The race to Aso Rock in the 2027 presidential election formally took off on August 19, when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) lifted the ban on political campaigns by candidates seeking to occupy the number one office in the land. This follows a revised timetable passed by the electoral umpire in accordance with the newly minted Electoral Act of 2026. Long before the August 19th date, leading candidates had been involved in various shadow boxing and subtle campaigns.
INEC had earlier cleared 19 presidential candidates for the 2027 election. Those cleared comprise 16 male candidates and three female candidates. The youngest amongst the candidates is a 52-year-old policy practitioner, Dikwa Suleiman Mohammed, on the platform of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP), while the oldest is a 79-year-old political veteran, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, on the platform of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). Other top contenders in the race include the incumbent, President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC), and former Anambra State Governor, Peter Obi, of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).
With the clearance for campaigns, our airwaves are being inundated with slogans and jingles of the various contenders. Giant billboards of candidates and their respective political parties are springing up in our city centres, their posters abound on our streets, and there are political advertorials in our national dailies and on social media. Political agents will soon start knocking on our doors, soliciting our votes for their principals and parties. Political observers have one question on their minds: What will be different about the 2027 campaigns?
In 2023, campaigns were, to say the least, toxic. The whole environment was fouled by unmitigated filth arising from intemperate language and character assassinations, which soon infected a large proportion of our populace. Under this rather foreboding atmosphere, it was difficult to breathe or speak freely, prompting many to long for the polls to come and end quickly. Alas, in Nigeria, this respite is only temporary, never permanent, thanks to a four-year election cycle that almost always ushers in deep-seated hatred and bitterness that still linger amongst politically inclined Nigerians over the outcomes of previous elections, not least the presidential results. Sadly, our nation remains divided along religious and ethnic lines at every election season.
It is, however, refreshing to see that the former Vice President and presidential contender under the ADC umbrella, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, appears set for a robust issue-based campaign in the manner that he has been going about it this year. Atiku’s promise to review the Student Loan Fund (NEFUND), ensure strict implementation of the Supreme Court judgment which granted autonomy to Local Government funds, and pledge to ensure that the funds go directly to the third tier of government shows a proactive stance on issues that affect us as a nation.
However, his campaign has been tainted by his readiness to fight dirty against the incumbent, President Ahmed Bola Tinubu, by seeking to stop the president from the race over alleged shady records and involvement in the heroin business as a young man whilst in the United States of America. The case is still in court. Another issue he has thrown on the front burner, which has gotten many Nigerians agitated, is his promise to restore the fuel subsidy, the removal of which by the incumbent has made life a living hell for many Nigerians.
On May 29, 2023, President Tinubu used his inaugural address in Abuja to end a subsidy scheme that had propped up petroleum prices for decades. He told Nigerians that the subsidy could no longer be justified and that the savings would be redirected to infrastructure and welfare programmes.
Nigeria, despite being a major crude oil producer, has long relied on imported refined products sold at government-fixed prices, a system that consumed trillions of Naira annually. The subsidy cost the treasury an estimated N4.3 trillion in 2022 alone, with a further N3.36 trillion budgeted for just the first half of the following year.
Three years after the subsidy removal, President Tinubu told visiting state governors on May 29, 2026 that ending the subsidy had pulled Nigeria back from the brink of bankruptcy. He acknowledged that while the decision had been painful, it was necessary to stop fiscal collapse. Citing improvements he attributed to the reforms, the President pointed to agricultural growth, revived infrastructure projects, and state governors who no longer needed federal bailouts to pay salaries. He credited the trust built with citizens and state leaders for helping the country weather the transition.
Twenty-four hours later, Atiku announced that he would restore the fuel subsidy if elected President in 2027. Speaking during a Facebook live session in a separate interview conducted partly in Hausa, Atiku said that he had not originally opposed removing the subsidy, but questioned where the resulting savings had gone, asking whether the money had improved healthcare, education, or security.
He said anyone found to have diverted subsidy funds should be made to return the money. Atiku argued that rising fuel costs feed directly into higher transport and food prices, squeezing household budgets, adding that restoring subsidised fuel would help protect Nigerians’ purchasing power.
Atiku’s intervention reopened a can of worms and wound that never really healed for Nigerians. The fuel subsidy removal and the floating of the Naira by the Tinubu government have pushed many Nigerians into poverty. With Atiku insisting that he would restore petrol subsidy if elected, Nigerians are reminded of the pains that the removal of petrol subsidy without commensurate results has brought upon their already difficult lives. Although Atiku’s position has been reframed as targeted support rather than a return to the old import-subsidy regime, Atiku is resolute in his argument that Nigerians are carrying the consequences of higher energy and transportation costs, and that government must restore people’s purchasing power. His argument resonates with many Nigerians, because the consequences of subsidy removal have had a ripple effect far beyond the pump prices of fuel displayed at filling stations. Increasing fuel costs have affected transportation, food, small businesses, and household budgets.
Atiku’s position deserves scrutiny if he is to be taken seriously. He supported subsidy removal during the 2023 presidential campaign, making his current position an obvious target for criticism. His camp also spent a better part of last week clarifying whether the proposed subsidy would be temporary or open-ended before Atiku himself reiterated that his position had not changed. Subsidy may provide relief, but Nigerians deserve to know how much it would cost, who would benefit, how it would be funded, and how the country would prevent the corruption and opacity that characterises the machinery of government. Other presidential candidates have also made their input known on the subject.
Peter Obi has explicitly said that he still supports subsidy removal and that the mismanagement of the proceeds should not be a reason to reverse the policy. His criticism is that Nigerians were not given an adequate alternative use for the resources recovered through the withdrawal of petrol subsidy.
That distinction deserves much more attention. Perhaps the greatest weakness of Nigeria’s subsidy reform was not that the government removed the subsidy, but that it failed to build a sufficiently visible social contract around the reform. When citizens are told that they must pay more today so that the country can become stronger tomorrow, tomorrow cannot remain an indefinite promise. People need to see the connection between their sacrifice and better public transportation, functioning hospitals, more efficient schools, food security, and opportunities for productive enterprise.
Another presidential contender has made the debate even more interesting. Omoyele Sowore represents the argument that subsidy itself should not necessarily be treated as the enemy and that the real problem is the corruption and inefficiency surrounding its administration. His position provides an important counterpoint to those who regard subsidy removal as inherently necessary.
Seyi Makinde has also criticised the simultaneous removal of subsidy and floating of the Naira as a double shock that required stronger cushioning measures for Nigerians. His argument moves the conversation towards sequencing and social protection rather than simply asking whether subsidy is good or bad. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim offered another variation when he argued for a more targeted and transparent intervention rather than a return to the old system. He believes that fuel can still be sold in Nigeria at N605 per litre without anybody subsidising anything. According to him, there are several figures built into the cost of fuel that are fraudulent and should be jettisoned.
And then there is Donald Duke, whose argument I find perhaps the most intellectually provocative. Rather than simply accepting the language of the debate, Duke has challenged the premise itself, questioning whether what Nigeria call fuel subsidy was ever a genuine and transparent subsidy system in the first place. His intervention forces us to ask a more fundamental question: what exactly are we trying to remove or restore? If the system itself was opaque and corrupt, simply arguing about whether to bring it back may be missing the point.
Taken together, these positions reveal that Nigeria’s political class is not actually debating one question. They are debating several. Should government subsidise petrol or should it subsidise vulnerable Nigerians instead? Should the savings from subsidy removal be invested in public services? Should domestic production be supported to bring prices down? Should government intervene temporarily during periods of economic shock? And perhaps most importantly, how do we protect citizens from the consequences of necessary economic reform without recreating the fiscal leakages that made the old system unsustainable? What should be clear from the outset is that Nigerians do not necessarily need cheap petrol forever. They need an economy in which they can afford the petrol they buy.
The success of subsidy removal was never going to be measured simply by whether the government could stop paying the subsidy. It should be measured by whether the country can turn that difficult sacrifice into a more productive economy, stronger public services, and better quality of life for citizens. Until Nigerians can see that connection, the subsidy debate will continue to return every election season because the real issue has never been only the price of petrol. It is the price Nigerians are being asked to pay for reform, and whether anyone can convincingly show them what that sacrifice is buying or in more popular parlance, ‘bringing to the table’.
Also last week, the Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, spoke on the subsidy issue when he said that those campaigning for the return of oil subsidy are only resorting to populist politics that will ultimately fail. The Governor criticised politicians promising to restore the rescinded subsidy regime, arguing that any candidate assuring Nigerians of oil subsidy’s return was simply building their campaign on empty promises that would end up deceiving voters.
So far, the tone of campaigns seems to be loudest around issues being highlighted by Atiku as the top contender amongst politicians from the opposition. Nigeria’s brand of politics seems unable to evolve or be devoid of threats and intimidation, which we are already witnessing in several cities ,daily from the destruction of campaign posters and billboards by political opponents and thugs.
We urge politicians to focus more on issue-based campaigns that would afford the electorate the opportunity to assess candidates and enable them to make more informed choices on who deserves their votes next year.
See you next week.
