A chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Segun Showunmi, has defended President Bola Tinubu's decision to remove the petrol subsidy, arguing that the policy had become financially unsustainable and was placing an excessive burden on public finances....
A chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Segun Showunmi, has defended President Bola Tinubu’s decision to remove the petrol subsidy, arguing that the policy had become financially unsustainable and was placing an excessive burden on public finances.
Showunmi, convener of The Alternative Movement, said Nigeria had spent decades operating a subsidy system without achieving the desired economic transformation.
He maintained that the country could no longer afford to continue financing the arrangement in the manner it had been managed by successive administrations.
Speaking on TVC News’ Politics on Sunday, Showunmi argued that the debate over subsidy removal should consider the country’s fiscal position before Tinubu assumed office in May 2023.
He said the policy had evolved into a costly arrangement that, in his assessment, benefited powerful interests at the expense of sustainable development.
“What we created is a big heist for the people who have those type of access to convert our country into a place where we just bleed our money at great cost,” he said.
Showunmi argued that Nigeria’s reliance on oil revenue had contributed to a situation in which public resources were absorbed by recurrent financial obligations rather than being directed towards infrastructure and economic diversification.
He said other oil-producing countries had used their resources to develop infrastructure and strengthen other sectors of their economies.
According to him, Nigeria needed to move beyond a system in which substantial resources were devoted to sustaining fuel prices at the expense of other development priorities.
Showunmi disputed arguments that Tinubu alone should bear responsibility for the consequences of subsidy removal, saying the President inherited an already difficult fiscal situation.
He claimed that the immediate past administration had not made adequate budgetary provision for the subsidy when it left office.
“As at May 29, 2023, when he took that oath of office, if you want to say he’s guilty of anything, he’s only guilty of telling us the truth because there was no provision for it,” he said.
The claim formed part of his broader argument that the government faced difficult choices when it assumed office.
Showunmi said Nigeria had reached a point where its finances were under severe pressure and the government had limited room to continue financing the existing subsidy arrangements.
He also alleged that the management of the system had left the country struggling to secure financing without pledging future crude oil revenues.
He argued that continuing the policy without addressing its financial implications would have deepened the country’s fiscal difficulties.
However, the economic consequences of subsidy removal, including its impact on transport costs, food prices and household purchasing power, remain central to public debate.
During the interview, Showunmi was challenged over the hardship Nigerians had experienced following subsidy removal and currency reforms.
He acknowledged that economic difficulties had become a major issue in public discussion but insisted that policy choices should be assessed against the country’s available resources and long-term needs.
He questioned whether the government could meet rising public expectations without improving its financial position.
His argument was that the country could not sustainably promise benefits to citizens without establishing the revenue base needed to finance them.
Showunmi maintained that subsidy removal should be considered within the wider question of how Nigeria could generate sufficient resources to fund development.
He argued that a government facing severe fiscal constraints would struggle to provide infrastructure, maintain public services and meet other national obligations if a large share of its resources remained committed to fuel subsidies.
His position reflects the Tinubu administration’s broader defence of the reform, which has centred on the need to reduce fiscal pressures and redirect public resources.
Nevertheless, the removal of the subsidy has imposed additional costs on households and businesses, making the distribution of any resulting fiscal gains an important test of the policy.
Showunmi also criticised opposition politicians who have advocated changes to the current economic direction.
He questioned whether those proposing a return to subsidy arrangements had sufficiently explained how the policy would be financed and sustained.
He argued that Nigeria had experimented with subsidies for decades without achieving the desired results.
According to him, changing the policy without addressing its underlying financial problems would risk repeating past mistakes.
Showunmi maintained that the country’s political debate should focus on practical development plans, their funding and the institutional capacity required to implement them.
He also argued that reforms should not be abandoned merely because they are politically unpopular in the short term.
However, he did not provide a detailed assessment during the interview of how the government should address the immediate effects of the reforms on vulnerable households.
That question remains important to the wider debate over the policy: while reducing subsidy expenditure may ease pressure on public finances, the benefits depend partly on how the government manages the transition and uses the resources released.
Beyond the subsidy debate, Showunmi said Nigeria needed to diversify its economy and invest in infrastructure rather than depend excessively on oil revenue.
He argued that other oil-producing countries had taken steps to strengthen their economies and develop sectors capable of generating additional income.
He said Nigeria should pursue a similar long-term direction, insisting that sustainable development required more than short-term spending commitments.
His defence of Tinubu’s reforms was therefore rooted in the belief that the country needed to change how it managed public resources.
Showunmi argued that the central question was not simply whether fuel prices should be lower, but whether the country could sustain its spending commitments while building an economy capable of delivering lasting prosperity.
As political parties prepare for the 2027 elections, the subsidy debate is likely to remain a major campaign issue, with the administration’s supporters defending fiscal reforms and opponents highlighting the hardship experienced by Nigerians.
Showunmi’s position is that reversing the policy without a credible financing plan would fail to address the underlying problems he believes have constrained the economy for decades.