The controversy over Nigeria’s petrol subsidy removal has intensified ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with the All Progressives Congress rejecting former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s proposal to restore the subsidy and the African Democratic Congress demanding an account of additional revenues generated by the reforms.

The development was reported by PUNCH, which said the APC warned that returning to the former subsidy regime could put pressure on government finances and affect funding for workers’ wages, education, healthcare and infrastructure.

Atiku, the presidential candidate of the ADC, recently pledged to reinstate petrol subsidy if elected, saying the policy would help cushion the impact of its removal on Nigerians.

The subsidy was removed by President Bola Tinubu during his inauguration on May 29, 2023. The decision immediately pushed up petrol prices and contributed to higher transportation and living costs.

Reacting to Atiku’s proposal, APC National Chairman, Prof Nentawe Yilwatda, said subsidy could appear attractive because of cheaper petrol but questioned how the government would finance and sustain it.

He argued that increased federal allocations following the subsidy removal had improved the finances of state governments, warning that reversing the reform could recreate the fiscal pressures associated with the previous subsidy system.

Yilwatda also linked subsidy policy to the ability of governments to pay salaries, pensions and fund education, healthcare and infrastructure. He acknowledged the hardship caused by the reform but said the government should strengthen measures aimed at protecting vulnerable Nigerians rather than return to what he described as an expensive and opaque system.

ADC demands account for N15.8tn

The ADC, meanwhile, challenged the Federal Government and the Director-General of President Tinubu’s 2027 re-election campaign, Abdulaziz Yari, to explain how Nigerians have benefited from increased revenues following the subsidy removal and foreign-exchange reforms.

The party, through its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said figures attributed to the Minister of Finance showed that the reforms generated about N15.8tn in additional resources for the Federation between June 2023 and December 2025.

According to the ADC, approximately N5.4tn accrued to the Federal Government, another N5.4tn went to state governments, while local governments received about N3.9tn.

The opposition party also cited total allocations of about N47.25tn to states through the Federation Account Allocation Committee between 2023 and 2025, with annual allocations rising from N10.09tn in 2023 to N15.26tn in 2024 and N21.90tn in 2025.

The ADC questioned why the increased government revenues had not, in its view, translated into significant improvements in living conditions.

It also raised concerns over borrowing by state governments despite higher FAAC receipts, claiming that about 20 states borrowed a combined N458bn in 2025.

Cost of living remains central

The ADC argued that the impact of subsidy removal had fallen heavily on ordinary Nigerians, pointing to increases in petrol, food and transportation costs.

The party also questioned the pace of the Federal Government’s Compressed Natural Gas initiative, which was introduced partly to reduce transportation costs following the subsidy removal.

The opposition said its position should not be interpreted as support for the former subsidy system, which it criticised for corruption and a lack of transparency. Instead, it said its alternative would focus on expanding domestic refining capacity and providing targeted and transparent support to reduce fuel prices and ease living costs.

With the 2027 election approaching, petrol prices, food costs, inflation, unemployment and insecurity are expected to remain prominent issues in the political debate.

The subsidy controversy has therefore developed into a wider argument over whether the reforms have delivered sufficient economic benefits to Nigerians and how the country should balance fiscal sustainability with the immediate cost-of-living pressures facing households.