Following the raging debate between the Presidency and the camp of Atiku Abubakar concerning FG’s approach in the removal of petroleum subsidy, Chief Martin Onovo, an oil industry expert and seasoned politician, has faulted both parties, saying that they have missed the point.
Onovo, the 2015 presidential candidate of the National Conscience Party (NCP), who spoke to Sunday Independent on the ongoing debate, said both camps are incompetent and have poor understanding of the issues.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), recently said that if elected, he would return petroleum subsidy, thus setting himself up for a barrage of attacks from the Presidency.
However, the debate spread so much that it became a major national issue in the last few days, even as other candidates, including Mr. Peter Obi of the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC), have latched on to it.
Onovo, currently, the Head, Policy Positions, Movement for Fundamental Change (MFC), said that the Tinubu regime is particularly incompetent and wrong as it apparently does not understand that the constitutional purpose of government is the security and welfare of the people.
Onovo stated that the incompetent removal of ‘subsidies’ on mediocrity and corruption is not the removal of ‘subsidies’ on petroleum products.
According to him, “The reckless and unpatriotic Tinubu regime’s policy has aggravated poverty in Nigeria and pushed Nigerians to the fifth poorest people in the world by GDP per Capita at PPP, according to the 2026 Global Finance ranking.”
Onovo said that similarly, Alhaji Atiku in his persistent desperation had published his own erroneous position, adding that he wants to return the subsidy on mediocrity and corruption.
“Clearly, subsidy is the difference between the production cost of a product and the selling price of the product, when the production cost is higher than the selling price.
“In Nigeria, the incompetent and corrupt Tinubu regime disregarded the production cost and compared the selling price to the ‘landing cost’ of imported products. That is wrong because it imposes an importation cost on a domestic product.
“The Peter Obi position is a simple and honest position. He plans to use the petroleum products revenue transparently for developmental purposes. Comparatively, the Gen. Abacha regime with the late Prof. Sam Aluko, leading the Economic Management Team, had the right policy.
According to him, “They determined the production cost of PMS (petrol) at that time to be about N6/l. They sold it for N11/l and made a profit of about N5/l that was used to fund infrastructure projects by the Buhari-led PTF.
“That is the right policy. With that, the Gen. Abacha regime controlled inflation, sustained the value of our Naira at N84/$ and maintained macro-economic stability.
“The Gen. Abacha policy remains the competent and patriotic policy for the pricing of petroleum products and the development of infrastructure.
“In Venezuela, an OPEC member like Nigeria, the cost of PMS (petrol) is about 4 US cents per litre. That is about N56/l.
“In Iran, another OPEC member, it is about 3 US cents per litre. That is about N45/l. In Nigeria, at N1,200/l, it is over 25 times the price in Iran.”
HYPOCRITICAL EFFUSIONS
Barrister Olalekan Festus Ojo, the Managing Partner of Platinum & Taylor Hill LP, said the petroleum subsidy debate currently raging between the Presidency and the Atiku camp is simultaneously important and deeply hypocritical on both sides and Nigerians deserve better than the political theatre being served to them.
Ojo said: “Let me be direct. Atiku Abubakar’s 2023 presidential manifesto explicitly endorsed petroleum subsidy removal as an economic reform imperative.
“For his camp to now prosecute a sustained political assault on President Tinubu’s implementation of that same policy, without acknowledging that fundamental consistency problem, is an exercise in political opportunism that insults the intelligence of the Nigerian electorate.
Conversely, the Presidency’s defence of the subsidy removal, while economically defensible in principle, is undermined by its manifest failure to deploy the recovered subsidy funds into visible, tangible, and immediate relief for the millions of Nigerians whose purchasing power has been catastrophically destroyed by the resulting fuel price increases, transportation cost explosion, and cascading inflation.
“The honest conversation Nigeria needs is not about whether subsidy removal was right or wrong. That debate is largely settled.
“The urgent conversation is about why the promised palliatives, infrastructure investments, and economic relief measures that were to accompany removal have not materialised at the scale and speed that the magnitude of the policy shock demanded.
“On that question, the Presidency has genuine accountability to answer, and no amount of pointing at Atiku’s manifesto inconsistency changes that fundamental obligation.”
Bishop Herbert Ekechukwu, a cleric and an economist asked: “Was the subsidy sustainable? The answer is capital ‘NO’, it was not sustainable.”
He maintained that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu did the right thing in removing the subsidy, stressing that the old fuel subsidy was costing Nigeria N4 trillion annually and that was money borrowed and most of the money did not reach the people.
THE UNANSWERED QUESTION
Dr Ekechukwu continued: “We had problems like snuggling, over invoicing, and payment for fuel we did not consume.
“Therefore, keeping it forever was not realistic. Subsidy was draining funds from education, health power and security.
“I support the immediate subsidy removal. It stopped the bleeding immediately. No more borrowing to pay for subsidies. It enhanced market discipline.
“Smuggling of petroleum products across the border becomes less profitable. Savings theoretically can be redirected to infrastructure and social programs, but in practice this never happened because of the endemic level of corruption in every level of government.
“What happened to the savings from the removal of the subsidy? Removal of subsidy is Part One of the show. Part Two is what you do with the savings.
“The money saved did not transform into better roads, higher power generation, better schools, hospitals and more job opportunities.
“If this had happened, we would have endured the excruciating pain. To complement the removal and ease economic hardship, we needed fiscal honesty and discipline.
“Secondly, we needed social protection and welfare reforms– targeted supply for the poor, palliative on transportation and small businesses.
“There was a needed production investment using savings to fix what makes fuel expensive, which are lack of local refineries (modular refinery), power generation increase, rail transportation and agriculture.”
THE MIDWAY
Professor John Ebhomien, an economist and financial expert, said the ongoing petroleum subsidy debate between the Presidency and the Atiku camp is really a debate about timing, pain, and alternatives — not whether subsidy itself is sustainable long-term.
Ebhomien, an All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain, and a former Consultant with the United Nations Office on Project Services (UNOPS), said: “However, my take is as follows: The presidency’s argument for removal is fiscal. Subsidy was consuming huge budget resources, distorting markets, and benefiting smugglers more than poor Nigerians.
“Removing it frees money for infrastructure, health, and social programs — in theory. The challenge has been that the relief measures did not land fast enough to cushion the immediate spike in fuel, transport, and food costs.
“The Atiku camp’s position focuses on sequencing and mitigation. The argument is: Yes, subsidy was unsustainable, but removal without strong palliatives, mass transit, refinery fixes, and FX stability hits citizens hardest.
“They are pushing for a more gradual, targeted approach with safety nets first.
“Where I land is that subsidy, in its old form, was not tenable — the fiscal hole was too deep. But ‘removal’ without visible impact on refineries working, transport costs dropping, and direct support to vulnerable households, will keep the debate alive and political.
“For 2027, voters will judge less on who was ‘right’ in theory and more on who made life more affordable in practice.”
COURTESY: Independent
