Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
ABUJA, Nigeria — Nigeria finds itself at the centre of a heated national debate after a senior ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) figure, Biodun Ajiboye, offered a fresh interpretation of one of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s most controversial economic reforms: the removal of the country’s long-standing fuel subsidy. The discourse, reignited in a televised interview this week, underlines the persistent divide between official narratives and public sentiment over the reform’s impact on Nigeria’s economy and citizens’ daily lives.
Ajiboye, an APC chieftain, appeared on Politics Today, a flagship programme on Channels Television, to argue that President Tinubu did not formally remove the fuel subsidy but “only announced” its termination. According to Ajiboye, by the time Tinubu assumed office in May 2023, the subsidy regime was already unsustainable and lacked budgetary provision, making its continuation impractical. He asserted that the government’s action was essentially a recognition of fiscal reality rather than an abrupt policy reversal.
“It is time for state and local governments to complement the Federal Government’s efforts,” Ajiboye said, emphasising that the federal budget no longer accommodated subsidy payments and insisting that Tinubu’s government saved the economy from collapse by moving away from the drain on public revenues that subsidised petrol represented. Ajiboye also suggested that criticism of the reform misses broader economic achievements, including what he described as significant unemployment reduction and enhanced state revenue flows.
Ajiboye’s reinterpretation resonates with a technical reading of Nigeria’s fiscal framework. Budget documents from 2023 reportedly omitted sustained subsidy allocations beyond June of that year, meaning the policy’s official continuation would have required extraordinary borrowing or new legislative actions — options that critics of the subsidy have long deemed fiscally irresponsible.
Yet the government’s defenders have taken a more straightforward position, asserting that Tinubu’s decision to end the fuel subsidy was intentional and necessary. Senator Olamilekan Adeola and other allied voices have recently described the reform as a bold but indispensable move, claiming it is saving Nigeria upwards of ₦10 trillion annually in foregone subsidy costs and freeing resources for national development projects, infrastructure, and state funding. These arguments suggest that the policy has bolstered fiscal sustainability and provided breathing space for public investments previously crowded out by the subsidy burden.
President Tinubu himself has previously framed the decision as difficult but essential to rescue an economy he described as near collapse when he took office. Official statements have emphasised that removing the subsidy was part of a broader agenda to reset Nigeria’s economic trajectory, redirect resources toward critical sectors, and strengthen fiscal balances.
These government narratives align with recent economic data indicating some stabilisation in key macroeconomic indicators. The Finance Minister has reported improvements in inflation rates, a stronger national currency, and improved foreign reserves. Officials say such shifts — paired with expanded allocations to states and local governments — reflect growing fiscal health after years of subsidy-driven budgetary strain.
Despite these positive markers, public reception is mixed and often deeply critical. Independent surveys show a large majority of Nigerians believe the fuel subsidy removal has worsened living conditions, contributing to inflation, higher transportation costs, and greater hardship for ordinary households. Many Nigerians find few visible short-term benefits from the reform amidst rising cost of living pressures, and critics argue that promised investment in social services and infrastructure remains largely aspirational.
Wider political discourse also underscores this divide. Opposition figures, including former presidential candidates, have criticised the manner in which the reform was implemented, suggesting that the abrupt shift lacked adequate planning and cushioning measures. These critics contend that a phased or more carefully managed transition could have eased the shock to households already struggling with high inflation and economic insecurity.
Civil society voices have also warned that the sudden removal of subsidies has pushed millions deeper into poverty and exacerbated economic anxieties. Afrobarometer and national statistics reports suggest an uptick in poverty rates since 2023, a trend that local analysts link to combined effects of subsidy removal, currency reforms, and rising commodity prices.
At the same time, prominent supporters of the policy within the APC have defended the government’s overall economic strategy, maintaining that the reallocation of spending away from subsidies into sectors such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare will yield long-term benefits for citizens. They argue that states have experienced increased revenue flows, allowing for timely salary payments and lowered debt burdens, though critics note that this has not yet translated into widespread improvements in public welfare.
Beyond Nigeria’s borders, the subsidy debate reflects broader global discussions on fuel subsidies and economic reform. Many developing economies have wrestled with similar dilemmas: balancing the short-term relief subsidies provide at the pump with the long-term fiscal burdens and market distortions they create. Nigeria’s status as Africa’s largest oil producer intensifies this tension, as citizens question why a nation rich in hydrocarbons must grapple with some of the continent’s highest petrol prices following subsidy removal.
Social media and public commentary continue to reflect these divergent perspectives. Some commentators echo Ajiboye’s technical explanation for the policy shift, claiming that Nigeria was already unable to sustain the subsidy by 2023. Others, however, share personal stories of hardship and call for more robust government interventions to cushion vulnerable populations.
As Nigeria edges closer to the 2027 general elections, the legacy and interpretation of the fuel subsidy decision will likely remain central to political contestation. For some, the removal represents necessary economic reform and responsible governance. For others, it symbolizes a policy misstep with profound consequences for ordinary citizens’ well-being.
What is clear is that the debate goes beyond semantics. Whether described as an announcement or a removal, the policy has reshaped Nigeria’s fiscal landscape and ignited intense public discourse on economic priorities, governance, and social justice. How the federal and state governments respond to ongoing public concerns will be pivotal in shaping both Nigeria’s economic future and political cohesion in the years to come.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments