There comes a point in every government’s life when explanations cease to matter and results become the only language citizens are prepared to hear.
For President Bola Tinubu, that moment has arrived.
Three years after the dramatic declaration that “fuel subsidy is gone,” Nigerians are asking a brutally simple question: Are we better off today than we were more than three years ago?
The answer, is a resounding NO!
The government has bandied stats claiming that the economy is doing “well”. But there is another Nigeria — the Nigeria outside the conference rooms, financial markets and government statistics.
It is the Nigeria of the market woman whose transport fare has swallowed a large part of her profit. The Nigeria of the civil servant whose salary disappears within days. The Nigeria of the young graduate who cannot find work. The Nigeria of the small manufacturer whose diesel, petrol, electricity and financing costs have made production almost impossible. The Nigeria of parents who have reduced the quantity and quality of food on their children’s plates.
And it is the Nigeria of millions who have discovered that economic growth on paper, akin to what the character Squealer, the chief propagandist in ‘Animal Farm’, was used to churning out daily, does not necessarily translate into food on the table.
Reuters reported this month that the cost of living crisis remains acute despite investor optimism around the government’s reforms. It noted that petrol prices are roughly six times their level before subsidy removal and that the cost of preparing a basic jollof rice meal has more than doubled since Tinubu assumed office. That is the Nigeria Nigerians know.
Let us be clear: Nigeria’s old subsidy system was deeply flawed. It was expensive. It was vulnerable to corruption. It encouraged rent-seeking. It created opportunities for politically connected middlemen. But acknowledging the failures of the old system does not mean Nigerians were condemned to accept an equally damaging alternative.
The Tinubu administration presented Nigerians with what amounted to a false choice: Keep the old subsidy and risk fiscal collapse — or remove it and allow Nigerians to absorb the shock.
There was another option. A smarter option. A Nigerian option. A production-based subsidy. And that is precisely where Atiku Abubakar’s proposal enters the debate.
President Tinubu has repeatedly defended subsidy removal as necessary to save Nigeria from bankruptcy. Indeed, in May 2026, the President said subsidy removal saved Nigeria from imminent bankruptcy and laid the foundation for economic recovery.
But there is a question that cannot be answered by repeating the word “reform”: If the reform saved government finances, why did it have to destroy so much household purchasing power and dragged millions into the poverty trap?
This is not an argument against fiscal discipline. It is an argument for better fiscal discipline. A government exists not merely to balance its books but to improve the welfare of its citizens. It is actually enshrined in the constitution: The primary responsibility of a government is to ensure the security, safety and welfare of its citizens.
And the evidence of the hardship is not merely opposition political rhetoric. The IMF reported in 2026 that Nigeria’s poverty had reached approximately 63% at the national poverty line and an estimated 27 million Nigerians faced food insecurity in late 2025. That is an extraordinary indictment of the gap between macroeconomic reform and human welfare.
Indeed, Tinubu’s reform forgot the average Nigerian. This is where his administration’s economic philosophy deserves serious scrutiny. The government essentially told Nigerians: “Endure today. Prosper tomorrow.”
But what happens when tomorrow keeps moving further away? What happens when inflation eats salaries faster than wages can rise? What happens when transportation costs push food prices beyond the reach of ordinary families? What happens when businesses that were barely surviving before the reform begin closing their doors? What happens when young Nigerians conclude that their country has no economic future for them?
A government cannot indefinitely ask citizens to sacrifice their present for an unspecified future, especially when Tinubu and family and friends are living large. There must be a dividend. There must be relief. There must be evidence that the pain is producing something tangible. And for millions of Nigerians, that evidence remains painfully elusive.
Atiku’s answer: Move the subsidy from consumption to production. And this is why Atiku Abubakar’s latest proposal deserves a serious national conversation. It is important to understand what Atiku is actually proposing. He is not simply calling for a restoration of the old petrol-import subsidy system. That has gone with the wind.
His proposal is to move government support: from importation to production; from middlemen to Nigerian refineries; from unverifiable claims to verifiable barrels.
Under Atiku’s proposal, government support would be capped, targeted at domestic refining and tied to verified production, with the objective of reducing energy costs while accelerating domestic refining.
That is a fundamentally different proposition. And it deserves to be judged on its economic merits. Why subsidise imports when Nigeria can subsidise production?
This is the question Nigerians should be asking. Nigeria produces crude oil. Nigeria has enormous refining potential.
Nigeria now has the Dangote Refinery, a 650,000-barrel-per-day facility, alongside other emerging and existing refining capacity.
Yet we have spent decades in the absurd position of exporting crude oil and importing much of its refined petroleum needs. Why should Nigeria continue using public policy primarily to facilitate expensive imported petroleum products when it can use that same policy to strengthen domestic production? Why should Nigerian taxpayers subsidise foreign refineries and foreign economies when Nigerian refineries can be supported to produce for Nigerians?
That is the policy revolution Nigeria needs. And that is indeed the revolutionary #AtikuSubsidyPlan: Subsidise the barrel — not the middleman.
Imagine a system in which government says to a refinery: “We will provide a carefully capped production incentive, but only for verified Nigerian crude processed in Nigeria.”
No crude processed? No subsidy. No verifiable production? No subsidy. No measurable consumer benefit? No subsidy. False documentation? Criminal sanctions. Independent audit?Mandatory. Public disclosure? Non-negotiable.
That is how Nigeria can take the corruption out of subsidy without taking the affordability out of petroleum. The principle is remarkably simple: Let the subsidy follow the barrel. Not the politician. Not the middleman. Not the importer. Not the briefcase. But the barrel.
The #AtikuSubsidyPlan is not returning to an endless, opaque and uncontrolled subsidy regime. He understands that it is laden with corruption and not cost-saving. That explains why he also proposes to implement the Oronsaye Report.
For doubting Thomases, Atiku’s proposal should be understood as a carefully designed production incentive that helps Nigeria move from import dependence to domestic refining and eventually to a competitive petroleum market.
That is the difference between: subsidising consumption indefinitely and subsidising production to build capacity. The first can create dependency. The second can create industry.
Truth be told, Nigeria needs industrial policy, not economic punishment. The Tinubu administration’s defenders will argue that Nigerians had been living beyond the country’s means and that the subsidy had to go.
Fair enough. But economic reform is not a religious doctrine. It is a tool. If a policy produces unacceptable consequences, responsible governments modify it.
The objective should never be: “We removed the subsidy.” The objective should be: “We made energy affordable, built domestic refining capacity, created jobs, conserved foreign exchange and strengthened the Nigerian economy.” Those are very different objectives. And Nigerians deserve the second.
The government is now confronting the need to reform crude supply and pricing arrangements for domestic refiners. Reuters reported that Nigeria was considering reforms to crude allocation and pricing to improve feedstock access for domestic refineries, including the Dangote Refinery. Proposed measures include allowing producers to deliver crude directly to nearby refineries and discounts that reflect reduced transportation and handling costs.
That development actually strengthens the argument for an Atiku production-centred petroleum subsidy policy. The debate is no longer about whether Nigeria should refine domestically. The debate is about how government policy can make domestic refining economically viable and ensure Nigerians benefit from it. And Atiku’s proposal speaks directly to that question.
And to show that he means business, Atiku has already promised Nigerians that there will be no blank cheque subsidy. He has promised that every naira spent will be traceable. He has promised independent audits. He has promised to publish the volume of crude allocated to participating refineries. He has promised to publish the amount of subsidy paid. He has promised to publish the quantity of refined products produced. And he has promised to publish the pump-price benefit delivered to consumers. He has promised to establish penalties severe enough to make subsidy fraud economically suicidal.
Tinubu says his reform may have saved the government. The jury is still out. But who will save the Nigerian household? This is perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all. The government’s defenders say the reforms saved Nigeria from economic collapse. But if saving the government means millions of Nigerians are unable to afford food, transport, housing and basic necessities, then the reform cannot be the end of the conversation. It must be the beginning of a correction. Even Finance Minister Taiwo Oyedele has acknowledged that the government needs to do more to ensure prosperity is broadly shared. Reuters quoted him warning that persistent inequality is dangerous.
That admission is important. Because the debate is no longer whether the reforms have produced some macroeconomic gains. The debate is whether ordinary Nigerians are receiving a fair share of those gains.
And that is where the Tinubu administration remains vulnerable. Nigeria cannot eat GDP. Nigeria cannot ride on foreign reserves. Nigeria cannot cook investor confidence. Nigeria cannot pay school fees with a favourable credit outlook. Nigeria cannot transport farm produce with macroeconomic stability.
The Nigerian people need purchasing power. They need affordable energy. They need jobs. They need food. They need affordable transportation. They need businesses capable of producing competitively. They need an economy in which hard work once again provides a reasonable pathway to a decent life.
That is the economy that government must build. And that is where the 2027 choice becomes bigger than Tinubu versus Atiku. The 2027 election should not merely be a referendum on personalities. It should be a referendum on economic philosophy. Do Nigerians want another four years of: “Endure the pain; the benefits will eventually come”? Or do they want a government prepared to say: “We will reform, but we will reform intelligently. We will discipline public spending, but we will also protect production. We will eliminate corruption, but we will not punish the poor for the corruption of the powerful. We will build domestic industry and make Nigerians the primary beneficiaries of Nigeria’s resources.”
That is the choice. And Atiku’s production-based subsidy proposal trumps Tinubu’s current “suffering and smiling” reckless removal of subsidy.
President Tinubu asked Nigerians to trust his reform. Millions have paid the price. Atiku Abubakar’s production-anchored subsidy proposal is a better alternative — it will be transparent, capped, independently audited and firmly tied to measurable domestic production and lower prices for Nigerians.
The time has come to stop asking Nigerians how much more pain they can endure. The question should be: How much longer can Nigeria afford an economic policy that makes the Nigerian people poorer in the name of making Nigeria richer?
That is the question every Nigerian, handed the shortest end of the stick in President Tinubu’s subsidy removal misadventure, must answer with their ballots in 2027.
Nigeria deserves reform. But Nigerians deserve to benefit from the reform.
