Peter Obi has rejected Atiku’s plan to restore fuel subsidy in 2027, insisting subsidy removal should remain while savings are properly invested.
The debate over Nigeria’s controversial petrol subsidy regime has taken a fresh turn ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi disagreeing with former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar over whether the policy should be brought back.
Obi, who is the presidential candidate of the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC), said the decision to remove fuel subsidy should not be reversed simply because the government has allegedly failed to properly manage the money saved from the policy.
His position puts him at odds with Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), who has said he would restore fuel subsidy if elected president in 2027.
The two opposition figures were among prominent political actors who engaged in a heated discussion on the country’s economic and security challenges at the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) conference in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
The session provided an early glimpse into the different policy directions being proposed by opposition politicians as they prepare for the 2027 presidential contest.
Obi maintained that subsidy removal itself was not the fundamental problem confronting Nigerians.
According to him, the major failure occurred after the policy was discontinued, particularly in the way the government handled the resources that were expected to become available.
“I subscribe and I maintain that we need to remove subsidy. Mismanagement of the proceeds should not be the reason for not removing it,” Obi said.
Related news:
- Fuel Subsidy: Mohammed Idris explains why Tinubu government won’t reverse reform
- Atiku 2027: Okonkwo reveals how his fuel plan will reduce petrol prices
- 2027 Presidency: Peter Obi reveals plans to rebuild Nigeria, tackle insecurity, create jobs
He argued that the savings generated from the removal should have been channelled into programmes capable of reducing the impact of higher fuel prices on households and businesses.
Rather than returning to the subsidy system, Obi said the government should have provided practical alternatives for Nigerians and invested the recovered resources in areas that would improve living standards.
“What we should have done is that when we removed it, we should have given the people alternative usage for the subsidy,” he said.
The former governor accused the government of failing to properly account for the resources associated with subsidy removal.
“What we have today is that that removal and the attendant resources being recovered is also being mismanaged and stolen,” Obi added.
He further pointed out that his position on subsidy removal was not a recent development, saying he had already proposed a structured process for ending the policy in his manifesto ahead of the 2023 presidential election.
“Go to my manifesto, I said it before, I said I will do it in an organised manner and whatever we recover would be invested appropriately,” Obi stated.
Fuel subsidy became one of the most contentious economic issues in Nigeria following President Bola Tinubu’s decision to end the regime after he assumed office in May 2023.
The announcement immediately triggered a major increase in petrol prices and contributed to a sharp rise in transportation costs, food prices and the general cost of living.
Since then, the policy has remained at the centre of political and economic debates, with supporters of removal arguing that subsidy was too expensive and vulnerable to abuse, while critics maintain that its removal has imposed an unbearable burden on ordinary Nigerians.
Atiku’s current position represents a notable shift from the position associated with his 2023 presidential campaign, during which he supported the removal of subsidy.
The former vice-president has now argued that subsidy could be restored under a different framework if he wins the 2027 election.
Obi, however, believes returning to the old system would not address the fundamental weaknesses in Nigeria’s economy.
The disagreement between the two opposition figures formed part of a wider exchange at the NBA conference, where political leaders also tackled insecurity, policing, unemployment, production and the country’s economic direction.
Former Rivers State Governor and ADC vice-presidential candidate, Rotimi Amaechi, focused heavily on job creation and domestic production as possible solutions to Nigeria’s economic difficulties.
Amaechi argued that the country could not achieve meaningful economic stability without creating opportunities for Nigerians to earn sustainable incomes.
He called for policies that would encourage local production and put more disposable income in the hands of citizens.
The former governor also used his record in Rivers State to demonstrate what he described as the kind of development-focused leadership Nigeria needs.
According to Amaechi, his administration constructed more than 500 primary schools, over 300 health centres and more than 200 roads during his tenure.
He also claimed that his government relied on intelligence gathering to significantly improve the security situation in Rivers State.
Amaechi further promised that an administration led by Atiku and himself would ensure a broader spread of political appointments across the country.
He criticised the President Tinubu-led government over what he described as an excessive concentration of appointments, arguing that political representation should reflect Nigeria’s diversity.
Another opposition presidential contender, Omoyele Sowore of the African Action Congress (AAC), approached the debate from a more radical perspective.
Sowore called for a complete change in government, arguing that Nigeria’s security crisis required a different political direction.
He also addressed the fuel subsidy controversy, insisting that he had consistently questioned the manner in which the subsidy regime operated.
According to him, the central question should be who actually benefits from petrol subsidies rather than simply debating whether the policy should exist.
“If there is anybody that has been consistent in the removal of fuel subsidy, it has been me. The question about fuel subsidy is: who are you subsidising? You are subsidising the elite. You are subsidising the governors,” Sowore said.
The security crisis also featured prominently during the conference, with participants offering different prescriptions for tackling criminality, kidnapping and other threats across the country.
The debate extended to the proposed establishment of state police, an issue the Federal Government has increasingly presented as part of its strategy for improving security.
President Tinubu’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, defended the administration’s position on state police, saying the government had taken steps to address a longstanding issue that successive administrations had avoided.
The different positions expressed at the NBA conference demonstrate the growing ideological and policy differences among politicians positioning themselves for the 2027 presidential election.
For Obi, the priority is to retain subsidy removal while ensuring that the resulting savings are transparently and productively invested.
Atiku’s position centres on reversing the policy, while Sowore has continued to challenge the broader system surrounding subsidy and the political interests he believes have benefited from it.
With economic hardship, insecurity and the rising cost of living expected to remain major issues in the 2027 campaign, the fuel subsidy debate is likely to remain a significant part of the political conversation.
The arguments presented in Port Harcourt therefore offer an indication of the competing economic and governance proposals Nigerians may be asked to consider as political parties intensify preparations for the next presidential election.
About The Author
