Former presidential aide and host of Channels Television’s Inside Sources, Laolu Akande, has questioned the positions of President Bola Tinubu and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar over the removal and possible return of petrol subsidy ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
Akande, speaking during the ‘My Take’ segment of Inside Sources, said Atiku’s decision to campaign for the restoration of subsidy had reopened a major political and economic debate, but warned that Nigerians must look beyond campaign rhetoric from both sides.
‘After months of Nigerians asking the opposition, ‘How are you different from the incumbent?’ one candidate has responded,’ Akande said.
‘Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who campaigned in 2023 to remove subsidy, has now reversed course. The ADC presidential candidate said he will bring back subsidies. And just like that, the debate about subsidy is back right on time for the 2027 polls.’
Atiku, according to Akande, has argued that the subsidy was removed hurriedly and without adequate measures to cushion its impact on Nigerians.
He said Atiku’s proposal was for a responsible government to restore subsidy in a targeted and transparent manner while working to revive Nigeria’s refineries and strengthen social safety nets.
Tinubu, however, has rejected any return to the subsidy regime, insisting that his administration would not reverse the policy.
According to Akande, the President has argued that subsidy primarily benefited smugglers and a small group of elites and described the system as fraudulent.
‘Both have spoken well. Campaign rhetorics. But let us pin back the rhetorics and you will find out that there is a bit of deceit,’ Akande said.
He questioned the Federal Government’s claim that it had saved more than N15 trillion from subsidy removal between June 2023 and December 2025.
Akande said the figure should be considered alongside the government’s other fiscal decisions, particularly tax waivers, concessions and import duty exemptions.
He cited reports by Punch and BusinessDay that the Federal Government granted N34 trillion in tax waivers, concessions and import duty exemptions in 2025 alone.
‘That sounds very responsible. But there are other books to open,’ he said.
‘In 2025 alone, according to the Customs as reported in the newspapers – Punch and BusinessDay – FG has granted N34 trillion in tax waivers, concessions, and import duty exemptions. So, in one year, they have given away more than we saved from subsidy in about two and a half years.’
Akande questioned who benefited from the tax concessions, arguing that they were unlikely to have directly benefited ordinary Nigerians who bore the immediate impact of higher petrol prices.
‘Who got those waivers? I can bet you that it’s not the bus drivers. Not the university teachers. Not the average workers,’ he said.
‘It was the big oil traders, manufacturers and importers. The very elites that Mr President is saying are feeding fat on the subsidies.’
He argued that the government therefore appeared to have taken away a benefit from consumers at the fuel pump while granting substantial concessions elsewhere.
‘So we took money from the poor at the fuel pump and return it to the powerful through the back door,’ Akande said.
‘That is not reform. That is just a money transfer between Nigeria’s fat cats.’
Akande also challenged the assertion that subsidy had completely disappeared, pointing to what he described as under-recovery by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.
‘And subsidy hasn’t truly completely gone. Because, if you look at the books, NNPC’s own report showed that there was a N3.6 trillion under-recovery in 2024,’ he said.
The former presidential aide said the real test of the subsidy debate should be the economic condition of Nigerians rather than competing political narratives.
He pointed to rising food and transport costs, saying that by July 2026, food inflation was above 35% while transport inflation was above 36%.
‘This is the economics that they don’t explain in the campaign rhetorics,’ Akande said.
He also argued that the purchasing power of workers had deteriorated despite the increase in the national minimum wage.
According to him, the N70,000 minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation, would buy less today than N45,000 did in 2023.
Akande further questioned the implementation of some of the government’s promised palliatives and social intervention programmes.
He recalled the government’s promise to pay N8,000 monthly to 12 million poor households, but said that 26 months later, the World Bank had reported that only 1.8 million households had received payments.
He also criticised the implementation of the Presidential Compressed Natural Gas initiative, saying fewer than 2,300 of the 11,000 buses promised had been delivered.
Similarly, he said only N129.6 billion had been disbursed from the N1.15 trillion budgeted for social interventions.
‘People are not angry because they don’t understand economics. They are angry because they were promised a bridge but were given a cliff,’ Akande said.
He also challenged the government’s argument that the subsidy regime was fraudulent, asking why there had been limited accountability for those allegedly involved in subsidy fraud.
‘If subsidy was indeed a fraud, where is the justice? That is the hardest question. Where are the convictions?’ Akande asked.
‘Not one major oil marketer has gone to jail for subsidy fraud.’
Akande’s comments come as the 2027 presidential contest begins to shape political debate around the economic reforms implemented by the Tinubu administration, particularly the removal of petrol subsidy.
While the government maintains that ending the subsidy was necessary to free resources for development and prevent the continued financing of an inefficient system, Atiku’s proposal seeks to make the policy reversal a major campaign issue ahead of the election.
For Akande, however, the central issue is not simply whether subsidy should return or remain abolished, but whether either side can provide Nigerians with a transparent and credible account of who has benefited, who has borne the cost and what mechanisms will protect citizens from the impact of economic reforms.