The Presidency has rejected former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s proposal to restore fuel subsidy if he wins the 2027 presidential election, arguing that returning to the policy would place additional pressure on public finances and recreate opportunities for corruption.
The Federal Government’s position was conveyed by Tunde Rahman, Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Media and Special Duties, in a statement issued on Sunday in response to Atiku’s campaign pledge. Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has said he would bring back fuel subsidy as part of his proposed economic direction.
Rahman described the proposal as a return to a policy the government believes contributed to years of fiscal pressure, market distortions and alleged leakages in public spending. He argued that subsidising petrol would require the government to commit substantial public resources to keeping pump prices below market levels.
According to the Presidency, such spending would reduce the funds available for other areas of national development, including education, healthcare, security and infrastructure. Rahman said the subsidy system could also create opportunities for intermediaries to benefit from public funds without addressing the underlying challenges facing the economy.
“Reintroducing the subsidy is not a fix; it’s a financial sinkhole that hands public resources to middlemen and drains money we should spend on schools, hospitals and infrastructure,” he said.
The Presidency also warned that a reversal of the subsidy removal could affect investor confidence by creating uncertainty about the direction of Nigeria’s economic policies. Rahman argued that investors require consistency and predictability when making long-term decisions and that a return to subsidy dependence could undermine the reforms already undertaken by the administration.
“It will also tell investors that policy stability is dead — and when investors see instability, they leave,” he added.
Rahman maintained that the government’s preference was to continue with market-oriented reforms while developing measures capable of protecting vulnerable Nigerians without returning the country to what it described as an unsustainable subsidy regime.
He said reversing the policy could erase gains made towards market-based reforms and greater fiscal transparency, arguing that economic intervention should be structured in a way that supports citizens without creating a long-term burden for government finances.
The Presidency also pointed to recent economic indicators which it said demonstrated that the reforms were beginning to produce results. Rahman cited a GDP growth rate of 3.89 per cent, describing it as the strongest economic expansion in recent times.
He also referenced the reported decline in Nigeria’s annual inflation rate to 15.43 per cent in July 2026, saying the figure represented the second consecutive monthly easing in inflation. According to him, improvements in the foreign exchange market, expansion in the stock market and growth in foreign reserves were additional signs of increasing macroeconomic stability.
“The Nigerian currency is stabilising against major currencies, the stock market is expanding, and the country’s foreign reserves have grown to over $53 billion. This helps build investor confidence,” Rahman said.
The Presidency acknowledged that improvements in macroeconomic indicators had not necessarily translated immediately into better living conditions for every Nigerian. However, Rahman argued that the government expected the positive economic trajectory to eventually have a stronger impact on household welfare if the current direction was sustained.
He defended President Tinubu’s decision to remove the petrol subsidy, saying it was based on the government’s assessment that continuing the policy was no longer sustainable. Rahman described the decision as a difficult but necessary reform rather than an arbitrary move.
“Leadership sometimes entails tough choices. President Tinubu’s removal of the subsidy was not a whimsical decision. He did it because it was the right thing to do,” he said.
The presidential aide contrasted that position with Atiku’s proposal, describing a return to subsidy as an easier political option capable of producing short-term public approval while creating longer-term fiscal problems.
“Real reform requires courage. The easy thing is to return to a failed regime and buy temporary applause as Atiku seeks to do. That would be sheer populism,” Rahman said.
The Presidency argued that Nigeria’s experience with petrol subsidy over several decades should inform the debate ahead of the 2027 election. Rahman said the country maintained the policy for about four decades but still remained heavily dependent on imported petrol despite being a major crude oil producer.
He also linked the subsidy era to rising government debt and the decline of Nigeria’s refineries, arguing that maintaining subsidised fuel prices did not produce the structural changes required to establish a more efficient domestic petroleum industry.
“Nigeria tried subsidy for four decades, and we ended up importing fuel while exporting crude. We tried it, and it led to a debt pile-up. We tried it, and our refineries collapsed,” he said.
Rather than restoring the subsidy, the Presidency said the focus should remain on reforms that would eventually allow local refining, greater competition and alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG) to exert downward pressure on energy costs.
Rahman argued that the 2027 election should therefore be about whether Nigeria continues with the reforms or reverses course by restoring policies the government considers responsible for previous economic distortions.
“2027 should not be about going back to fuel subsidy as Atiku is canvassing. It should be about staying the course until local refining, competition and CNG fully drive prices down,” he said.
The Presidency acknowledged Atiku’s right to offer an alternative economic programme to voters, but urged Nigerians to consider the long-term consequences of any proposal to restore fuel subsidy.
Rahman framed the issue as a choice between immediate relief and longer-term fiscal sustainability, arguing that cheaper petrol funded by government resources could provide short-term benefits while creating future pressure on public finances.
“We respect Alhaji Atiku’s right to propose alternatives. But Nigerians must ask: do we want relief today that creates crisis tomorrow, or do we endure a little longer to build a Nigeria that works without fraud and waste?” he said.
The statement reflects a continuing political disagreement over the future of Nigeria’s petroleum pricing policy as the 2027 presidential contest approaches. While Atiku has presented subsidy restoration as part of his proposed alternative, the Tinubu administration maintains that the policy would reverse the direction of its economic reforms.
Rahman concluded by defending the President’s approach as one centred on structural reform rather than policies designed primarily to generate immediate political approval.
“President Tinubu chose reform over rhetoric. He chose a promising future over a decadent past. Returning to subsidy is not progress. It is a U-turn Nigeria cannot afford,” he said.
Presidency rejects Atiku’s fuel subsidy pledge, says policy would drain public funds
