By Usman Buhari Ali
Why Nigerians should demand more than promises from a former Vice President seeking the presidency.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s declaration that he would restore Nigeria’s petrol subsidy if elected President in 2027 deserves more than partisan applause or condemnation. It deserves rigorous scrutiny.
Atiku has argued that Nigerians have not benefited sufficiently from the removal of the subsidy and has challenged the Federal Government to account for the savings. On that point, he is asking a legitimate question. Nigerians have every right to know precisely what has happened to the fiscal resources previously devoted to subsidising petrol. His latest statement, however, takes the argument in a questionable direction: from demanding accountability for subsidy savings to promising to restore the very system whose economic and institutional weaknesses helped make reform necessary in the first place.
That contradiction deserves to be confronted.
The issue before Nigerians is not whether the subsidy removal has caused hardship. It clearly has. The World Bank reported that petrol prices increased by an average of 163 percent following the reform, while the broader reforms generated severe short-term pressures on household purchasing power.
The real question is whether the appropriate response to those hardships is to resurrect a costly and opaque subsidy regime—or to ensure that the resources freed by reform are transparently redirected toward Nigerians through social protection, infrastructure, transportation, healthcare, education, agriculture and productive investment.
Atiku has chosen the first option. Nigerians should ask him to explain why.
The subsidy question cannot be separated from Atiku’s own record
Atiku’s present argument would carry greater moral and political force if he were merely an outside observer. But he is not.
He was Vice President of Nigeria from 1999 to 2007 and chaired the National Council on Privatisation during a period in which Nigeria undertook an extensive programme of selling or restructuring state-owned enterprises.
That history matters.
A politician seeking the presidency while demanding accountability over public resources must reasonably expect Nigerians to examine his own stewardship of public resources. This is not an allegation that every privatisation transaction under Atiku was corrupt. Nor would it be responsible to suggest that Atiku personally stole the proceeds of privatisation without evidence establishing such a crime.
But political responsibility and criminal liability are not the same thing.
As Chairman of the National Council on Privatisation, Atiku occupied a position of enormous influence over Nigeria’s privatisation agenda. Academic and historical accounts identify him as chairman of the NCP during the period in which numerous federal enterprises were sold or concessioned.
The appropriate question is therefore simple:
What did Nigerians ultimately receive in exchange for those public assets?
Did privatisation produce the promised efficiency? Did it create jobs? Did it attract investment? Did it improve services? Were assets properly valued? Were transactions transparent? Did government obtain fair value?
These questions are not attacks on Atiku. They are questions of public accountability.
The NITEL and Transcorp controversy cannot simply be wished away
One of the most contentious chapters in Nigeria’s privatisation history concerns the sale of NITEL and the emergence of Transcorp as a major corporate player.
Atiku’s supporters have strongly disputed allegations that he personally manipulated privatisation transactions for private benefit. Indeed, a recent Punch analysis argues that several allegations concerning his role in the privatisation programme have been exaggerated or insufficiently substantiated.
That defence should be acknowledged.
But precisely because the allegations remain politically consequential, Atiku should have no difficulty providing Nigerians with a comprehensive account of his role.
What was his exact involvement in each major transaction?
What were the original valuations?
Who were the successful bidders?
Were there conflicts of interest?
What independent safeguards were applied?
What were the eventual outcomes of the enterprises?
These are reasonable questions for someone asking Nigerians to entrust him with the management of Africa’s largest economy.
The same principle applies to NICON Hilton and other privatisation transactions. The Bureau of Public Enterprises records, for example, that the Federal Government sold its 51 percent stake in NICON Hilton for approximately US$105 million following a competitive bidding process.
The question is not whether the transaction was necessarily unlawful. The question is whether Nigeria obtained optimal value and whether the institutional framework governing such transactions was sufficiently transparent.
If Atiku believes that public assets were properly managed under his watch, then he should say so openly and provide the evidence.
The American Senate report and the question of financial transparency
There is another matter that cannot simply be ignored, although it must be discussed responsibly.
In 2010, a U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report examined the movement of more than $40 million in suspect funds into the United States through accounts associated with Atiku’s then-wife, Jennifer Douglas. The report also discussed allegations concerning payments and possible corruption involving Nigerian political figures, including Atiku.
The distinction is important: a Senate investigative report containing allegations is not the same thing as a criminal conviction.
Atiku should not be declared guilty of crimes merely because allegations appeared in an investigative report. Responsible political debate requires evidence and due process.
Nevertheless, the report is part of the public record and therefore legitimately relevant when assessing questions of transparency and political accountability.
The standard should be the same for everybody.
If Atiku asks President Tinubu to publish the ledger of subsidy savings, Nigerians are equally entitled to ask Atiku to explain the financial controversies that surrounded his years in public office.
Accountability cannot be selective.
The greatest weakness in Atiku’s subsidy argument
Atiku says, in essence, that if subsidy removal has not visibly benefited Nigerians, the subsidy should be restored.
That logic does not necessarily follow.
Suppose a government abolishes an expensive programme and fails to use the resulting savings efficiently. The appropriate conclusion is not automatically that the old programme should return.
The appropriate conclusion may be that the government failed to manage the reform properly.
This distinction is crucial.
The World Bank projected that subsidy removal could generate approximately ₦2 trillion in fiscal savings in 2023 and more than ₦11 trillion by the end of 2025.
The question, therefore, should be:
How should those savings be used?
That is where Atiku could have offered a more sophisticated alternative.
He could have proposed a transparent mechanism under which every naira saved from subsidy removal is publicly accounted for and directed toward measurable programmes benefiting ordinary Nigerians.
Instead, he has offered restoration.
That sounds attractive to a population struggling with high living costs, but presidential leadership requires more than offering immediate relief. It requires explaining how that relief will be financed and sustained.
Who actually benefited from the old subsidy?
This is perhaps the question Atiku needs to answer most directly.
Was every naira of subsidy reaching the poorest Nigerian?
Was it?
Or did the system also benefit smugglers, politically connected interests and other rent-seeking actors?
The World Bank has described Nigeria’s previous petrol subsidy as costly and opaque and argued that removing it could create fiscal space for more productive expenditure.
Therefore, restoring the subsidy without fundamentally redesigning its governance architecture could simply recreate the same vulnerabilities.
Atiku should tell Nigerians exactly what his proposed subsidy would look like.
Would it be universal?
Would it be capped?
Who would audit it?
How would fraudulent claims be prevented?
How would cross-border smuggling be addressed?
How would subsidy payments be independently verified?
What would be the annual fiscal limit?
And, most importantly, what prevents the restored system from becoming another avenue for rent extraction?
Until those questions are answered, “I will restore subsidy” is a political promise, not an economic blueprint.
Nigerians deserve targeted relief, not necessarily universal subsidy
There is a compelling argument for protecting Nigerians from the social consequences of fuel-price reforms.
But protection does not necessarily require subsidising every litre consumed by every Nigerian.
A better approach would be to combine fiscal reform with targeted intervention: affordable mass transportation, targeted cash assistance, agricultural support, stronger public healthcare, education financing, small-business support and investment in domestic refining.
The government should also make subsidy-related accounts transparent.
This is where Atiku has a legitimate point: Nigerians should be able to see how much has been saved, where the money went and what measurable outcomes were produced.
The Tinubu administration should not respond to such questions defensively.
But Atiku should also not exploit legitimate public anger to sell a policy whose long-term financing and governance he has not adequately explained.
Nigeria cannot keep borrowing its way out of structural problems
Nigeria’s fundamental problem is not simply the price of petrol.
It is the structure of the economy.
The country must increase domestic production, strengthen manufacturing, improve agriculture, develop reliable electricity, expand domestic refining, reduce dependence on imports, create jobs and broaden the tax base.
A government that perpetually spends scarce public resources subsidising consumption without building productive capacity will eventually confront the same fiscal crisis again.
The recent reforms have unquestionably imposed significant pain. Yet independent assessments have also found evidence of improving fiscal conditions. Reuters reported in August 2026 that Nigeria’s finance minister argued the reforms had helped avert a potential economic collapse, while also acknowledging the serious cost-of-living pressures experienced by citizens.
That is the nuance Nigerians deserve.
The Tinubu administration should not pretend that reform has solved everything.
Atiku should not pretend that returning to the old subsidy regime solves anything either.
The burden of consistency
Atiku’s most difficult problem is therefore not merely economic; it is political consistency.
If he previously accepted that subsidy removal was necessary, what has changed?
Has the economics changed?
Has the structure of the petroleum market changed?
Has the problem of smuggling disappeared?
Has the fiscal capacity of the Federal Government dramatically increased?
Has a new mechanism been developed to prevent subsidy fraud?
If the answer to these questions is no, then why is restoration now being presented as the solution?
Politics often rewards politicians for telling voters what they want to hear.
Leadership requires telling citizens what they need to hear—even when the message is uncomfortable.
A challenge to Atiku
Atiku has every right to challenge the Tinubu administration.
He should challenge it.
He should demand transparency over subsidy savings.
He should question borrowing.
He should demand better healthcare, education, security and infrastructure.
He should challenge waste and corruption.
But Nigerians should challenge him too.
Before promising to restore a subsidy that previous governments struggled to administer transparently, Atiku should present a detailed fiscal plan showing the annual cost and explaining how it will be financed.
Before presenting himself as the defender of public assets, he should explain the outcomes of the privatisation programme over which he presided as NCP chairman.
Before accusing others of mismanaging public resources, he should subject his own public record to equally rigorous examination.
And before asking Nigerians to trust him with the enormous resources of the Federal Republic, he should demonstrate that his proposed economic programme is more than a collection of politically attractive promises.
Conclusion: Nigeria needs accountability, not nostalgia
Atiku Abubakar’s latest subsidy pledge should not be dismissed simply because it comes from an opposition politician. Nigerians are hurting, and their concerns are real.
But neither should the promise be accepted without scrutiny.
The subsidy regime that Nigeria abandoned was not perfect. It was expensive, opaque and vulnerable to abuse. The World Bank estimated that removing it could create substantial fiscal savings.
The failure to convert those savings into visible improvements for citizens is a legitimate grievance.
But the solution to poor management of reform is not necessarily to reverse reform.
Nigeria needs accountability for every naira saved, targeted protection for vulnerable citizens, investment in productive sectors, domestic refining, transparent petroleum accounting and institutions strong enough to prevent public resources from becoming private rents.
Atiku should answer those questions.
And because he is not a political newcomer but a former Vice President who chaired the National Council on Privatisation during one of the most consequential periods of Nigeria’s economic history, Nigerians are equally entitled to examine his record.
The standard must be the same for Atiku, Tinubu and every other presidential contender:
Show Nigerians the numbers. Explain the decisions. Account for the outcomes. And present a credible plan for the future.
Nigeria cannot afford another election in which politicians compete primarily over who can promise the cheapest petrol.
The country needs leaders capable of explaining how Nigeria will become productive enough that Nigerians no longer need government subsidies simply to survive.
That is the conversation Atiku should be having with Nigerians in 2026.
And that is the conversation Nigerians should insist on having with him before 2027.
