argued that economic performance should be measured principally by employment, income and living standards rather than government revenue or foreign reserves.

“The yardstick of measuring the wellbeing of our economy shall not be based on the manipulated volume of our foreign reserves, but rather on employment indices and income per capita,” he said.

Duke said Nigeria needed “imaginative, strategically-designed policies” to stimulate growth, develop natural resources and harness human capital.

He also criticised the handling of fuel subsidy, saying the arrangement that existed before the Tinubu administration had been replaced by what he described as another poorly managed system that had failed to shield Nigerians from rising costs and currency depreciation.

He said the PRP would focus its economic programme on productive use of Nigeria’s resources, employment creation, higher incomes and improved living standards.

•Hashim tackles Atiku over subsidy U-turn

Hashim, however, directed his criticism at Atiku, challenging the ADC candidate over his new position on subsidy removal.

Hashim described Atiku as one of the earliest major political advocates of subsidy removal and wholesale privatisation during the Fourth Republic, arguing that his current position required an explanation.

“Atiku’s recant on subsidy removal without an apology is dishonesty. If you change your position because circumstances or evidence have changed, tell Nigerians why you changed,” Hashim said.

“There is nothing wrong with changing your mind. What is wrong is pretending that you never held the position in the first place.”

Hashim said Atiku, Tinubu and former Anambra State governor Peter Obi campaigned on subsidy removal during the 2023 presidential election, while he, Omoyele Sowore and Adewole Adebayo opposed the policy.

He traced Atiku’s position to the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, when the former vice president served as vice president and headed the government’s economic team.

Hashim recalled that the administration increased petroleum prices and removed subsidy in 1999, saying he and other PDP officials publicly opposed the move.

He said the National Assembly subsequently passed resolutions against the policy before the executive reversed the decision.

“We opposed subsidy removal when it was politically inconvenient to do so. We did not suddenly discover the suffering of Nigerians because another election is approaching,” he said.

Hashim, however, also supports government intervention in the petroleum sector, proposing what he described as a targeted and transparent subsidy regime.

He said intervention should focus on strategic products and sectors where price shocks have wider economic consequences, with clear eligibility criteria, published fiscal costs, disclosure of beneficiaries and regular assessment of outcomes.

“Our position is simple: restore subsidy on petroleum products and other strategic products where necessary, but do it intelligently. Subsidy should be targeted at protecting the Nigerian economy and Nigerian people, not at enriching intermediaries,” he said.

He also called for stronger domestic production to accompany any future subsidy arrangement, arguing that intervention should help build productive capacity rather than perpetuate dependence on imports.

•APC rejects subsidy reversal

The ruling APC has now entered the debate directly, with its National Chairman, Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda, rejecting Atiku’s proposal and warning that a return to subsidy could undermine Nigeria’s economic recovery.

Yilwatda described Atiku’s proposal as a “deeply troubling policy U-turn” and questioned the opposition’s preparedness to govern.

Speaking during a visit to the headquarters of the City Boy Movement in Abuja, he said any proposal to restore subsidy must be subjected to scrutiny because of the fiscal burden and economic distortions associated with the previous regime.

“Economic policy cannot be reduced to election-season promises. Nigerians deserve to know precisely where the money will come from, what sectors will bear the cost and whether such a policy can be sustained without reopening the fiscal pressures that necessitated reform in the first place,” Yilwatda said.

The APC chairman said subsidy removal was a difficult but necessary decision, adding that its consequences should be addressed through measures to cushion the impact, expand social intervention and strengthen productive sectors.

He also criticised what he described as the lack of a coherent alternative economic programme from opposition politicians.

Yilwatda warned that reversing the reforms without a credible alternative could undermine investor confidence, worsen fiscal pressures and jeopardise the gains being pursued by the Tinubu administration.

He urged Nigerians to examine the records and policy positions of presidential candidates rather than accept campaign promises without scrutiny.

Yilwatda also questioned Atiku’s record during the Obasanjo administration, including allegations surrounding the privatisation programme, saying issues of accountability and economic governance should form part of the 2027 debate.

He said the election should be a contest of ideas, competence and credible policy alternatives rather than promises designed primarily to secure votes.

•Lawmaker warns against subsidy return

Ahmed, the APC member representing Agege Federal Constituency of Lagos State, similarly rejected Atiku’s proposed subsidy reversal, warning that it could derail Nigeria’s economic recovery.

Ahmed described the proposal as economically unsustainable and politically expedient.

“Nigeria cannot afford to return to the subsidy era. What we need is to consolidate reforms and ensure their benefits reach ordinary Nigerians,” he said. The lawmaker said subsidy removal had improved government revenues by freeing resources previously committed to keeping petrol prices artificially low.

“The question should be how these additional resources are deployed to improve infrastructure, healthcare, education, transportation and security, not how we recreate an unsustainable subsidy regime.”

Ahmed challenged Atiku to explain how his proposed subsidy arrangement would be financed without worsening the country’s fiscal position.

“Where will the money come from? Will government borrow again to finance subsidy? Will allocations to states and local governments be reduced? Nigerians deserve clear answers,” he said.

He rejected claims that subsidy savings had disappeared, saying the additional resources accrued to the federation and were shared among the three tiers of government.

“The savings were not money kept in a vault by the Federal Government. They increased revenues available to the federation and were shared among the three tiers of government,” he said.

Ahmed acknowledged the hardship caused by the reforms but argued that returning to the previous policy would not address the underlying economic problems.

“Nobody is denying the hardship. It is real. But returning to the policies that contributed to our fiscal problems cannot be the solution,” he said.

He called for accelerated measures to reduce production and transportation costs, including improvements in electricity supply and increased investment in agriculture.

The lawmaker strongly backed Tinubu’s economic reforms and his re-election bid.

“President Tinubu demonstrated political courage by taking decisions previous administrations postponed. We should improve these reforms, not abandon them,” he said.

He urged voters to scrutinise political promises and demand credible funding plans before supporting proposed economic policies.

The widening debate has therefore produced distinct positions among the presidential contenders and the ruling party. Atiku is proposing targeted intervention to cushion consumers while challenging the government’s use of fiscal incentives for investors; Duke is calling for a broader change in economic direction; Hashim is challenging Atiku’s reversal on subsidy while supporting targeted intervention; and the APC is defending Tinubu’s reforms and rejecting a return to the subsidy regime.

With the 2027 campaign gathering momentum, the dispute is increasingly centred not only on whether petrol subsidy should return, but on who should bear the cost of economic adjustment, how public resources should be deployed and whether Nigeria should consolidate or reverse the reforms introduced by the Tinubu administration.