NANS rejects Atiku’s fuel subsidy plan, demands accountability for savings

NANS rejects Atiku’s fuel subsidy plan, demands accountability for savings

The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) has rejected calls to restore Nigeria’s fuel subsidy, urging Nigerians, particularly young people, to focus instead on how the money saved from subsidy removal is being utilised.

NANS National President, Babatunde Akinteye, said Nigeria should not return to a system that successive administrations struggled to sustain, arguing that the priority should be ensuring that resources freed by the reform are transparently invested in programmes that improve the lives of Nigerians.

Akinteye made the position known on Tuesday in Akure, Ondo State, while speaking at a youth summit sponsored by the Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo. The summit was themed “Unlocking Ondo State Students’ Potentials for Economic Growth.”

The NANS president said Nigeria had operated the fuel subsidy regime for about four decades, but the policy failed to eliminate problems such as fuel scarcity and placed a significant financial burden on government.

He urged Nigerians to demand greater accountability over the resources saved from the removal of the subsidy rather than supporting proposals to restore the previous arrangement.

Akinteye said the focus should be on monitoring the money saved from subsidy removal and ensuring that it is channelled into projects and programmes that benefit Nigerians rather than returning to a system where public resources could be diverted.

He argued that Nigeria should learn from the experience of the subsidy era, when government spent heavily on petrol support while Nigerians still experienced periods of fuel scarcity.

According to him, restoring the subsidy without addressing the structural weaknesses associated with the old system could expose the country to renewed fiscal pressure.

Akinteye also warned against returning to a situation in which governments borrowed to finance recurrent expenditure, including subsidy payments.

He acknowledged that the removal of the subsidy had imposed considerable hardship on Nigerians, particularly through increased petrol prices, transportation costs and living expenses, but argued that reversing the policy was not necessarily the solution.

READ ALSO:

• Lagos police deny tear-gassing pensioners as #EndBadGovernance demands CP’s sack
• US launches fresh strikes on Iran as Strait of Hormuz crisis escalates
• JAMB, WAEC introduce one-off ₦4,000 WASSCE result verification for admission seekers

Instead, he called for the savings from the reform to be directed towards education, healthcare, infrastructure, agriculture and other productive sectors capable of improving living conditions.

The NANS leader cited interventions such as the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) as examples of programmes that could provide meaningful support to young Nigerians when properly funded and managed.

He further urged political aspirants ahead of the 2027 presidential election to present clear and sustainable economic policies rather than making promises that offer immediate relief without explaining how such programmes would be financed.

The NANS position comes amid an intensifying political dispute over fuel subsidy restoration involving former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

Atiku has proposed a new form of government intervention in the petroleum sector if elected in 2027. His camp has argued that the proposal is different from Nigeria’s former import-subsidy system.

Under the proposed model, government intervention would be targeted, capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited, with the stated objective of reducing energy costs while supporting domestic production and refining.

Atiku’s camp has also clarified that the proposal is not intended to simply recreate the old subsidy structure. His Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, said the plan was designed around domestic production and would seek to reduce production and transportation costs while providing relief to consumers.

The clarification followed comments suggesting that an Atiku administration could restore the subsidy before eventually removing it. His camp rejected that interpretation and maintained that the proposal was not a return to the previous import-subsidy arrangement.

Despite the clarification, the proposal has continued to generate strong political reactions.

The APC has criticised Atiku’s position, arguing that restoring fuel subsidies could reverse the fiscal gains associated with President Bola Tinubu’s economic reforms.

APC National Chairman Nentawe Yilwatda warned that a return to the old subsidy system could put pressure on government finances and affect spending on workers’ wages, education, infrastructure and other public programmes.

The ruling party has also maintained that the previous subsidy arrangement contributed to fiscal distortions and placed an unsustainable burden on government finances.

The ADC, however, has rejected the APC and Federal Government’s position, insisting that Atiku’s proposed petroleum intervention is financially sustainable and fundamentally different from the previous subsidy regime.

The opposition party has also demanded greater transparency over the additional revenue generated since the implementation of the Federal Government’s economic reforms, arguing that Nigerians deserve to know how the funds have been utilised.

Atiku has continued to frame the debate around the rising cost of living, arguing that Nigerians need practical measures to reduce energy and transportation costs.

The former vice president has criticised the Federal Government over the high cost of petrol and the wider economic hardship being experienced by households across the country.

The debate has therefore increasingly shifted from a simple question of whether to restore or remove subsidy to the broader issue of what form of government intervention, if any, can lower energy costs without recreating the weaknesses associated with the previous system.

Other political figures have also called for a different approach.

The New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) presidential candidate, Suleiman Dikwa, has urged the Federal Government to move beyond the subsidy argument and concentrate on investments that create jobs, generate foreign exchange and strengthen Nigeria’s productive capacity.

For NANS, however, the priority remains ensuring that the benefits of subsidy removal are translated into tangible improvements for citizens.

Akinteye maintained that Nigerians, particularly students and young people, should scrutinise the economic plans of political aspirants and demand details on how proposed policies would be funded.

He said politicians seeking votes in 2027 should not simply promise cheaper petrol but should explain how their proposed interventions would remain financially sustainable and benefit the wider population.

The fuel subsidy debate is expected to remain a major issue ahead of the 2027 elections, particularly as Nigerians continue to grapple with high transportation costs, food prices and other effects of the wider economic reforms.

While Atiku and his supporters argue that a carefully designed intervention could provide relief without repeating the failures of the past, NANS and the APC maintain that returning to the subsidy system risks recreating the fiscal problems that prompted its removal.

For the students’ body, the immediate challenge is therefore not simply whether subsidy should return, but whether the savings from subsidy removal are being properly accounted for and invested in areas that can deliver lasting economic benefits to Nigerians.

NANS rejects Atiku’s fuel subsidy plan, demands accountability for savings