A common feature of our political space, especially as elections draw near, is the avalanche of policy promises aimed at securing the votes of what I will call the “sacred voter”—a temporary title, handed out for election purposes only. After the votes are counted, the voter becomes ordinary again. Don’t get me wrong, this is not a Nigerian problem. It is what it is everywhere. This analysis is on the fuel subsidy debate by the top three presidential candidates in the 2027 election, and what the “sacred voter” should know about the hard truth, half-truth, and no truth.
Hard Truth
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, at the podium on his 2023 swearing-in day, made a statement: “Subsidy is gone.” I remember how he waved his palm like throwing something away. What followed is a separate conversation. This is not what I want to achieve in this article. I want to look at the position of removing it, redesigning it, and fighting corruption in the system to moderate fuel prices.
Keeping the subsidy would have been a politically convenient choice. We all know this. What if the president had done it? What would have been the conversation today? It wasn’t a function of a hasty removal. It was about making a decision between a rock and a hard place. That was the economic reality with the state of the country’s finances in 2023. Both options present significant difficulty, sacrifice, and risk.
Half-Truth
Atiku Abubakar said he would restore the fuel subsidy regime, but redirect it towards subsidising production rather than consumption. The proposal to redirect fuel subsidy from consumption to production is a good one on paper. But what about the funding aspect? It can be reasonably predicted that if we had the means, and had not resorted to borrowing to fund the regime, the president, as politically pragmatic as he is, would not have removed it for political expediency.
Atiku’s proposal is a familiar story. The story is like a two-headed tap. The front tap head was functional, but running excess water and draining the reservoir. When that tap is closed, those fetching water from it face water scarcity. What Atiku has proposed to do is like the story of a two-headed tap. This is a half-truth because while opening the back tap restores the flow of water, it completely ignores the fact that both taps drain from the same depleted reservoir.
No Truth?
Peter Obi’s position on fuel is sometimes confusing. He has several versions of what he intends to do if elected president. At the Nigerian Bar Association conference in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Obi rejected Atiku’s proposal to return the fuel subsidy. He said, “I subscribe and I maintain that we need to remove subsidy. Mismanagement of the proceeds should not be the reason for not removing it.” Yet, in a later interview on Arise TV, his position on the subsidy regime shifted to moderating fuel prices across the country by removing corruption from the system. In his words: “We’ll moderate fuel prices all over Nigeria. We will remove corruption from the subsidy. When I remove it, petrol and everything else will go down. We are buying fuel at a high cost.”
This was a change from his earlier position on the fuel subsidy regime. Even if given the benefit of the doubt, the two positions are in sharp contrast. And he cannot be misquoted. It’s like saying I like money and, in another breath, saying I don’t like money. But consistency matters a lot in politics.
The Political Game
Hard truth, half-truth, or no truth are anchored in our political reality. The ultimate objective is to convince voters and secure the mandate to lead. It is a political game that easily serves various interests. There are those who have benefited from the removal of the fuel subsidy. There are those who would benefit from subsidising production instead of consumption in the subsidy regime, and there are also those who would benefit through whatever position Peter Obi finally settles for.
Tinubu is implementing “Renewed Hope,” and we are about to enter the second leg, if he is re-elected; his position on fuel subsidy is clear. But were there lessons learnt in the past three years? If yes, what does he intend to do differently post-subsidy removal? This is what his campaign team should be talking about now.
I am not questioning Atiku’s intentions, though, but I have my reservations. I am not convinced with his position. He has not expressly stated what he would do differently beyond subsidising production. He said his would be “targeted subsidy”. What does that mean? The phrase “let sleeping dogs lie” is a very strong one.
Nigerians have gone through a curve with the subsidy regime thing. Even when it was in effect, it was fraught with irregularities. And those responsible are still with us, and spread across various political platforms. It’s better if he indeed lets sleeping dogs lie in peace. We don’t need any new trouble.
Obi is a tough guy in his own way. But I also have my reservations. He misses a key strategy in politics by speaking for himself rather than allowing others to do it. The third-party voice in politics is usually the strongest. He needs that third-party voice to boost his electoral capital, unless he doesn’t have any.
