Atiku and the Subsidy Question: No Contradiction, Just a Commitment to Protecting Poor Nigerians

By Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba

“Indeed, when there is life, there is hope, and where there is hope, there is always a reason to believe that tomorrow can be better than today.”

And that, perhaps, is exactly the story being told by the public reaction and mood of the nation since Atiku Abubakar declared his intention to restore fuel subsidy if elected President in 2027. For millions of Nigerians who have endured the crushing consequences of the sudden removal of subsidy, the word “restore” appears to have rekindled a measure of hope. Interestingly, “removed” and “restore” are both seven-letter words beginning with the letter R, but judging by the mood of Nigerians, there is a world of difference between the two. One became synonymous with hardship, while the other has become associated with relief and the possibility of economic recovery.

There is, therefore, a deliberate attempt, particularly by Nyesom Wike, the minister of FCT to portray Atiku Abubakar’s current position on fuel subsidy as a contradiction of what he said in the past. But Atiku is not confused about subsidy; he is clear about who should benefit from Nigeria’s oil wealth: Nigerians.

In 2023, Atiku advocated reform of the subsidy regime and greater reliance on market forces. But he also warned that such reforms had to be properly sequenced and implemented gradually, because removing subsidy abruptly while simultaneously imposing other major economic adjustments could inflict devastating hardship on Nigerians. What followed has given Nigerians a painful opportunity to understand the wisdom behind that caution.

Since the sudden removal of subsidy, Nigerians have witnessed an extraordinary escalation in the cost of transportation, food, electricity, production and virtually every aspect of daily life. Household purchasing power has been severely weakened, businesses have struggled with escalating operating costs, and millions of Nigerians have been pushed further into economic hardship. The question, therefore, is no longer merely whether subsidy should exist or disappear. The more important question is how Nigeria can reform its petroleum sector without destroying the purchasing power and livelihoods of ordinary Nigerians.

This is where Atiku’s current position deserves a more mature interpretation. A government should not remove protection from the poor before addressing the leakages, corruption and structural inefficiencies that made such protection necessary. If the objective is ultimately to build a competitive and sustainable petroleum industry, Nigeria must strengthen domestic refining, increase production, eliminate waste and corruption, and create the economic conditions that will enable Nigerians to absorb the true cost of petroleum products.

Atiku’s position should therefore not be presented as an argument for preserving corruption or inefficiency. It is an argument for reforming the system while protecting the people. If subsidy must eventually disappear, it should disappear because Nigeria has developed sufficient refining capacity, reduced production costs, strengthened its productive economy and created an environment where Nigerians can afford the resulting market prices, not because government has simply decided to transfer the burden of its economic reforms to an already impoverished population.

The fundamental question is therefore not, “Is Atiku for subsidy or against subsidy?” The real question is: “What kind of economic policy puts Nigerians first?” There is nothing inherently contradictory about supporting long-term petroleum sector reform while opposing a sudden policy that subjects millions of citizens to unbearable hardship. Responsible leadership requires knowing not only where the economy should go, but how to get there without destroying the people along the way.

Nigerians have already experienced the consequences of a policy implemented with enormous speed. Those who are now condemning Atiku for talking about restoration must answer a simple question: if subsidy removal was supposed to make Nigerians better off, why are millions of Nigerians still struggling to survive its consequences?

And perhaps this is the larger question Nigerians must confront as 2027 approaches: Can we afford to waste another opportunity to deploy the experience and economic expertise of Atiku Abubakar at a time when the country desperately needs competent and strategic leadership?

Nigeria is at a critical crossroads. We have witnessed what happens when economic policies are implemented without adequate protection for the vulnerable. Inflation has eroded purchasing power, businesses are struggling, families are cutting their standard of living, and young Nigerians are losing hope. The 2027 election may therefore be one of the most consequential opportunities Nigeria has to change direction.

Atiku is not presenting himself as a man without flaws or as a magical solution to every Nigerian problem. He is presenting his experience, knowledge of governance and understanding of the Nigerian economy as tools with which the country can attempt a different course. Nigerians must therefore look beyond the noise, the propaganda and the politics of personality and ask themselves who possesses the experience, temperament and strategic capacity to begin rebuilding a country under enormous economic pressure.

The choice before Nigerians should not be between subsidy and no subsidy. It should be between policies that protect Nigerians and policies that impoverish them; between reform that is properly sequenced and reform that creates avoidable suffering; between leadership that listens to the people and leadership that asks the people to endure indefinitely.

And if Nigerians truly believe that the country deserves another chance at competent, experienced and people-centred leadership, then 2027 must not be another opportunity wasted.

We have suffered enough as Nigerians!

Atiku’s message is simple: reform the system, but do not destroy the people in the process.

So, where exactly is the contradiction?

Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba writes from Kano State, Nigeria