Without doubt, the most consequential economic policy decision taken by President Bola Tinubu upon assuming office in 2023 is the removal of fuel subsidy.
In his inaugural speech on May 29, 2023, Tinubu declared “subsidy is gone”. The removal of fuel subsidy payments has generated so much controversy, especially as Nigeria enters another election cycle.
The government’s defence is that the decision is necessary to free up resources for development, reduce fiscal pressure and redirect public funds towards more productive uses.
Little did citizens, and even political oppositions, know how dependent the Nigerian economy is on fuel subsidy payments.
More than three years later, Nigerians are still grappling with the consequences of higher petrol prices, rising transportation costs and the increased cost of goods and services.
While the debate on fuel subsidy removal rages, recently, attention was drawn to the amount the government spends on securing the oil infrastructure that sustains the nation’s economy.
The Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited reportedly spent N17.5 trillion on securing pipelines in 2024, and another N11.2 trillion in 2025.
This raises a fundamental question. If the government can spend trillions of Naira on pipeline surveillance and security, why can’t it commit comparable resources to reducing the cost of petrol for ordinary Nigerians?
Meanwhile, the government reportedly saved N15.8 trillion from fuel subsidy removal between 2023 and 2025, averaging approximately N5.3 trillion annually over the three-year period.
There is something these tell us about government’s spending priorities.
Just to remind Nigerians, government spent N1.828 trillion on fuel subsidies between January and May 2023, just before the subsidy regime ended on May 29, 2023.
Before then, between 2015 and May 2023, Nigeria spent an estimated N11.16 trillion to N12.6 trillion on petrol subsidies.
When the fuel subsidy ended in May 2023, the average price of petrol was around N238 a litre. Fast forward a year, the price skyrocketed to N770. Today, petrol costs a staggering N1,300 a litre.
Thus, fuel subsidy removal, owing to its enormous consequences, revealed how dependent the Nigerian economy is on the payments.
But that is not the bone of contention.
If the government can mobilise N17.5 trillion in 2024 and N11.2 trillion in 2025 for pipeline surveillance and security, it is difficult to accept that providing substantial relief from petrol costs is simply beyond its financial capacity.
The argument is not that pipeline surveillance and security is unnecessary.
Nigeria has suffered for years from crude oil theft, pipeline vandalism and other threats to petroleum infrastructure. Protecting oil assets is essential to production, government revenue and national economic stability.
But, it is one thing to protect the nation’s oil infrastructure. It is another to protect the economic welfare of the citizens. The protection of life and property is the fundamental duty of government and a core pillar of a civilized society. It is not a mutually exclusive responsibility.
The main argument is that if the government can mobilise a combined N28.7 trillion in two years for pipeline surveillance and security, providing substantial relief from petrol costs is simply within reach. It is a matter of priority.
There is another important consideration. Payments for pipeline surveillance and security are concentrated among contractors and service providers responsible for carrying out those assignments.
Although the services may benefit the wider economy, the immediate payments go to a relatively limited number of businesses and individuals.
Fuel subsidy, by contrast, provides more widely distributed benefits by reducing the amount motorists and transport operators pay for petrol, with potential knock-on effects on public transportation, food distribution and the prices of other essential goods.
The distinction matters in a country where millions of households are struggling to stretch their incomes to cover basic necessities.
When petrol prices rise, the consequences extend far beyond the filling station. Commercial drivers adjust their fares. Transporters charge more to move food from farms to markets. Businesses spend more on logistics and power generation. Traders pass additional costs to consumers, while workers find that their salaries buy less than they did before.
Consequently, the removal of fuel subsidy is not merely a change in government accounting. It has implications for household budgets, business costs and the general cost of living.
Restoring full fuel subsidy payments would, therefore, represent an attempt to address one of the major channels through which economic hardship is transmitted to ordinary Nigerians.
As the government pays to protect properties, the government should pay to protect lives. The duty of government, again, is to protect life and property. It is not a mutually exclusive responsibility.
Meanwhile, the Tinubu administration may argue that subsidy removal has reduced waste, eliminated opportunities for fraud and freed resources for infrastructure, healthcare, education and other public services. These are legitimate considerations in any debate about public expenditure.
Subsidies also have drawbacks. They can impose substantial fiscal costs, create opportunities for corruption, encourage excessive consumption and disproportionately benefit people who consume more fuel. A poorly designed subsidy may also fail to deliver the promised relief to its intended beneficiaries.
These concerns deserve attention, but they do not automatically settle the argument against restoring fuel subsidy.
The more important question is whether the government has adequately demonstrated that the benefits of removing the subsidy outweigh the costs borne by citizens, particularly low-income households.
How has the savings from fuel subsidy removal translated into tangible benefits for citizens? If the savings are substantial, where is the transparent accounting showing how they have improved public services, reduced poverty, strengthened household purchasing power or compensated citizens for higher transport and living costs?
In the year Tinubu ended fuel subsidy payments, more Nigerians became multidimensionally poor, according to a recent report released by the UNDP and the University of Oxford. How many ordinary Nigerians has Tinubu removed from poverty since assuming office and removing fuel subsidy?
Tinubu campaigned to make life better while selling his manifesto to Nigerians in the electioneering period leading up to the 2023 General Election that returned him elected.
And if the government can allocate N28.7 trillion to pipeline surveillance and security in two years, why should a policy that provides relief to millions of Nigerians be dismissed without a serious examination of its affordability?
It is likely that if Tinubu stayed in office for a day or two, he would have had a rethink on fuel subsidy removal. That “subsidy is gone” does not mean it cannot return. After the removal, it could be returned.
This does not mean that an entire N17.5 trillion or N11.2 trillion could or should be transferred to a fuel subsidy programme. Pipeline security and fuel subsidy serve different purposes, and their costs must be assessed on their respective merits. Nevertheless, the figures challenge the suggestion that subsidy restoration should be ruled out simply because it requires substantial public spending.
Government spending is ultimately a question of priorities, competing needs and the benefits citizens receive from public resources. The case, therefore, is not necessarily that fuel subsidy is all bad.
Given the lessons learnt, a return to full fuel subsidy payments would require a credible funding plan, transparent accounting, safeguards against diversion and an assessment of its likely effects on petrol prices and public finances.
The government would also need to ensure that the relief reaches consumers rather than being absorbed by intermediaries.
These are practical challenges, not reasons to avoid the debate.
The return of a redesigned subsidy regime would provide relief to households and businesses, while the government pursues longer-term solutions such as improving domestic refining, strengthening public transportation and reducing the economy’s dependence on petrol-powered transport.
Ultimately, the purpose of public finance should not be limited to balancing government accounts. It should also include improving the welfare of citizens whose taxes, labour and economic activities sustain the country.
If the government can find trillions of Naira to secure oil pipelines, it should be prepared to explain why it cannot deploy a substantial portion of its resources to ease the burden of petrol prices on Nigerians.
The choice should not be between protecting oil infrastructure and protecting citizens from economic hardship. Nigeria needs both.
The real debate is whether the country’s resources are being allocated in a manner that adequately balances national security, fiscal sustainability and the welfare of the people.
A government that systematically ignores the welfare of citizens risks being tagged insensitive, inhuman and wicked.
For millions of Nigerians facing rising transport fares, food prices and shrinking purchasing power, the question remains straightforward. If the government can afford to spend N28.7 trillion on pipeline surveillance and security, why can’t it afford to restore full fuel subsidy payments?
Approaching the 2027 elections, that question deserves more than a fiscal argument. It deserves a clear answer from the government.