Wike to Governors: Account for Subsidy Funds, Stop Hiding Behind NGF

Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister, Nyesom Wike

Wike to Governors: Account for Subsidy Funds, Stop Hiding Behind NGF

FCT Minister Nyesom Wike challenges state governors to account individually for increased allocations from petrol subsidy removal, insists President Tinubu has no power to dictate sub-national spending, and takes aim at opposition figures Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi over their policy positions.

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, has issued a direct challenge to state governors across Nigeria, demanding that they publicly account for how they have spent the additional revenues received following the removal of the petrol subsidy. Speaking during a media chat with journalists in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, on Wednesday, Wike said each state government, rather than the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), should explain to its citizens how the increased funds had been used. He argued that the additional allocations to the three tiers of government had given states greater capacity to fund projects, pay salaries and pensions, and improve public services. According to him, the NGF, as an association, could not replace individual governors’ responsibility to account to their citizens.

“What you call the Nigerian Governors’ Forum is an association. I’m a governor of State A, I should be able to defend my State A,” Wike said. He added that governors were elected by the people of their respective states and should therefore answer directly to them. “Rivers State Government is accountable to the citizens of Rivers State. Anambra State Government is accountable because they have been elected by citizens of those states, not by the entire Federation of Nigeria,” he stated. Wike said governors should be able to point to projects and programmes financed with the additional revenue generated after the subsidy removal. “If Governor Diri says, ‘Look, challenge me. The money that came, see what I’ve done for Bayelsa State,’ fine,” he said, referring to Bayelsa State Governor Douye Diri.

Wike defended President Bola Tinubu’s decision to remove the petrol subsidy, saying it had increased revenues available to the federal, state and local governments. According to him, the impact of the policy should be assessed by what governments had achieved with the additional resources. “Today, the states are saying, unlike before, we can’t pay salaries, we can’t pay pensions, strikes all over the places. Are there strikes again now? They can tell you, no,” he said. He maintained that governments at all levels must remain accountable for how the additional funds were spent.

READ ALSO:

Wike also responded to comments by the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate, Peter Obi, on the management of funds from subsidy removal. According to Wike, Obi should have directed his questions to state and local governments rather than the federal government. “All he should have asked is, ‘Having removed the subsidy, what do you do with the gains?’ This is what I think a reasonable person should talk about,” Wike said. The FCT minister emphasised that President Tinubu has no constitutional authority to dictate how states and local governments spend their allocations. “Now, the government has said the gains have been shared among sub-nationals. Tinubu has no power to say, ‘State, this is what you should do with the funds that you’ve brought in from the fuel subsidy.’ He has no power to tell local governments what to do with their money. All tiers of government are independent,” Wike explained.

Wike also criticised politicians who, he said, changed their positions on major policy issues to suit political interests. “One thing you must take me on is that I am a consistent politician,” he said. He questioned politicians who had previously supported subsidy removal but later promised to restore it during election campaigns. “If a candidate says yesterday, at the moment you have your vote for me, I’m going to remove subsidy; today the candidate says, ‘No, vote for me, I’m going to bring back subsidy,’ I mean, what kind of candidate is that?” he asked. He said political candidates should clearly explain their policy positions rather than make campaign promises aimed solely at attracting votes.

Wike specifically targeted former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar, who recently pledged to restore the subsidy if elected in 2027. Wike recalled that Atiku had, in 2022, advocated the removal of fuel subsidy, describing it as fraudulent. “Now, in 2026, he is not going to remove the fuel subsidy. Is he going back to the fraud, which he had alleged that fuel subsidy was?” Wike asked. He described Atiku as a “voodoo economist” who, in his view, says whatever he believes will appeal to voters. “Atiku, who is confused, who acts like a voodoo economist, Atiku will say anything just to be president,” Wike said. He argued that consistency was essential for anyone seeking to lead the country, accusing Atiku of changing his position depending on the political circumstances.

READ ALSO:

The FCT minister also questioned how a future government would operate a petrol subsidy under Nigeria’s current petroleum industry structure. He pointed to the commercialisation of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and the emergence of private refineries, particularly the Dangote Refinery. According to Wike, NNPCL is no longer the sole importer or producer of petroleum products, making the traditional subsidy arrangement more complicated. “He is living in the past. If not, he will know that with the Petroleum Industry Act, NNPC is now fully commercialised. It has transformed the old NNPC into a limited liability company (NNPC Limited), and no longer the sole importer or producer of fuel,” he said. Wike asked whether a government led by Atiku would subsidise petrol produced by private refiners. “Will Atiku, as President (which he never be) pay subsidy on fuel produced by Dangote Refinery?” he asked. He argued that restoring fuel subsidies would reverse the market-oriented reforms introduced under the Petroleum Industry Act and could discourage investment in the petroleum sector.

The subsidy debate has resurfaced ahead of the 2027 general elections, with major opposition figures taking different positions on the policy. Atiku Abubakar said in an August 25 post on X that he remained committed to restoring the subsidy if elected. “On the question of subsidy, my position has not changed and will not change: I will restore it! A nation as blessed as ours has no business abandoning its citizens to hardship. Nigeria is rich enough to look after her own,” Atiku wrote. Peter Obi, however, has maintained his support for the removal of the subsidy, arguing that alleged mismanagement of its proceeds should not be used as justification for returning to the subsidy regime. Speaking during a panel session at the Nigerian Bar Association Annual General Conference in Port Harcourt on August 25, Obi said the removal was necessary but should have been accompanied by a clear and organised plan for deploying the resources recovered from the policy.

President Tinubu announced the end of the petrol subsidy during his inauguration on 29 May 2023, declaring “Fuel subsidy is gone.” The policy has remained one of the defining economic decisions of his administration. Tinubu has repeatedly urged state governments to ensure the increased allocations translate into tangible development. On 30 July, while receiving a delegation of traditional rulers from Oyo State, the President said states were now receiving four to five times what they previously received from the Federation Account. “The cost of operation is high. But the money that I’m pushing to the states, if you had it during your own time, or during my time, it would have been different. They are taking four to five times their money. Nobody is borrowing money to pay salaries now. Pensioners are receiving their pay,” Tinubu said.

Responding to concerns that infrastructure development in Abuja had not translated into better living conditions, Wike disagreed with the view that housing alone should be used to measure residents’ quality of life. He said investments in roads, public transportation and other public infrastructure had improved access and mobility across the Federal Capital Territory. “Why do we have to only think until everybody gets houses? That’s only when the quality of life has changed. That is wrong,” he said. Wike argued that improvements in transport, road infrastructure and other public services should also be considered indicators of better living standards.

In a related development, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has called on Nigeria’s 36 state governors and the FCT Minister to publicly account for an estimated ₦14 trillion in fuel subsidy savings reportedly received through the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) since mid-2023. In separate Freedom of Information requests, the organisation urged the governors and the FCT minister to disclose full details of how the funds have been spent, including locations of projects executed, implementation status, and completion reports. SERAP’s request follows rising concerns that despite massive increases in state allocations since the removal of fuel subsidy, millions of Nigerians are yet to see improvements in public services such as healthcare, education, and social welfare. “There is a legitimate public interest for governors and the FCT minister to urgently explain how they have spent the money they have so far collected from the subsidy savings,” SERAP said in the letter. The organisation has given the governors and the FCT minister seven days to comply, warning of legal action if they fail to respond.

On his reported reconciliation with political associates, the minister said the disagreements had been resolved but declined to discuss the details. “Personal, political, everything settled,” he said. He added that he had invited the concerned political associate for talks but would not disclose what was discussed.