₦airaland Forum

Streetinvestor2:
Rubbish

“Rubbish.” 😂

Interesting. Fifteen questions asked, and so far Atiku’s defenders cannot answer ONE.
We have asked them on X. We have asked them on Facebook. We have asked them on nairaland....

What price will petrol be? Who pays the subsidy? How much will it cost? Silence. insults. Rubbish......

It increasingly looks like Atiku hasn’t presented a subsidy policy. He has presented a guessing game. 😎

Streetinvestor2:
Rubbish
Trash
Nonsense
Stupidity from AI
You go create tiye
Best decision from Atiku
30k is just your interest for the continuity
Nigerians are happy with the decision
Nigerians are celebrating all over the country
You are not in any position to question it
Atiku owe you no answers
Go ask baron to come debate it if you have questions so we can equally ask baron our own questions

🤣🤣🤣 “Atiku owes you no answers.”

Ladies and gentlemen, behold the new standard for electing a President:
Candidate: I will restore fuel subsidy.

Citizen: At what price? How much will it cost? Who pays?

Supporter: SHUT UP! HE OWES YOU NO ANSWERS! 😭🤣

I asked 15 POLICY QUESTIONS. This economic professor responded with:

“Trash.”
“Nonsense.”
“Stupidity.”
“Nigerians are celebrating.”
“Atiku owes you no answers.”

Not ONE answer to ONE question. 😂

My brother, if somebody promises to sell you petrol cheaply and you think asking “Who pays the difference?” is stupidity, then subsidy economics is already fighting an unfair opponent.

And this one finished me:“You are not in any position to question it.” 🤣🤣 Ah!

So presidential candidates now make promises and Nigerian voters are not permitted to ask how they will work? Forget CharlesCNG. Pick just ONE: What price will Atiku sell petrol? ₦600? ₦700? ₦800?

Surely Atiku’s economic policy can survive one question from an ordinary Nigerian. Because right now, your defence of Atiku is like a man advertising soup for sale who becomes angry when customers ask what is inside the pot. 😂


You haven't defended the policy. YOU HAVE DEFENDED ATIKU'S RIGHT NOT TO EXPLAIN IT.

And that is far more devastating to Atiku than anything I wrote. 😎

SeeWahala:
That's true 👍🏾 same way CharlesCNG and WizardOfNG use agbadoGPT to be disturbing us every hour with meaningless epistles in order to hoodwink unsuspecting voters to fall into pit latrine

🤣🤣 My Friend seeMeSeeWahala again!, You are becoming like a man losing a chess game who responds by accusing his opponent of using an expensive chessboard.

You have now progressed from “meaningless epistles” to AgbadoGPT, CharlesCNG and WizardOfNG. 😂

Wonderful. But unfortunately, “AgbadoGPT” is not a counter-fact. Which is what your problem is. Forget who wrote it. Forget how it was written. Answer the facts raised with a counter fact.

Until then, all this your daily noise about AI is simply arguing with the calculator because you don't like the answer on the screen. 😎

FatimaAbubakar:
Huge loads of trash. Nothing sensible here.

Another dodge and derail shenanigan. 😄

I raised[b] 12 specific points[/b] about Kenneth Okonkwo’s claims on Channels TV. Your response?

“Loads of trash. Nothing sensible.”

Yet you couldn’t identify ONE of the 12 points that was factually wrong.

That is not a rebuttal. That is an escape route.

Pick Point 1, 2, 3… any one you like. Quote what I got wrong, provide your counter-facts, and let’s examine the evidence.

Calling an argument “trash” is easy.

Proving it is trash is where the work begins.

[quote author=gbadesky75 post=140431033][/quote]U guys should wait for your impending loss before shedding crocodile tears nah? headache fit kill una if you start crying from now

First, I notice you have offered no counter-factual to any of the 12 points I raised about Kenneth Okonkwo’s claims on Channels TV. Just “wait for 2027.” 😄
But let me use your comment to explain what I believe the APC should do towards 2027:
2027 shall be a contest of records, policies, alternatives and evidence—not insults, propaganda and “Tinubu must go.”Every claim should be interrogated. Every lie confronted with facts. Every statistic checked. Every criticism answered.

And where Tinubu’s policies have caused genuine hardship, acknowledge it and explain why the policy was necessary, what has been achieved, what remains difficult and when Nigerians should reasonably expect improvement.

Then challenge the opposition to do the same: If Tinubu got it wrong, show us your alternative.

So no crocodile tears here, my brother. 😂 This is the standard of political campaign worldwide... not insults and spreading lies.

DeepSight:
FAIR CRITIQUE EXCEPT NO. 3

I understand your disagreement with Point 3, but this is actually one of Kenneth’s weakest pieces of arithmetic.

First, the Federal Government did NOT save ₦15.8tn. That was federation-wide: roughly ₦5.43tn for FGN, ₦6.52tn for states and ₦3.88tn for LGAs.So Kenneth begins by comparing savings belonging to three tiers of government with borrowing by only one.

Second, saving money does not mean you stop having bills.The Finance Ministry estimates FGN had about ₦20.4tn in incremental resources: ₦5.43tn subsidy savings, ₦3.12tn other revenue and ₦11.85tn borrowing.

But it faced about ₦30.64tn in additional expenditure pressures, including ₦9.39tn wages, ₦9.37tn additional naira cost of external debt service, ₦6.47tn infrastructure and ₦3.14tn electricity support. So the correct question is not:“IF YOU SAVED, WHY DID YOU BORROW?”

It is:“HOW MUCH MORE WOULD YOU HAVE BORROWED WITHOUT THE SAVING?”

Think of a family that stops paying ₦100,000 rent but then faces ₦70,000 extra school fees, ₦50,000 medical bills and ₦80,000 mortgage costs.
If it still borrows money, does that prove the ₦100,000 saving never existed? Of course not.

It means the other obligations exceeded the saving.Now, challenge the ₦11.85tn borrowing.



To say , “you saved money and still borrowed, therefore where is the saving?” is simply bad accounting.

A GOVERNMENT CAN PLUG ONE HOLE IN THE BUCKET AND STILL NEED MORE WATER IF THE OTHER HOLES GET BIGGER. KENETH CONFUSE “WE STILL BORROWED” WITH “THEREFORE WE NEVER SAVED.”

DONALD DUKE VS THE LAGOS–CALABAR HIGHWAY: IT HAS GONE BEYOND EPE — BUT THAT ISN'T EVEN THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH HIS ARGUMENT

Donald Duke’s criticism deserves a serious response because he does not say the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway is useless. His argument is opportunity cost: can Nigeria afford it when existing roads, healthcare and education also need money?

Fair question. But Duke went further: he predicted the highway would not go beyond Epe. Events are already overtaking that prediction.

Construction is proceeding simultaneously in Ogun, Ondo, Calabar and Akwa Ibom. On the Ogun axis, work has pushed beyond Epe and, from the latest construction update I watched, past Ode-Omi.

But “it has passed Epe” is actually the smaller argument. The bigger problem is treating the project as though government is simply buying 700 kilometres of asphalt. It isn't. THE COASTAL HIGHWAY IS AN ECONOMIC CORRIDOR.

Its economic case is connectivity: linking ports, cities, coastal communities, farms, industrial areas, tourism assets and markets.Think beyond the carriageway.A farmer or fisherman connected to a major transport artery gains larger markets.

Previously isolated land becomes commercially accessible.
Tourism locations become investible.
Hotels, housing, warehouses, restaurants, factories and logistics businesses can cluster around junctions and interchanges.

THE ROAD DOESN'T MERELY CARRY THE ECONOMY. IT CAN CREATE NEW PLACES FOR THE ECONOMY TO HAPPEN.

That is why “fix the existing roads instead” is not a complete answer.Rehabilitating an old road restores an existing connection.
A new corridor can create additional connectivity, markets, land values and economic nodes.

And infrastructure must be assessed over decades. The first section is being built with continuously reinforced concrete pavement designed for a minimum 50-year lifespan, while tolling is intended to contribute to long-term sustainability. None of this means any price is justified.

Government must defend the cost, financing, procurement, environmental impact and expected returns. Claims about future GDP contribution should be treated as projections, not guaranteed outcomes.

But Duke must cost his alternative too. How much would rebuilding the existing Lagos-to-Calabar road network to comparable durability cost?

Which new coastal communities would it open? What additional tourism, agriculture, real estate and industrial activity would it unlock? And what is the economic opportunity forgone by NOT building this corridor?

Because opportunity cost cuts both ways. The question isn't simply:“WHAT ELSE COULD WE HAVE DONE WITH THE MONEY?” It is also:
“WHAT ECONOMIC FUTURE DO WE FORGO IF WE DON'T BUILD IT?”

Donald Duke predicted the highway would struggle to get beyond Epe. It has gone beyond Epe.

But the ultimate answer to Duke will not be how far the bulldozers travel. IT WILL BE WHAT SPRINGS UP BEHIND THEM.

The Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway is ultimately a bet that a road can become an economic spine — and that farms, ports, tourism, real estate, industry and new communities will grow around it.

12 THINGS KENNETH OKONKWO GOT WRONG — OR SERIOUSLY OVERSIMPLIFIED — ON CHANNELS SUNDAY POLITICS

Kenneth Okonkwo came armed with colourful phrases and usual propaganda lines. But once the rhetoric is stripped away, several claims need serious qualification.

1. “FALLING INFLATION WHILE PRICES RISE = VOODOO ECONOMICS.”

Wrong. Falling inflation means prices are rising more slowly. Falling prices are deflation. A car slowing from 120km/h to 60km/h is still moving forward.

2. “₦15.8TN SAVED” MEANS TINUBU GOT ₦15.8TN.

No. The scorecard attributes roughly ₦5.43tn to the Federal Government; states and LGAs received the larger combined share- 10.8 tn.

3. “YOU SAVED ₦15.8TN BUT STILL BORROWED—WHERE IS THE MONEY?”

Bad accounting. Saving on subsidy does not abolish wages, debt service, infrastructure, power support and other obligations. A family can reduce one expense and still have a mortgage.

4. “DEBT ROSE FROM ₦77TN TO ₦159TN, SO TINUBU BORROWED ₦82TN.”

Misleading. Debt stock is not the same as fresh borrowing. Buhari-era Ways and Means securitisation- about 30tn entered the stock, while naira depreciation dramatically increased the naira value of existing foreign debt.

5. “₦34TN WAS GIVEN TO TINUBU’S RICH FRIENDS.”

That is a huge leap. Customs said nearly 60% of the import-duty exemption approvals concerned military hardware; others covered CNG, vehicles, medical equipment, manufacturing inputs and food interventions. Scrutinise the waivers—but don't rename the entire figure “money for Tinubu's friends.”

6. “IT'S OUR CRUDE—JUST SELL IT CHEAPER.”

Fine. But sell an $80 barrel for $60 and Nigeria sacrifices $20. THE BILL MOVED. IT DIDN'T VANISH.

7. HE COULDN'T GIVE ATIKU'S PETROL PRICE.
The seun repeatedly pushed: WHAT PUMP PRICE? Kenneth answered with “affordability.”
But affordability is an adjective. It is not a number. He could just confess that it is still all a guessing game. ATIKU HAS ANNOUNCED THE PROMISE. HE HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN THINKING THE POLICY THROUGH.

8. DOMESTIC CRUDE CAN ESCAPE WORLD PRICES.

No. Government can deliberately sell below international value—but that foregone value is precisely the economic cost of the intervention. Call it whatever you like. Somebody pays. Kenneth’s argument suggests he has never met a basic economic concept called opportunity cost.

9. “DANGOTE IMPORTS BECAUSE TINUBU DOESN'T SUPPLY CRUDE.”

Overstated. Dangote DOES receive Nigerian crude. NUPRC says the refinery required 63 million barrels in Q2 2026—about[b] 692,000[/b] barrels per day—but actually accepted 52.6 million barrels, roughly 578,000 bpd.
The real argument is therefore about the adequacy, pricing and commercial availability of domestic crude, not that Tinubu gives Dangote no crude at all. BIG LIE!

10[b]. IMPROVING MACRO NUMBERS ARE “PAPER ECONOMICS[/b].”

Hardship is real. But FX availability, letters of credit, investor confidence and macro stability are not imaginary. You cannot fix the living room while ignoring the foundation.
A HUNGRY FAMILY NEEDS FOOD TODAY—BUT BURNING DOWN THE KITCHEN WON’T FEED THEM TOMORROW.

11. HIGHER STATE ALLOCATIONS MEAN LITTLE BECAUSE OF INFLATION.

Inflation erodes purchasing power, certainly. But that doesn't automatically erase substantial increases in state revenues and budgets.
The better question is:GOVERNORS, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE MONEY?

12. AND THEN CAME THE ECONOMIST.

Kenneth's argument pointed heavily towards reversal. Muda Yusuf's position was more nuanced: the reforms have serious shortcomings; improve cushioning and implementation—but don't simply reverse the reform trajectory and recreate the old distortions.

That was perhaps the most revealing contrast of the programme. KENNETH BROUGHT THE SLOGANS. MUDA BROUGHT THE CAVEATS.

KENNETH BROUGHT THE POLITICS. THEN CHANNELS BROUGHT IN AN ECONOMIST TO CHECK THE ARITHMETIC.

KENNETH OKONKWO CAME TO CHANNELS TO SELL ATIKU’S SUBSIDY PLAN. THEN A 30-YEAR PRIVATE-SECTOR ECONOMIST CAME ON TO “SEPARATE THE ECONOMICS FROM THE POLITICS”

Kenneth Okonkwo finished making Atiku's case at about 32:36. Channels went to a break. Then something interesting happened.

The presenter , Seun , announced that Dr. Muda Yusuf would join him to: “INTERROGATE FURTHER THE NUMBERS” AND “SEPARATE THE ECONOMICS FROM THE POLITICS.”

And Muda isn't an APC spokesman. He is an economist who spent 24 years at the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the last 13 as Director-General, before founding the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise. He has spent decades analysing how government policy affects Nigerian businesses. Even better, he has publicly criticised aspects of Tinubu's economic management.

SO THIS WASN'T APC REBUTTING ATIKU. It was something potentially more uncomfortable for Kenneth: AN ECONOMIST INTERROGATING THE ECONOMICS AFTER THE POLITICIAN HAD FINISHED THE POLITICS.

What followed was fascinating.

Kenneth said the subsidy-removal strategy was unsustainable. Muda said the reform trajectory should not be reversed —although government must improve implementation and cushion the pain.

Kenneth kept asking where the ₦15.8tn went. Muda explained that nearly 60% went to subnational governments, not Abuja. The precise figure is 5.4 Trillion to Federal , 10,4 trillion to states and local govt.

Kenneth treated increased borrowing as though it proved subsidy savings disappeared. Muda called that kind of analysis “simplistic”, explaining that government was simultaneously repairing collapsing macroeconomic fundamentals.

Kenneth dismissed improving macro numbers. Muda described the economy Tinubu inherited: severe FX shortages, rejected letters of credit and businesses unable to obtain dollars.

And Kenneth’s claim that falling inflation while prices rise is “voodoo economics”? That is simply a confusion between disinflation and deflation.

It was like watching somebody diagnose a patient— then, after he left the consulting room, the specialist walked in.

Muda did not say Tinubu’s reforms were perfect. Quite the opposite. His message was more credible: KEEP THE SURGERY. IMPROVE THE AFTERCARE.

Kenneth came to make the politics. THEN A 30-YEAR PRIVATE-SECTOR ECONOMIST CAME AFTER HIM AND EXPLAINED THE ECONOMICS.

SeeWahala:
Hehehe 😆 🤣

At last, WizardOfNG and CharlesCNG are ate both posting on the same thread

2 heads 1 brain 🧠 dem go create accounts taayaa this campaign season

😂 Nice conspiracy theory, but unfortunately the first premise has already collapsed.

WizardOfNG and CharlesCNG are NOT the same person.

For transparency, I have operated two Nairaland accounts: Smartenergy — discontinued. CharlesCNG — my present account.

That's it. So if you have evidence that WizardOfNG is me, PRODUCE IT.

Otherwise, we have reached another stage of the Dodge-and-Derail Olympics:

CAN'T ANSWER CHARLESCNG'S ARGUMENT?

SIMPLE.

DECLARE EVERYBODY AGREEING WITH HIM TO BE CHARLESCNG. 😂😂😂

But here is the important part.Even if CharlesCNG had 200 accounts, would that make a false argument true or a true argument false? No.

Arguments don't acquire validity from usernames.

If WizardOfNG posts 2 + 2 = 4 and CharlesCNG posts 2 + 2 = 4, the answer doesn't suddenly become 5 because two usernames agreed.

So forget the amateur Nairaland detective work. QUOTE THE ARGUMENT YOU DISAGREE WITH AND REBUT IT.

Because “two heads, one brain” is funny banter. It is not an answer.
Now , back to topic: Atiku Targeted Petrol Subsidy? Nigeria Has Tried That Road Before.
If you have anything to say , say it, leave CharlesCNG alone.

Streetinvestor2:
I know many of u hardly know what happens in other regions. You can not afford to travel to those regions most times as data boys.
In 2023 the imo governor who was one of baron campaign team abi even the leader was in apc,in Ebonyi the governor was apc,Anambra was APGA Enugu was pdp and now apc what whr they able to do besides thr one votes.
So what magic will they perform now.Abi the apc they are in now is different with the one of 2023.
He won't see 10k votes in SE in 2027
So the SE will vote him for putting Kanu in prison. We will soon be putting Kanu posters on apc posters in SE as reminder

So baron sent over 20 apc governors to go to osun just to waste over 100 billion since he was not interested in apc wining. Why was he holding the lga funds for 2 yrs now.I guess it was to show adeleke luv and solidarity

Your argument, to the poster you are responding to, mixes three different issues—2023 voting, Nnamdi Kanu and Osun—in the hope that quantity will substitute for answering the political point.

What you have basically done is to pack three different arguments into one suitcase and hoped nobody would check the luggage.

First, your South-East argument actually helps his point.

Yes, APC had governors in parts of the South-East in 2023 and Tinubu still performed badly there. Correct.

You then ask: “What magic will they perform now?” The answer is simple: POLITICAL STRUCTURE IS NOT MAGIC. IT IS CUMULATIVE. Now, ALL governors in the SE , ALL popular in their respective states (Mbah in enugu state , Oti in Abia state , Umahi in Ebonyi , Uzodinma in imo , Soludo / APGA structure)

ALL governors in SE,Most legislators in SE ,Most of the local structures and defectors do not guarantee votes. But pretending they make absolutely no difference is equally unserious.Note the target of the tinubu 2027 campaign in the SE is just 25% which reduce obi's 2023 margin from the average 87% to around 75%.

And your prediction that Tinubu “won't see 10,000 votes in the South-East” is particularly adventurous.Tinubu already received about 127,000 votes across the South-East in 2023. You are therefore predicting roughly a 92% collapse from an already tiny base.

Fine.BOOKMARK YOUR OWN PREDICTION. We will produce the receipt in 2027. 😂

Now Nnamdi Kanu.

Putting Kanu's picture on APC posters may make excellent propaganda, but it still doesn't prove that every South-East voter will vote according to one issue or that political behaviour in 2027 must reproduce 2023 exactly.

Then comes the truly spectacular leap: “Tinubu sent over 20 APC governors to Osun and wasted ₦100 billion.”

Where is the evidence for ₦100 billion? Who spent it? On what? Where is the documentation?

You cannot manufacture a ₦100bn figure, attach it to Tinubu and then ask anyone to explain your own manufactured and rehash of allegation.

And APC campaigning vigorously for its candidate does not prove Tinubu personally intended to rig the election.

In fact, think about the contradiction: TINUBU desperately wanted APC to win. TINUBU supposedly controlled INEC. TINUBU supposedly controlled the security agencies. TINUBU supposedly controlled everything. Yet APC LOST. Adeleke won. Tinubu congratulated Adeleke.

At some point this conspiracy theory begins eating its own tail. 😂

As for the Osun local-government allocation dispute, that arose from a genuine legal and political battle over the status of competing local-government officials.
So reducing a complicated dispute involving court judgments and competing councils to “Tinubu withheld Adeleke's money for two years” is advocacy, not analysis.

So after all the travelling expenses, “data boys,” Kanu posters and imaginary ₦100bn:

Your South-East prediction is now on record:

TINUBU WILL NOT GET 10,000 VOTES IN THE ENTIRE SOUTH-EAST IN 2027. Excellent. No need to quarrel. BOOKMARK IT.

2027 has a wonderful habit of converting political boasting into arithmetic.

Streetinvestor2:
That is the most important thing the baron must go.He had no business for what ever reason being thr in the first place. We didn't vote him.It was inec and corrupt judiciary that happened to Nigeria. And after 3 yrs plus he failed in everything.So Atiku is obviously right No amount of your AI generated write up and propaganda can change it.You did it for osun election and still failed.
Tinubu must go.And they have started saying the wonderful things they will do differently. To bring down 79% poverty and hunger level among the people

This is another classic “Tinubu must go” as a substitute for policy argument.
TINUBU MUST GO. Fine.

But removing a president is an electoral objective. It is not an economic programme. You say “they have started saying the wonderful things they will do differently.”
Excellent. Then let's examine those wonderful things one by one. Atiku says he will restore subsidy. But he has refused to provide basic details. At what petrol price? At what crude discount? How many barrels? What annual cost? What happens to FAAC? How does it fit the PIA? Who guarantees that cheaper crude becomes cheaper petrol?

Those are not AI questions. Those are policy questions.

And shouting “79% poverty,” “INEC,” “judiciary,” “Osun,” “baron,” and “Tinubu must go” does not answer a single one of them. You are doing exactly what I have been describing: DODGE THE POLICY. DERAIL INTO ANGER.

And Osun proves my point beautifully. APC lost. Adeleke won. Tinubu congratulated him.
Atiku came to osun to campaign. ADC had less than 2% of the votes. Tinubu did not come to osun to campaign , APC scored 445000 and up to 44% of the votes.
Yet somehow that same election is what you are senselessly dragging into an entirely unrelated economic argument as evidence against Tinubu.
The Problem with you , like most of you in opposition is that most of you are so politically foolish that you can not diffrentiate between campaigning on GRIEVANCE or on GOVERNMENT / POLICY.

If Atiku is “obviously right,” his economics should survive elementary questions. So stop telling me merely that Tinubu must go.

Tell me: WHY SHOULD ATIKU COME IN, AND EXACTLY WHAT WILL HE DO DIFFERENTLY?

Because “Tinubu must go” tells me who you want removed. It still doesn't tell me what you intend to replace him with.

esnbrutality:
Trash

Absolute Trash

Unequivocally senseless Trash

Nonsense

Here is a reusable Dodge-and-Derail exposure template built around this particular response: I normally ignore this particular moniker, but today I feel like using his response for a little public demonstration of low-mental faculty obidients operate on nairaland 😂

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what I call the DODGE-AND-DERAIL technique.

I made a very simple argument:“TINUBU MUST GO” IS AN ELECTORAL OBJECTIVE. IT IS NOT AN ECONOMIC PROGRAMME. Therefore, anyone seeking to replace Tinubu should answer two elementary questions: WHO should replace him? WHAT exactly will that person do differently?
His response: Trash.” ,“Absolute Trash.”> “Unequivocally senseless Trash.” > “Nonsense.” 😎

Notice the intellectual magic trick. Which proposition did he rebut? Did he tell us why “Tinubu must go” constitutes an economic programme?
NO.
Did he identify the opposition candidate who should replace Tinubu? NO..

Did he state that candidate's alternative economic programme? NO. Did he explain what is “senseless” about demanding a policy alternative from somebody seeking the presidency? NO.

This is precisely how Dodge-and-Derail works.

When confronted with an argument you cannot answer, don't engage the proposition. Attack the post, insult the writer, throw in an emoji and hope somebody mistakes emotional intensity for intellectual content.

And I am still waiting for your answer: WHO REPLACES TINUBU? Atiku? Obi? Donald Duke? Sowore? Somebody else?

And after choosing your person: > WHAT EXACTLY WILL HE DO DIFFERENTLY? That is Politics 101.

Tinubu must go” tells Nigerians whom you dislike. It does not tell Nigerians whom they should elect or what alternative programme they are voting for.
NB.

For future Nairaland encounters, the CharlesCNG reusable ANTODOTE for DODGE & DERAIL is very simple:
quote their insult → restate your original proposition in one sentence → ask which part they rebutted → show that they answered none of it → return them to the original question.
The important thing is never to let the insult become the new subject. That is exactly what makes Dodge-and-Derail work.

anonimi:
If Tinubu has failed to reverse it for four years, then why are you not working hard for the person who said he will reverse the premeditated cruelty of wicked APC?

Someone who was an integral part of the team that made subsidies available for cheap petrol without heavy debt burden?

This your argument actually creates an even bigger problem for Atiku.

“Why not support Atiku? He was part of a government that gave Nigerians cheap petrol without huge debt.”

Because that confuses a completely different fiscal era with a magic formula Atiku can simply recreate in 2027.

When Atiku was Vice-President, Nigeria had a very different combination of oil prices, exchange rates, domestic debt conditions, population, fuel consumption and—critically—eventual Paris Club debt relief. Cheap petrol was not produced by some secret Atiku economic technology.

And there is an inconvenient historical fact: Atiku himself eventually concluded that the subsidy system was unsustainable.

That is why, before the 2023 election, he promised to remove it. He even described the subsidy architecture as “a fraud.”

So which Atiku should I believe? The Atiku who spent years saying: REMOVE IT.

Or the Atiku who, when campaigning again in 2026, suddenly says: RESTORE IT.

And saying “Tinubu has not reversed the hardship” still does not answer the policy question. If Atiku wants to reverse petrol prices, fine.

Reverse them to WHAT? 600? , ₦700? ₦800?

And how? Discount crude? By how much? How many barrels? What happens to FAAC? What happens to the PIA? What happens to FX?

Who guarantees that the refinery passes the crude discount to motorists? How much does the Federation sacrifice annually?

That is what we are asking.

Instead we keep getting: “But Atiku was there when petrol was cheap!”

My brother, that is like saying: “My father bought a house for ₦2 million in 1998, therefore I know how to make houses cost ₦2 million again.”😂

Different economy. Different prices. Different exchange rate. Different population. Different fiscal circumstances.

And most importantly:ATIKU HIMSELF STOPPED BELIEVING IN THAT OLD SUBSIDY MODEL.

So if he has discovered a brilliant new one, wonderful. Show us the spreadsheet.

Because “things were cheaper when I was Vice-President twenty years ago” is nostalgia.

It is not an economic policy.

nairalanda1:
In short, they are saying that the government should sell crude to dangote at cheap prices.

Right.

No one drilling for oil is going to sell it at cheap price to government.

Also, our fiscal situation is so awful that government buying crude at market price and selling it under market price to dangote is not only going to end up with government debt worsening, but even making our debt under tinubu look like chicken feed.

I mean, for some time now, loans have been forming half of our budget. Any attempt by government to buy crude at cheap prices and sell it below its production cost is going to mean essentially that we are throwing money down a hole that would lead to more debt.

The only production subsidy that makes sense is tax breaks for dangote refinery, and also tarrif relief for imported components for the refinery. Anything else is asking for more debt.

(Just as that 20 trillion tinubu spent on covert subsidy led to our debt worsening. That should not have been done, and it probably made things worse ).

At the end, government must not sell crude below the cost of drilling for it. It would be bad news for our fiscal situation.

Best government can do is to fund a pipeline system that would pipe fuel from dangote refinery and other refineries to the rest of the country. That would cut transport costs a lot. ALso, borrow money to improve railways.

Atiku's proposal is just as bad for the oil industry as the tinubu's proposal is for electricity right now which is killing the electricity sector.

I substantially agree with your central argument, but there are two important corrections that actually make the argument against Atiku's proposal stronger.

First, government does not necessarily have to buy crude at market price and then sell it cheaply to Dangote. Atiku's newly clarified proposal is that qualifying Nigerian refineries receive crude at a preferential price, with the subsidy capped and budgeted.

But economically, the problem remains: PREFERENTIAL COMPARED WITH WHAT?

If Nigerian crude is worth $70/barrel and government makes it available for $45, the fact that $45 may cover production cost does not mean Nigeria has lost nothing.

NUPRC has estimated Nigerian production costs in the roughly $25–$40/barrel range, although it has been trying to drive them below $20.

So yes, selling a $70 barrel for $45 might still cover a $40 production cost.

But Nigeria has still surrendered $25 of potential value. That is the correct economic concept: OPPORTUNITY COST.

And once you put numbers on it, Atiku's pleasant-sounding phrase “the subsidy will follow the barrel” becomes considerably more interesting.

At a $25 discount:
200,000 barrels/day = $5 million/day.
300,000 barrels/day = $7.5 million/day.
400,000 barrels/day = $10 million/day.
500,000 barrels/day = $12.5 million/day.

At 500,000 barrels daily, that is $375 million of foregone value every 30 days and about $4.56 billion annually, assuming the same discount and volume throughout the year.

And remember: Nigeria's latest July production was only about 1.505 million barrels of crude daily.So 500,000 barrels would represent roughly one-third of current crude production receiving the preferential treatment.

Now compare that with FAAC.
For June 2026, total distributable FAAC revenue to the Federal Government, states and LGAs was ₦2.55 trillion. The Federal Government received ₦923.438bn, states ₦838.208bn, LGAs ₦591.390bn and oil-producing states ₦197.610bn in derivation.

That is why “give Dangote cheaper crude” cannot be discussed as though Tinubu owns an oil well behind Aso Rock. The crude belongs economically to the Federation.

Forgo substantial crude value and somebody ultimately bears the opportunity cost—Federal Government, states, LGAs, public investment or borrowing.

This is also why I agree strongly with your infrastructure point. If government has scarce resources, spend them attacking structural costs.

Build pipelines connecting refineries to depots. Rehabilitate product pipelines. Improve rail freight. Remove middlemen and logistics bottlenecks. Improve crude evacuation. Reduce production costs. Expand CNG infrastructure.

Those investments can reduce costs without requiring government to discount every barrel forever.

The distinction is simple: SUBSIDY PAYS PART OF TOMORROW'S BILL AGAIN. INFRASTRUCTURE REMOVES PART OF TOMORROW'S BILL.

And Nigeria's fiscal position makes this particularly important. Debt is already large; Reuters reports total public debt had reached about ₦159.35 trillion by March 2026, while projected debt-service costs for 2026 approach half of projected federal revenue.

I would, however, remove the claim that Tinubu has already spent ₦20 trillion on covert petrol subsidy unless there is a solid source establishing that exact figure. We don't need a questionable number to make a perfectly strong argument.

Atiku himself has now promised that his intervention will be capped.

Excellent. CAPPED AT WHAT? He says crude will be preferentially priced. PREFERENTIAL PRICE OF WHAT?

He says it will support domestic production. HOW MANY BARRELS?

He says consumers will benefit. WHAT WILL PETROL COST?

These four numbers would transform this entire debate:

Market crude price. Subsidised crude price. Daily subsidised barrels. Target pump price.

From those, Nigerians can calculate the annual cost and compare it with FAAC, infrastructure spending, debt service and every competing use of public money.

Until Atiku provides them, “the subsidy will follow the barrel” is still a slogan.

And before Nigeria allows the subsidy to follow the barrel, perhaps somebody should first ask:

HOW MUCH MONEY WILL FOLLOW IT?

nairalanda1:
People in this country think of life in terms of 'give us this day daily bread'. That kind of mentaility is not really abnormal...we all go to work even when we don't feel like it because we won't eat if we don't...but applied to long term thinking, it is a disaster.

I don't blame them. Poverty is bad. But we got to learn at some point that we cannot be using poverty as a shield against long term thinking. If the Chinese, South Koreans, Japanese and even many european nations had had that mentality, they would have still been in the eleventh century self.

The progenitor of the Dantata family when he made his first money was advised by his childhood nanny to put some money aside, and to repeat whenever he made money. Nigerians of today, regardless of tribe, would advise him to share the money to 'help a brother or sister'.

Indeed very wise thoughts....

The desire for immediate relief is understandable. Poverty forces people to think about today's meal. But what is understandable for a struggling household can become disastrous as national economic policy.

Countries become prosperous by resisting the[b] temptation to consume everything today[/b]. They save, invest and build productive capacity—power, transport, education, industry and infrastructure.

That is the deeper problem with subsidy populism. Cheap petrol today sounds wonderful. But what are we sacrificing tomorrow to pay for it? People forget easily. Subsidy was not provided for by the Buhari govt in 2023, because was no money available for it!

The Dantata lesson is simple: wealth begins when you don't consume every surplus you make—you preserve some and reinvest it.

Nigeria faces the same choice. You cannot eat every seed because you are hungry today, then complain tomorrow that there is no harvest.

Compassion means helping people survive today. Development means ensuring they are not still begging for the same help tomorrow.

soyoyeakinyode:
THE ATIKU SUBSIDY MODEL MAKES SENSE: IT WILL CREATE JOBS, INCREASE PURCHASING POWER AND STRENGTHEN NIGERIA’S OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION SECTOR

BY: SOYOYE AKINYODE SOLOMON

The ongoing debate surrounding former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s proposed petroleum subsidy policy requires an important clarification. Much of the criticism appears to proceed from the assumption that Atiku intends to restore the old subsidy regime under which the Federal Government subsidised imported finished petroleum products.

That interpretation misses the fundamental distinction in the policy being proposed.

Atiku’s proposal is essentially to move government intervention away from subsidising imported finished petroleum products and towards supporting domestic production and refining. In other words, rather than spend enormous public resources subsidising petrol imported into Nigeria, government support would be directed towards crude oil supplied to qualifying local refineries under a transparent, targeted and properly regulated framework.

This distinction changes the economic argument considerably.

FROM CONSUMPTION SUBSIDY TO PRODUCTION SUBSIDY

Nigeria's traditional petroleum subsidy model was essentially consumption-oriented.

Nigeria produced crude oil, exported substantial quantities of that crude, imported refined petroleum products and subsequently spent huge amounts of public resources subsidising the final products for domestic consumers.

That arrangement created an unfortunate economic cycle:

Produce crude → Export crude → Import refined products → Subsidise imported products → Consume locally.

The proposed alternative seeks to restructure the cycle:

Produce crude → Supply Nigerian refineries → Refine in Nigeria → Sell locally → Export surplus refined products.

The difference between these two models is profound.

The first effectively uses Nigerian public resources partly to sustain an import-dependent petroleum economy. The second seeks to use government intervention strategically to stimulate domestic refining capacity and retain a greater proportion of the petroleum value chain within Nigeria.

The idea, therefore, should not simply be described as "bringing back fuel subsidy." It is more accurately understood as an attempt to redirect subsidy from consumption and importation towards domestic production and industrial capacity.

WHY SUBSIDISING CRUDE FOR LOCAL REFINERIES COULD MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE

If properly designed, supplying crude oil to qualifying Nigerian refineries at a preferential price could reduce one of the significant input costs confronting domestic refiners.

Crude oil represents the principal raw material of a refinery. Reducing that input cost—provided the benefit is transmitted through the production chain—could reduce refinery costs and potentially contribute to more competitive ex-refinery and ultimately pump prices.

But the economic significance extends beyond petrol prices.

A credible preferential crude-supply arrangement could provide investors with greater certainty about feedstock availability and pricing. That could improve the commercial attractiveness of establishing additional modular and conventional refineries in Nigeria.

Nigeria consequently begins moving away from merely being a country that produces crude oil towards becoming a country that produces, processes, refines and adds value to its natural resources before consumption or export.

That is industrial policy.

IT COULD STIMULATE MORE REFINERY INVESTMENT

One of the most important potential benefits of this approach is its ability to encourage investment in domestic refining.

Investors considering establishing refineries need reasonable certainty about access to crude oil, pricing, infrastructure, regulation and the market for their products.

A transparent domestic crude-support framework could therefore provide incentives for existing refineries to expand capacity while encouraging new investors to enter the market.

This is particularly important because Nigeria should not build its petroleum future around one or two gigantic refineries alone.

The country needs a competitive ecosystem consisting of large refineries, medium-sized refineries, modular refineries and properly licensed smaller refining operations operating according to environmental, technical and safety standards.

The objective should ultimately be competition.

Ten, twenty or more commercially viable refineries competing for Nigerian and regional markets would be preferable to an industry dominated by a handful of producers.

THE ARTISANAL REFINERY QUESTION

The policy could also provide an opportunity to address the longstanding problem of artisanal refining in the Niger Delta.

The solution cannot simply be allowing environmentally dangerous illegal refining activities to continue. Neither should Nigeria ignore the technical knowledge and entrepreneurial energy that exist within some of these communities.

Government could create pathways through which qualified artisanal operators are organised into cooperatives or companies, trained, licensed, environmentally regulated and incorporated into properly designed modular refinery programmes.

Nigeria has previously considered the integration of artisanal refiners into legitimate domestic refining arrangements.

The principle should therefore be:

Formalise. Train. Finance. License. Regulate. Monitor.

Doing so could transform an environmental and security challenge into an opportunity for employment, entrepreneurship and local industrial development.

STRENGTHENING THE UPSTREAM SECTOR

There is another dimension that deserves attention.

Expansion of domestic refining capacity creates additional domestic demand for Nigerian crude.

That provides greater incentive for investment across the upstream petroleum sector.

As refinery capacity expands, Nigeria will require reliable crude production to feed those facilities while simultaneously maintaining its export commitments.

That means increased attention to exploration, production, pipelines, storage facilities, security and other petroleum infrastructure.

The relationship therefore becomes mutually reinforcing:

More refining capacity → Greater domestic crude demand → Greater incentive for upstream investment → Increased production → Greater refinery utilisation → More refined products.

The latest available regulatory evidence demonstrates why the crude-supply issue is important. The Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission reported that although 61.9 million barrels were allocated to domestic refineries in the first quarter of 2026, actual supply was only 28.5 million barrels. The regulator identified pricing gaps between producers and refiners as a major reason for the difference.

A carefully designed production-support policy could therefore address a genuine bottleneck in Nigeria's petroleum value chain.

JOB CREATION AND INDUSTRIALISATION

The employment implications could also be substantial.

Refining does not operate in isolation. A growing domestic refining industry creates direct and indirect economic activities involving engineering, construction, transportation, logistics, storage, petrochemicals, maintenance, fabrication, maritime services, insurance, banking, security and retail distribution.

There would also be opportunities for Nigerian universities, polytechnics and technical institutions to produce specialised manpower for an expanding petroleum-processing economy.

The greatest economic value of crude oil is not necessarily obtained simply by extracting and exporting it.

Value increases as the crude moves through refining, petrochemicals, manufacturing and associated industries.

Nigeria should therefore seek to retain as many stages of that value chain within its economy as commercially possible.

LOWER ENERGY COSTS COULD HELP THE WIDER ECONOMY

The ultimate objective, however, must extend beyond the petroleum industry.

Energy costs affect virtually every sector of the Nigerian economy.

Transporters require fuel. Farmers require transportation and machinery. Manufacturers depend on energy and logistics. Small businesses frequently depend on generators. Food prices incorporate transportation costs. Construction materials must be transported.

Consequently, sustained reductions in petroleum-product costs can potentially transmit benefits across numerous sectors of the economy.

If domestic refining competition and lower production costs eventually translate into lower pump prices, households could experience some relief in transportation and living expenses.

Businesses could similarly experience reductions in logistics and operating costs.

That can contribute to lower inflationary pressure, increased disposable income and improved purchasing power.

The important qualification is that these benefits are not automatic. Government must design the policy so that subsidies granted to producers translate into measurable benefits for consumers rather than merely increasing refinery profit margins.

THE POLICY MUST NOT BECOME ANOTHER SUBSIDY BLACK HOLE

Supporting the principle does not mean ignoring its potential risks.

Nigeria's historical experience with petroleum subsidy demonstrates how easily a legitimate social or economic intervention can become vulnerable to corruption, rent-seeking and fiscal abuse.

A production subsidy must therefore be radically different.

There should be no blank cheque.

Every barrel of subsidised or preferentially priced crude should be traceable from production to refinery.

Participating refineries should disclose the quantity received, quantity processed, products produced and relevant sales information.

The fiscal cost should be explicitly appropriated in the federal budget rather than hidden within the accounts of NNPC or another government institution.

There should also be independent auditing and periodic public disclosure.

Most importantly, participation should be conditional on actual production.

No production, no subsidy.

The subsidy should reward measurable refinery output rather than political connections.

IT MUST ALSO BE COMPETITIVE

Government must avoid creating another distortion while attempting to correct the previous one.

Preferential crude must not become an instrument for creating private monopolies.

Any refinery satisfying clearly established technical, environmental, financial and production requirements should have an opportunity to participate.

There should also be mechanisms preventing beneficiaries from obtaining subsidised Nigerian crude only to export it without delivering the intended domestic economic benefits.

The framework must establish measurable objectives relating to domestic supply, production capacity, consumer benefits and value addition.

A SUNSET CLAUSE IS ESSENTIAL

Production subsidies should not necessarily continue forever.

Their purpose should be to help Nigeria overcome structural weaknesses in domestic refining and accelerate investment until the sector achieves sufficient scale and competitiveness.

The programme should therefore have periodic reviews and a clearly defined pathway for reducing government support as refining capacity, competition and efficiency improve.

The ultimate destination should remain a competitive petroleum market capable of functioning efficiently without permanent government subsidy.

NIGERIA SHOULD SUBSIDISE PRODUCTION, NOT IMPORT DEPENDENCE

This is perhaps the strongest philosophical argument behind the Atiku model.

If government must intervene in an important strategic industry, the intervention should preferably strengthen domestic productive capacity.

Nigeria cannot sustainably build prosperity by exporting raw materials, importing finished products and subsidising their consumption.

Our economic policy should increasingly encourage:

Production over importation.

Manufacturing over consumption.

Value addition over raw-material export.

Employment creation over exporting jobs abroad.

Domestic industrial capacity over permanent import dependence.

That is why the proposed subsidy model deserves serious consideration rather than being dismissed as simply a return to the old petrol subsidy regime.

CONCLUSION

The debate should therefore not be reduced to whether Nigeria should "bring back subsidy."

The more important question is: What exactly are we subsidising, why are we subsidising it, who benefits, and what productive capacity does the intervention create for Nigeria?

There is an enormous economic difference between subsidising imported petrol for immediate consumption and temporarily supporting crude supplied to Nigerian refineries to encourage domestic production.

If properly structured, transparently administered and subjected to strict fiscal limits, a production-based subsidy could strengthen domestic refining, stimulate upstream petroleum production, encourage additional refinery investment, create jobs, conserve foreign exchange and deepen Nigeria's industrial capacity.

And if increased refinery capacity produces genuine competition and lower production costs, Nigerian consumers could ultimately benefit through more competitive pump prices and reduced transportation and production costs.

The Atiku subsidy model should therefore be debated on its actual substance.

Nigeria's challenge is not merely to produce more crude oil.

Our challenge is to refine more of what we produce, add value to it at home, create Nigerian jobs from Nigerian resources and ensure that our enormous petroleum wealth translates into improved living standards for ordinary Nigerians.

That is the economic argument for moving subsidy from imported consumption to domestic production.

12 REASONS SOYOYE AKINYODE SOLOMON GOT ATIKU’S SUBSIDY ECONOMICS WRONG By CharlesCNG

Soyoye Akinyode Solomon has written a detailed defence of Atiku Abubakar’s evolving subsidy proposal, arguing that it is not really a return to the old subsidy regime but a shift from subsidising imported petrol to subsidising domestic production.

That sounds sophisticated. But once the economics is stripped of the attractive language, the same hard questions remain.

Here are JUST 12 reasons his argument does not yet make the Atiku model economically convincing.

1. MOVING THE SUBSIDY DOES NOT REMOVE THE SUBSIDY

If crude worth $70 is sold to a refinery for $50, the missing $20 has not disappeared. The Federation has surrendered it. That is still subsidy—only moved upstream from the petrol pump to the refinery gate.

2. “PRODUCTION SUBSIDY” DOES NOT MEAN “FREE MONEY”

Calling it production support makes it sound productive, but somebody still pays. If government gives cheaper crude to refiners, the fiscal cost is borne through foregone oil revenue, lower federation receipts or some other public financing channel.

3. NIGERIA IS ALREADY MOVING TOWARDS LOCAL REFINING.

Dangote Refinery exists. Modular refineries exist. The PIA already contains domestic crude-supply obligations. So the argument is not whether Nigeria should refine locally. The real question is whether government must sell crude below commercial value to achieve it.

4. CHEAPER CRUDE DOES NOT GUARANTEE CHEAPER PETROL

Soyoye himself admits that consumer benefits are “not automatic.” That is fatal to the certainty of his headline. If government gives a refinery a $10-per-barrel discount, what guarantees the full benefit reaches motorists instead of partly becoming refinery margin?

5. ONCE YOU GUARANTEE PASS-THROUGH, YOU START REBUILDING A SUBSIDY BUREAUCRACY

To ensure cheaper crude becomes cheaper petrol, government would need cost formulas, audits, margin checks, volume verification, domestic-sale monitoring and enforcement. That is exactly the kind of administrative machinery subsidy defenders claim this new model avoids.

6. THE MODEL STILL HAS NO BENCHMARK PRICE.

What exactly should petrol cost under Atiku? ₦600? ₦700? ₦800?

Until that number exists, nobody can calculate the subsidy required, the consumer benefit or whether the scheme offers value for money.

7. THE MODEL STILL HAS NO SUBSIDY PRICE

At what preferential price will crude be supplied? $2 below market? $5? $10? $20? “Preferential pricing” is not a number. Without the discount, there is no serious fiscal analysis.

8. THE AUTHOR’S OWN CRUDE-SUPPLY FIGURES EXPOSE THE REAL PROBLEM

Soyoye notes that 61.9 million barrels were allocated to domestic refineries in Q1 2026 but only 28.5 million barrels were actually supplied. The issue was not merely crude availability. Commercial pricing differences prevented transactions. Atiku’s apparent solution is to make government absorb part of that difference. Fine—then tell us how much.

9. JOB CREATION IS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE SUBSIDY

Yes, refineries create jobs. So do roads, rail, electricity, healthcare, agriculture and manufacturing. The proper question is: how many jobs per naira of subsidy compared with alternative uses of that money? Without opportunity-cost analysis, “it will create jobs” is advertising, not economics.

10. “WE WILL TRACK EVERY BARREL” IS A PROMISE, NOT A SAFEGUARD

The old subsidy regime also had regulators, auditors, documents and verification systems. Corruption did not exist because Nigeria had never heard of monitoring. The moment government creates a valuable price advantage, lobbying, diversion, volume manipulation and regulatory capture become profitable possibilities.

11. THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ACT QUESTION REMAINS

The PIA was designed around commercially driven downstream pricing. If government gives refiners subsidised crude in exchange for lower consumer prices, how exactly does that interact with market pricing under the Act? Does Atiku amend the law, regulate indirectly through the crude discount or leave product prices fully commercial? That legal architecture is still unexplained.

12. THE BIGGEST QUESTION IS STILL: WHO PAYS?

What happens to FAAC if crude is sold below commercial value? What happens to state and local-government revenues?

What infrastructure loses fiscal space? Does government borrow the difference?

That is the central weakness in Soyoye’s article. He spends pages explaining what the policy COULD achieve but never fully answers what it will COST.

And that is the whole point.

Domestic refining is desirable.

Industrialisation is desirable. Jobs are desirable. Cheaper petrol is desirable.

But putting all four desirable things beside the word “subsidy” does not prove subsidy is the best instrument for achieving them.

Soyoye’s article is strongest when describing what he hopes the policy will achieve. It is weakest where economics actually begins:

price, cost, trade-offs, incentives, enforcement and opportunity cost.

So before declaring:“THE ATIKU SUBSIDY MODEL MAKES SENSE” let us first see five numbers:

1. Market crude price.
2. Subsidised crude price.
3. Barrels subsidised daily.
4. Target petrol price.
5. Annual cost to the Federation.

Until those numbers appear, the Atiku model remains less an economic plan than an attractive hypothesis.

iwaeda:
https://www.farooqkperogi.com/2026/08/why-atikus-subsidy-gambit-rattles-tinubu.html?m=1

REJOINDER TO FAROOQ KPEROGI: WHO IS REALLY SQUIRMING OVER ATIKU'S SUBSIDY? by CharlesCNG

Farooq Kperogi says Atiku has finally found the issue making Tinubu “squirm.” I see the opposite.

Atiku began with: “I will restore subsidy.” Then the questions came. Suddenly it became targeted, capped, audited, a production subsidy, preferential crude—and finally, “the subsidy will follow the barrel.”

That looks less like Tinubu squirming and more like Atiku writing the manual after announcing the machine.

Of course Nigerians want cheaper petrol. I do too. But economics begins with one stubborn question: WHO PAYS?

If government gives a refinery a $70 barrel for $50, the missing $20 has not disappeared. The Federation surrendered it.

Call it production subsidy. Move it upstream. Let it “follow the barrel.” Somebody still pays.

And remarkably, Kperogi eventually concedes my central argument himself. He says Atiku still needs to explain the cost, funding source, legal route, anti-corruption safeguards and how the benefit reaches consumers.

Exactly. Those aren't details. Those ARE the policy.

AGAIN THESE ARE MY 15 SIMPLE QUESTIONS FOR ATIKU THAT FAROOQ KPEROG CONVENIENTLY FORGOT TO ASK.

1. What pump price is he promising?
2. What happens to Dangote and other refiners?
3. Who pays—taxpayers, oil revenue or borrowers?
4. Which other recurrent obligations give way?
5. Market FX or preferential petroleum FX?
6. How does this fit the PIA's market-pricing framework?
7. Does crude-for-naira become discounted crude?
8. What happens to private marketers?
9. How many litres/barrels qualify?
10. How will cross-border smuggling be stopped?
11. How will domestic arbitrage be prevented?
12. Who verifies every subsidised barrel?
13. What happens to FAAC revenue?
14. What infrastructure or social spending loses fiscal space?
15. Or will Atiku simply borrow the difference?

Until those questions have numbers attached, I will restore subsidy” is not yet a complete economic policy.

And Atiku's own history makes the reversal even more remarkable. He previously said subsidy removal was inevitable, promised during the 2023 campaign to remove it and at one point described the subsidy regime as “just a fraud.”

Changing your mind is legitimate. But show Nigerians what evidence and modelling changed it.

Nor does the hardship caused by Tinubu's reforms automatically prove subsidy restoration is the cure. Subsidy removal and FX reform inflicted enormous pain. The fair questions are whether the reforms were properly sequenced, adequately cushioned and competently implemented.

But: A painful transition does not automatically prove the old distortion was sustainable.

Kperogi is also right that petrol is unusually important in Nigeria because it substitutes for failed electricity and transport infrastructure.

But that strengthens another argument:reduce Nigeria's dependence on petrol.

Fix electricity. Expand CNG. Build mass transit and rail. Improve domestic refining and logistics.

Government can invest in reducing the disease rather than permanently paying part of every petrol journey.

And yes, let's have this debate. Forget personalities.

Put Tinubu's market-oriented approach beside Atiku's proposed production subsidy.

Then give Nigerians the pump price, crude discount, fiscal ceiling, FX assumptions, legal mechanism, FAAC impact, leakage controls and exit strategy.

SO WHO IS REALLY SQUIRMING?

Farooq Kperogi sees Tinubu answering Atiku and concludes:

Atiku has drawn blood.

I see Atiku's original five-word promise mutate within days into an increasingly elaborate subsidy architecture as critics demand details.

And I conclude something very different:

THE QUESTIONS ARE DRAWING BLOOD FROM ATIKU'S POLICY.

Atiku may ultimately produce a coherent programme. If he does, let us examine it fairly.

But right now his defenders are behaving as though merely saying “cheaper petrol” has defeated economics. It hasn't.

The most remarkable part of Kperogi's essay is that after thousands of words celebrating Atiku's supposed breakthrough, he ends up admitting that Atiku still needs to explain virtually all the difficult parts.

That is precisely the point.

A SUBSIDY POLICY WITHOUT A PRICE, COST, FUNDING MODEL, LEGAL PATH AND ENFORCEMENT ARCHITECTURE IS NOT YET A COMPLETE POLICY.

It is a campaign proposition awaiting an economic plan.

esnbrutality:
Trash .....

Total Trash...

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE OPPOSITION'S DODGE-AND-DERAIL TACTIC 😂

I posted a very specific argument. Nigeria tried two-tier petrol pricing in 1989.

Commercial vehicles got petrol at 42 kobo/litre. Others paid 60 kobo/litre.

I explained what followed: arbitrage, abuse and eventual abandonment of the scheme.

Then I asked a simple question: If Atiku's “targeted subsidy” creates different effective prices for the same fungible product, HOW WILL HIS SYSTEM PREVENT THE SAME ARBITRAGE?

The response from a typical obidient? > **“Trash..... Total Trash...”** 😂😂😂

Ladies and gentlemen, BEHOLD THE REBUTTAL!

Notice what did NOT happen. He didn't challenge the 1989 example. He didn't dispute the 42k/60k prices. He didn't explain how Atiku prevents resale. He didn't explain how eligible consumption is verified. He didn't explain how subsidised petrol is prevented from entering the unsubsidised market.

He didn't answer the question at all.

Instead: TRASH! TOTAL TRASH!

This is the standard[b] Dodge-and-Derail manoeuvre[/b]: from the obidients playbook ....

Step 1: Encounter an uncomfortable argument.
Step 2: Avoid its substance completely.
Step 3: Insult the argument.
Step 4: Hope the discussion moves to the insult instead.

It is like receiving a mathematics examination asking you to calculate **7 × 8** and writing: “RUBBISH QUESTION!” 😂

Calling my argument “trash” doesn't make the historical example disappear. So let's try again:

HOW WILL ATIKU'S TARGETED SUBSIDY PREVENT ARBITRAGE, DIVERSION AND RESALE?

If my argument is trash, this should be extraordinarily easy to answer. So answer it.

Otherwise, “Trash... Total Trash” is not a rebuttal. It is what people type when the argument is easier to insult than to answer.

esnbrutality:
Trash .....

Total Trash...

So who precisely is this Goat..... Atiku , obi , duke , Sowore. This is the problem with CRASS intellectual laziness.

Because removing a President is an electoral objective. It is not an economic programme.

The Opposition should tell Nigerians WHAT replaces Tinubuism.

Otherwise, as Duke inadvertently diagnosed: THE OPPOSITION HAS A CANDIDATE CONVERSATION WHERE A POLICY CONVERSATION IS WHAT IS NEEDED.
The Policy conversation should be TINUBU MUST GO— I AM THE RIGHT PERSON TO REPLACE HIM AND HERE IS EXACTLY WHAT I WILL DO DIFFERENTLY.

YOU CANNOT REPLACE SOMEBODY WITH ANYBODY!!

Omooba77:
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2026/08/tinubus-fuel-policy-enriches-govt-impoverishes-masses-donald-duke/

DONALD DUKE CALLS FUEL SUBSIDY A “SCAM” — BUT HIS REAL ARGUMENT IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE SOUND BITE
By CharlesCNG.

Donald Duke did not merely criticise petrol subsidy.

He went much further: ### “I DON’T BELIEVE THAT IS A SUBSIDY. I THINK IT’S A SCAM.”

He even described it as one of the biggest scams imaginable.

That is a powerful sound bite. But the deeper argument he later makes is more interesting.

Duke’s position is essentially that a country can deliberately make key inputs cheaper when those inputs help the wider economy become more productive.
He compares energy and infrastructure to catalysts—things whose value should not always be judged merely by whether government recovers every naira directly from the user.

Think of a farm road. Government may build it without charging every farmer a toll because the wider benefit comes from:more produce reaching markets, lower transport costs, more trade, more jobs. Duke is saying fuel can be viewed similarly.

That is a legitimate policy argument.But it does NOT make the fiscal arithmetic disappear. This is the critical point duke is missing.

If government sells petrol or crude below its economic value, somebody still absorbs the difference.

Call it:subsidy,developmental pricing,economic support,or catalytic intervention. THE OPPORTUNITY COST IS STILL REAL.

If a barrel worth $80 is effectively supplied at $60, the missing $20 did not evaporate because we changed the vocabulary.

So Duke’s argument deserves more respect than a slogan— but also more scrutiny.

The real questions are: Who receives the cheap energy? How much does it cost? What productivity gain does it create? How do you prevent abuse and smuggling? And is that gain larger than the alternative use of the money?

Because calling subsidy a “scam” does not end the debate. IT ONLY CHANGES THE NAME ON THE BILL.

Streetinvestor2:
You just wrote ur usual lengthy trash
Subsidy happens in different ways. Atiku only said he will adopt a template of selling a particular quentity of crude to refineries in Nigerian at low cost so that the refined products will land at domestic consumers at low cost. The major thing is to determine the actual consumption in nigeria to equity the crude for it and police the borders for bad elements not to take it out.Did he say he will sell the whole 1.7 million barrels we are producing to refineries at low price
How is is rocket science to achieve.

This is how u claimed tertiary education can not be Subsidised when many other countries are doing it
In the past was thr no time we allocated a particular crude quantity for Nigerians purposes. Why won't it be cheaper now that we don't need to pay the cost associated with taking the crude outside and bringing back refined products.

You drug baron and his few partners are the only ones benefiting from the removal which was not what we asked for then.

Why are we not seeing the cng mass transit they promised everywhere after 3 yrs
Even the NELFUND they claimed it was being funded from it is lie.They are now after unclaimed dividend from investors when the money is suppose to be returned to the companies. They took 70% of banks dollar gain sometimes ago. The quentity of domestic fuel they claim we consum is fraud. When Dangote started his refinery we didn't consumer that much .it was in the range of 30million liters only

😂 My brother, we have already travelled through CNG, NELFUND, banks, Tinubu, consumption figures and the obligatory “drug baron” bus stop.

Back to Atiku. Interestingly, Atiku's latest clarification has actually conceded the central point I have been making.

I said if government supplies Nigerian refineries crude below its market value, that difference is itself a subsidy.

Atiku now says precisely that: qualifying refineries will receive crude at a preferential price, and his own plan acknowledges that the Federation bears an opportunity cost.

Excellent.

We have therefore progressed from: “I WILL RESTORE SUBSIDY.” to: “I won't restore the old subsidy.” to: “I will subsidise domestic refiners through preferential crude pricing.” All within days. 😂

Now we need the numbers: Preferential price of WHAT? If crude is $70/barrel, does Dangote get it at $60? $50? $40?

How many barrels? What pump price results from it? What is the annual opportunity cost to FAAC? Those are the questions.

Everything else is another scenic tour designed to avoid them. Atiku has finally shown us where he intends to hide the subsidy.

Now show us the price tag.

Qadaffi2idiamin:
I call them financial terrorists. That's exactly what this administration is.

Armed robbers are now walking freely in Abuja and creating fake agencies of government

Typical Dodge-and-Derail again.

We are discussing Atiku's subsidy VOODOO economics , not conducting a general review of every senseless allegation against the Tinubu administration.

Atiku previously described the subsidy system as “a fraud” and campaigned on removing it. He maintained essentially that position for years—his major criticism being the manner and sequencing of Tinubu's removal.

Then suddenly, in August 2026: “I WILL RESTORE SUBSIDY.” And within barely two days of questions flying, the simple “restore subsidy” promise had already acquired qualifications about being targeted, capped, production-based and audited. 😂

My brother, forget the “financial terrorists” excursion for a moment.WHAT EXACTLY IS ATIKU'S SUBSIDY POLICY?

This reminds me of a doctor who spent years telling us:“This cancer tumour must be removed.” Then suddenly announces: “I will restore the tumour.”

When everybody screams, *Doctor, WHAT?!* He quickly clarifies: “No, no, no. I mean targeted, capped and carefully monitored tumour restoration.”!😂😂

Please! You don't escape that contradiction by shouting about Abuja.

Atiku made the promise. Atiku changed the formulation. Let Atiku explain the economics.

Everything else is another attempt to change the subject because the original question has become uncomfortable.

anonimi:
He may participate in the debate if he has El Rufai and others in the room to delegate questions to, like he did in Chatham House when he was fighting for power, only to grab and run cluelessly with it like a headless pig 🐖.

Tinubu does not need to win a debating competition to win the argument over 2027. Atiku is the man with the bigger explanatory burden.

Tinubu's policies are no longer theoretical. Nigerians have lived with them. The pain, failures, improvements, costs and potential benefits can be examined against actual results.

Atiku is the one proposing an alternative. So if he says, “I will restore subsidy,”the burden is on him to explain the benchmark price, cost, funding, FX implications, treatment of local refiners, PIA implications and how he prevents arbitrage and smuggling.

And let's stop pretending otherwise: Public debating has never been Tinubu's strongest political weapon.

His supporters don't need to manufacture an orator that doesn't exist. His political strengths have traditionally been organisation, coalition-building, delegation, strategy and execution.
So why deliberately choose the battlefield on which your opponent believes he has an advantage when your record and your economic team can defend the policy? That's Politics 101: PLAY TO YOUR STRENGTHS. DON'T VOLUNTEER TO FIGHT ON YOUR OPPONENT'S CHOSEN TERRAIN.

If Dada cannot fight but has three brothers who can, Dada doesn't enter the village square merely to prove masculinity. He sends the brothers who know how to throw punches. 😂

Let Atiku debate Oyedele on tax and fiscal policy. Let him debate the economic team on FX. Let him explain subsidy restoration to the petroleum experts.

Meanwhile, Tinubu has something Atiku does not have: an actual presidential record to defend.

So 2027 should not principally be:“Who speaks better for two hours?”

It should be: Here is what Tinubu did. Here are the results. Here are the failures. Here is where the reforms are heading.

Then Atiku should present his alternative with numbers.

Because if Atiku's great advantage is that he can explain his economic programme better than Tinubu can—

excellent.

Start with the easiest question: WHAT EXACTLY WILL YOUR RESTORED PETROL SUBSIDY COST?

The microphone is yours.

lanreni:
I get it. It is above your reasoning capacity

ATIKU DEFENDERS ARE NOW BORROWING THE OBIDIENT DODGE-AND-DERAIL PLAYBOOK 😂 By CharlesNG.

This is becoming predictable. The thread is about Atiku calling Tinubu economically ignorant.

Helinue asks a perfectly relevant question:

Didn't Atiku also say he would remove subsidy before the last election? So what nonsense is he now saying?”

In other words: Atiku supported subsidy removal then. He promises restoration now. WHAT CHANGED?

But notice the typical DODGE & DERAIL response?

“I get it. It is above your reasoning capacity.” 😂😂😂. Notice the trick. The question entered. The answer disappeared.

No explanation. No economics. No reconciliation of Atiku's two positions.

Instead, attack the poster and hope he responds to the insult.

And because Nairaland prominently captures the latest response, if Helinues replies:

“Who has low reasoning capacity?” Bingo! The discussion moves from Atiku's subsidy contradiction [/b]to two posters arguing about intelligence. DODGE COMPLETE. DERAIL SUCCESSFUL. !!

It is like asking a student: “What is 7 × 8?” and getting: “You wouldn't understand my mathematics.”

My brother, nobody asked for your philosophy of mathematics. JUST GIVE US 56! 😂

So don't chase the insult. Drag the argument straight back: Forget Helinue' reasoning capacity. Answer his question.

Atiku wanted subsidy removed. Now Atiku wants subsidy restored. [b] WHAT CHANGED?

If you have an answer, give it. If you don't, insulting the person asking the question won't manufacture one.

AMINDA:
" Atiku, you don't know economics. Your governors are 10 times richer than before. Hold them akantable." - Cassius Clay

This argument reveals a surprisingly poor understanding of federalism.

Nigeria has three tiers of government. Once Federation revenue is distributed, President Tinubu cannot sit in Abuja and instruct Governor Otti, Soludo, Adeleke or any other governor how to spend his state's allocation.

If increased FAAC gives your governor more money and he builds roads, praise him.

If another governor receives more and wastes it, hold that governor accountable.

That is precisely what federalism means.
Anyone arguing otherwise id displaying CRASS IGNORANCE OF WHAT FEDERALISM REALLY IS.

Then comes the usual escape route: “What about presidential jets, SUVs, yacht, renovations…?”

Even if, purely for the purpose of argument, I throw all those controversial items into one basket, you are still talking of billions of naira FOR A ONE-OFF EXPENDITURE , not the trillions of naira every year required for a large universal petrol subsidy.

Suppose your family spends ₦1 million monthly and somebody discovers that Daddy bought a ₦2,000 meat pie.

You can legitimately ask:“Daddy, was that meat pie necessary?” But you cannot then conclude: “Aha! We have discovered why the family cannot pay ₦1 million in monthly bills!”😂

And none of it answers the question we are actually discussing:

ATIKU SAYS HE WILL RESTORE SUBSIDY. AT WHAT PRICE, AND WHO PAYS THE DIFFERENCE?

Yacht cannot answer it. Presidential jet cannot answer it. Governors cannot answer it.

Atiku made the promise. Let Atiku produce the arithmetic.

Atiku's defenders now say perhaps fuel subsidy will not return for everybody.
That is today's SUBSIDY version from a man who is totally confused as to what his Subsidy policy is.

And his supporter who cannot even keep the narration straight are now saying Maybe it will be targeted at commercial transporters.

Unfortunately, Nigeria has tried something remarkably similar before.

In 1989, under the Structural Adjustment Programme, government introduced a two-tier petrol system.

Commercial vehicles were supposed to buy petrol at 42 kobo per litre.

Private motorists paid 60 kobo. Special filling stations were designated for commercial operators.

What happened? Arbitrage happened.

The system was abused so badly that it was scrapped before the year ended.

And the reason is simple[b]. Once exactly the same litre of petrol has two different government-created prices[/b] , you have created a business opportunity.

Imagine today: Commercial transporter: ₦600/litre.Everybody else: ₦1,200/litre.

That ₦600 difference immediately becomes potential profit.

What stops somebody entitled to subsidised petrol from buying 100 litres at ₦600 and selling it at ₦900? He makes ₦30,000.

The buyer saves money. The government pays the subsidy.

Everybody wins— except the taxpayer.And how exactly will government police it? Will every danfo, taxi, keke and bus receive a fuel card?

How many litres daily? Who determines whether the vehicle actually carried passengers? What prevents commercial operators from reselling subsidised fuel? What prevents private cars from being registered as commercial vehicles simply to qualify?

What happens when filling-station attendants discover that subsidised petrol can be diverted into the normal market for enormous profit?

Nigeria already knows where large price gaps lead.

During the SAP years, Nigeria's artificially cheap petrol encouraged extensive smuggling to neighbouring countries. IMF research found that the price differential was the central incentive and estimated that as much as 20% of petrol allocated to Nigeria's domestic market was being smuggled abroad by 1993.

Later regulated-price systems produced the same basic pathology: shortages at official stations while petrol appeared in informal markets at much higher prices. That is the economics of arbitrage.

Where government creates two prices for the same fungible product, somebody eventually discovers how to buy at the cheaper price and sell at the expensive one.

Petrol has no fingerprint. Once it enters a jerrycan or tanker, nobody can tell whether it was subsidised for a bus driver, bought by a private motorist or intended for resale.

That is why targeted assistance is generally easier to defend when you subsidise **the person or the transport service**, rather than creating a second price for the petrol itself.

Support mass transit.



But creating **“poor man's petrol” and “rich man's petrol”** invites an enforcement nightmare.

Nigeria tried the experiment in 1989. It did not survive the year.

So before Atiku sells targeted petrol subsidy as a new idea, somebody should ask:

HOW WILL HIS VERSION DEFEAT THE SAME ARBITRAGE THAT KILLED THE OLD ONE?

Because changing the year from 1989 to 2027 does not change basic economics.

Put two prices on the same litre of petrol and you have not merely created a subsidy. You have created a market for the difference.

Atiku has no plan . He is coming up with daily versions of a subsidy policy he has not thought through.

Validated:
Atiku Abubakar says he will restore fuel subsidy.
But those five words create at least 15 major economic questions which Atiku has so far not answered.
SEE ANSWERS IN RED

That single promise immediately creates at least 15 questions .
THE 15 QUESTIONS
WHAT WILL PETROL ACTUALLY COST?
₦600? ₦700? ₦800? Without a benchmark price, nobody can even calculate the subsidy.
N600
WHAT HAPPENS TO DANGOTE REFINERY? No change, Dangote can export
Will Dangote sell below commercial cost, or will government pay the difference? Subsidy will pay
WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM? Stop feeding Chargori and what you you call saving today that is being swallowed by thieves
Higher taxes? Spending cuts? Oil revenue? Borrowing? You cannot subsidise petrol with grammar.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NEW MINIMUM WAGE AND OTHER RECURRENT OBLIGATIONS? No change, the minimum wage was 50%, petrol was 300% increase
Government cannot continuously add enormous recurrent expenditure without trade-offs.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE EXCHANGE RATE?[/b Llower with prudence, reduce ministers from 48 to 30
Market-reflective FX or special cheap dollars for petroleum? If cheap dollars return, do multiple exchange rates and arbitrage return with them?
[b]HOW DOES THIS FIT THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ACT? No change, NNPC is a company not Federal Corp
How will government-controlled subsidised pricing coexist with a commercially oriented downstream petroleum market?
WHAT HAPPENS TO CRUDE-FOR-NAIRA? Stop the senseless and useless APC failure program
Will domestic refiners receive discounted crude? If so, subsidy has not disappeared—it has merely moved upstream.
WHAT ABOUT PRIVATE MARKETERS?
Who reimburses them, at what rate and according to what formula?
WHAT CONSUMPTION NUMBER WILL GOVERNMENT PAY FOR?
Based on actual consumption at the pump. How is VAT determined if consumption is not known?
50 million litres daily? 60 million? Who determines legitimate consumption?
HOW WILL HE STOP SMUGGLING?
Tracking and monitoring, stop being lazily, get to work
Make Nigerian petrol dramatically cheaper than neighbouring countries and the border suddenly becomes an economic opportunity.
HOW WILL HE PREVENT ARBITRAGE?
Tighten process, how is Angola doing it?
If transporters receive cheaper petrol, what stops subsidised fuel entering the unsubsidised market?
WHO VERIFIES THE SUBSIDY?
Leave that to the relevant agency
NNPC? NMDPRA? Marketers? Another bureaucracy determining eligible litres and claims?
WHAT HAPPENS TO FAAC? Share what is received
If petroleum revenues are again consumed by subsidy before reaching the Federation Account, what happens to allocations to states and LGAs?
WHAT GETS SACRIFICED? Nothing, afterall Tinubu has added NOTHING
Roads? Rail? Education? Healthcare? Power? Every trillion spent somewhere is a trillion unavailable somewhere else.
OR WILL ATIKU SIMPLY BORROW THE MONEY? Has Tinubu not been borrowing with subsidy removed
If expenditure isn't cut and taxes aren't raised, does Nigeria simply put cheap petrol on the national credit card?

These are not academic questions.

They determine whether “I will restore subsidy” is an economic policy or merely a campaign slogan.

Over my subsequent CharlesCNG articles, I will examine each of these 15 questions in detail, using Nigeria's previous subsidy experience and the realities of today's petroleum market.

ATIKU HAS A PROMISE.
HE HAS NOT YET SHOWN US THE PLAN. HE MUST.

STOP WASTING YOUR TIME WITH LIMITED KNOWLEDGE

ATIKU'S 15 QUESTIONS: HIS DEFENDERS HAVE NOW ANSWERED WITH MORE QUESTIONS By CharlesCNG.

Somebody attempted to answer my 15 questions about Atiku's fuel-subsidy promise.

Unfortunately, most of the “answers” simply prove why the questions were necessary. and that THEY HAVE NOT ACTUALLY THOUGHT THIS THEIR SUBSIDY IDEA THROUGH.

1. BENCHMARK PRICE: “₦600”

Excellent. We finally have a number. Now the arithmetic begins.

At roughly 47–50 million litres daily consumption, every ₦100 subsidy per litre costs roughly ₦140–₦150 billion monthly.

So if market petrol is around ₦1,200 and Atiku wants ₦600 petrol, the gap is around ₦600 per litre. That means roughly ₦850–₦900 billion every month. Now answer the next question: WHO PAYS?

2. DANGOTE: “No change. Dangote can export. Subsidy will pay.”

Exactly. You have just admitted that government must pay the difference. So the subsidy has not made petrol cheaper economically.

It has merely transferred part of the bill from the motorist to the Treasury. And if Dangote can earn more exporting than selling subsidised petrol locally, what mechanism guarantees domestic supply?

3. FUNDING: “Stop feeding Chagoury and stop thieves.”

That is not a budget. Name the line items. How many trillions will be saved? When?

How much of it is legally available for recurrent petrol subsidy? You cannot finance ₦10 trillion-plus annual obligations with anger and adjectives.

4. MINIMUM WAGE: “No change.”

Again, not an answer. If subsidy adds hundreds of billions monthly to expenditure while wages, pensions, debt service and capital projects continue, something must give. Economics does not accept “no change” as a funding source.

5. EXCHANGE RATE: “Lower it with prudence. Reduce ministers.”

Reducing ministers from 48 to 30 will not magically determine the naira-dollar rate. aRE YOU JOKING? FX responds to reserves, exports, capital flows, liquidity, productivity and confidence. And if Atiku creates a special cheap FX rate for petroleum, then Nigeria risks recreating multiple exchange rates and arbitrage. “Prudence” is an aspiration. It is not an exchange-rate regime.

6. PIA: “No change. NNPC is a company.”

That completely misses the question. Section 205 of the Petroleum Industry Act says wholesale and retail petroleum prices should be based on unrestricted free-market pricing conditions. Whether NNPC is a company does not answer how government-administered subsidy pricing will coexist with that market-pricing framework.

7. CRUDE-FOR-NAIRA: “Stop the useless programme.”

Fine. Then what replaces it? Dollar-denominated crude sales to domestic refiners? Preferential crude? Market crude?

Each choice changes refinery costs and ultimately petrol prices. Deleting a policy is not the same as designing its replacement.

8. PRIVATE MARKETERS: NO ANSWER.

Who reimburses them? At what rate? How quickly? What happens when government owes them?

This is exactly how subsidy arrears and claims crises begin.

9. CONSUMPTION: “Use actual pump consumption.”

Excellent phrase. Now explain the system.

Nigeria's June 2026 consumption was around 47.4 million litres per day, while total supply was around 50.6 million litres per day.

Who captures every retail transaction nationwide?

How do you reconcile depot lifting, truck-out, retail sales, inventories and cross-border leakage? Comparing it casually to VAT does not solve the physical-product verification problem.

10. SMUGGLING: “Track and monitor.”

Wonderful. Nigeria has borders spanning thousands of kilometres. If petrol is ₦600 in Nigeria and materially more expensive next door, the price gap itself becomes the smuggler's profit margin. “Monitor harder” does not abolish arbitrage.

11. ARBITRAGE: “How is Angola doing it?”

Interestingly, Angola is doing the opposite of what you imply.

Angola has been phasing OUT broad fuel subsidies and moving prices closer to market levels, while using temporary fuel cards and targeted social support for vulnerable transport users. IMF reporting says Angola's reform aimed to align domestic fuel prices with international benchmarks and redirect resources to targeted assistance. So invoking Angola actually strengthens the case against restoring a broad low-price petrol regime.

12. VERIFICATION: “Leave that to the relevant agency.”

That is precisely how subsidy bureaucracy is born. Which agency? What rules? What audit trail? Who verifies litres? Who disputes claims?

Who investigates fraud? “Leave it to somebody” is not policy design.

13. FAAC: “Share what is received.”

Exactly. And if hundreds of billions are absorbed monthly before revenue reaches the Federation Account, then there is less to share. That is the point.

14. INFRASTRUCTURE: “Nothing gets sacrificed.”

This is perhaps the most economically revealing answer. Nothing? Not roads? Not rail? Not power? Not education? Not healthcare?

Not debt reduction? If government adds potentially ₦10 trillion or more annually and cuts nothing, raises nothing and borrows nothing, then congratulations: You have discovered free money.

15. BORROWING: “Tinubu borrows too.”

That is not a defence of Atiku.
If you believe Tinubu borrows too much, then promising another massive recurrent subsidy without identifying a funding source makes Atiku's argument weaker, not stronger. You cannot condemn borrowing and then propose a policy that may require even more borrowing.

So after all 15 “answers,” we are back where we started.

Atiku says petrol will be cheaper.

But the real questions remain:

WHAT IS THE FULL COST? WHO PAYS?WHAT GETS CUT? WHAT HAPPENS TO FX? WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PIA? WHO VERIFIES CONSUMPTION?

WHO STOPS ARBITRAGE?

His defenders keep responding with phrases like:“Be prudent.” “Stop corruption.” “Monitor.” “Leave it to the agency.” “Nothing will change.”

Those are not mechanisms. They are wishes.

Limited Knowledge. Full knowledge. No Knowledge.

Something is now obvious.... Atiku is has NO SUBSIDY PLAN. ATIKU wants to destroy the nigerian economy with VOODOO.

Streetinvestor2:
Atiku did not say he was going to subsidise Dangote Refinery. He said he will subsidise the cost of fuel Nigerians use as we buy it at Dangote price. How did subsidy affect the Refineries that we whr buying it from when Dangote Refinery was not operating. Is Dangote Refinery servicing only Nigerian market. How about when we allocated a particular quentity of crude to be refined for Nigerians.
Do this people think we don't have senses now because baron is president. All is needed is to get the right consumption of Nigerians daily and not the bloated figures by drug baron and his criminality apc party and subsidise it.Then check mate the corruption of taking it to neighbouring countries to sell. It is not rocket science for a serious government to handle and implement

The problem with your defence of Atiku VOODOO economics is that Atiku has now clarified his own proposal—and it is NOT what you are describing.

Atiku’s team NOW says the subsidy will “move subsidy from importation to production” !! and that qualifying Nigerian refineries, public and private, will receive crude at preferential prices , tied to verified domestic production and lower consumer prices. In other words, Dangote and other refineries are directly inside the subsidy mechanism.

So saying, “Atiku did not say he would subsidise Dangote” is simply outdated. The have made another u-turn!

And there is another problem. The PIA says wholesale and retail petroleum prices should be based on unrestricted free-market pricing conditions, while wholesale transactions are supposed to be negotiated transparently on an arm’s-length basis.
So the questions remain:

* What exactly is the preferential crude price?
* How much below market price will Dangote receive crude?
* Who pays that difference?
* What volume qualifies?
* How is “verified Nigerian consumption” determined?
* What happens when crude prices rise?
* What happens when the naira weakens?
* How do you stop cheaper Nigerian petrol from being diverted or smuggled?
* How does this preferential pricing sit with the PIA’s free-market framework?

And “just checkmate corruption and smuggling” is not a mechanism. That is like saying: “Just stop armed robbery.”

This latest Atiku's subsidy rigmarole idea is even more nonsensical than the one of YESTERDAY,

The moment identical petrol has two economic values—one subsidised for Nigerian consumption and another reflecting commercial/export value—you create an arbitrage opportunity. The bigger the price gap, the bigger the incentive to divert it.

The really ironic part is this:You say it is “not rocket science.”

Exactly. Then Atiku should have no difficulty telling Nigerians one elementary number: WHAT IS THE BENCHMARK PRICE?

CONFUSED and DESPERATE Atiku has announced the destination without showing Nigerians the vehicle, the route—or the fare.

I watched Paul Ibe spend almost an entire edition of Trust TV’s Daily Politics explaining Atiku Abubakar’s latest subsidy U-turn.

Let me first be fair. Abdullahi Ahmed asked good questions. Very good ones, actually.

He challenged Atiku’s 20-year history of advocating subsidy removal., He asked about Dangote Refinery. He asked where the crude would come from. He asked about lost forex. He asked what happens to infrastructure, education and healthcare.

He raised FAAC and state salaries. He asked whether government would fix pump prices.

And when Paul Ibe said crucial pricing details would be “worked out,” Abdullahi practically asked whether the policy was becoming a guessing game.

Good journalism. But that actually creates an even bigger opportunity.

Because after almost 50 minutes, Atiku’s proposal still leaves a remarkable number of basic questions unanswered.

For example: What exactly will petrol cost? ₦600? ₦700? ₦800?

How much below international price will crude be sold to refiners? Who absorbs that difference?

What happens to crude-for-naira? What happens to private marketers?

What daily consumption figure will government subsidise?

50 million litres? 60 million?

How do you prevent smuggling once Nigerian petrol becomes substantially cheaper than neighbouring countries?

How do you prevent arbitrage? Who verifies every subsidised barrel and every claim? How does this fit into the Petroleum Industry Act and a commercially oriented downstream market?

What happens to FAAC when crude revenue is deliberately surrendered upstream? What gets sacrificed—roads, healthcare, education, power?

And if expenditure is not cut and taxes are not raised: WILL ATIKU BORROW THE MONEY?

These are not hostile APC questions. They are the questions any serious economic proposal should survive.

And the interview itself showed why they matter.

At one point Paul Ibe described the policy as:“It’s a win-win. No downside.”

No downside?

A policy involving discounted crude, foregone export earnings, public budgeting, domestic refiners, FAAC and pump prices has no downside?

That should have triggered another 20 minutes of questioning by itself. 😂

So my criticism is not that Abdullahi failed to challenge him. He did.

My point is that Paul Ibe’s answers created even more questions than they resolved.

Which brings me back to Trust TV. WHERE IS THE EDITORIAL EQUIVALENCY?

Atiku’s spokesman gets the chair and the long-form explanation.

Government critics are supplemented with clips. The Presidency gets a quoted response.

But where is the equivalent live guest to take Paul Ibe’s “win-win, no downside” claim apart line by line?

Where is the economist or government policy voice to ask the remaining questions?

Where is the follow-up programme devoted to the unanswered arithmetic?

Because tough questioning is good. But tough questioning plus an equally strong contrary voice is better.

A referee may question one striker aggressively—

but if only one team is allowed onto the pitch, we still don’t have a match.

And Atiku’s subsidy proposal still has at least 15 questions waiting for serious answers.

ATIKU PROMISES CHEAPER FUEL—BUT HIS SPOKESMAN CAN’T YET SAY WHAT CRUDE WILL COST

Atiku Abubakar says he will restore fuel subsidy.
But those five words create at least 15 major economic questions which Atiku has so far not answered.

That single promise immediately creates at least 15 questions .
THE 15 QUESTIONS
WHAT WILL PETROL ACTUALLY COST?
₦600? ₦700? ₦800? Without a benchmark price, nobody can even calculate the subsidy.
WHAT HAPPENS TO DANGOTE REFINERY?
Will Dangote sell below commercial cost, or will government pay the difference?
WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM?
Higher taxes? Spending cuts? Oil revenue? Borrowing? You cannot subsidise petrol with grammar.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NEW MINIMUM WAGE AND OTHER RECURRENT OBLIGATIONS?
Government cannot continuously add enormous recurrent expenditure without trade-offs.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE EXCHANGE RATE?
Market-reflective FX or special cheap dollars for petroleum? If cheap dollars return, do multiple exchange rates and arbitrage return with them?
HOW DOES THIS FIT THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ACT?
How will government-controlled subsidised pricing coexist with a commercially oriented downstream petroleum market?
WHAT HAPPENS TO CRUDE-FOR-NAIRA?
Will domestic refiners receive discounted crude? If so, subsidy has not disappeared—it has merely moved upstream.
WHAT ABOUT PRIVATE MARKETERS?
Who reimburses them, at what rate and according to what formula?
WHAT CONSUMPTION NUMBER WILL GOVERNMENT PAY FOR?
50 million litres daily? 60 million? Who determines legitimate consumption?
HOW WILL HE STOP SMUGGLING?
Make Nigerian petrol dramatically cheaper than neighbouring countries and the border suddenly becomes an economic opportunity.
HOW WILL HE PREVENT ARBITRAGE?
If transporters receive cheaper petrol, what stops subsidised fuel entering the unsubsidised market?
WHO VERIFIES THE SUBSIDY?
NNPC? NMDPRA? Marketers? Another bureaucracy determining eligible litres and claims?
WHAT HAPPENS TO FAAC?
If petroleum revenues are again consumed by subsidy before reaching the Federation Account, what happens to allocations to states and LGAs?
WHAT GETS SACRIFICED?
Roads? Rail? Education? Healthcare? Power? Every trillion spent somewhere is a trillion unavailable somewhere else.
OR WILL ATIKU SIMPLY BORROW THE MONEY?
If expenditure isn't cut and taxes aren't raised, does Nigeria simply put cheap petrol on the national credit card?

These are not academic questions.

They determine whether “I will restore subsidy” is an economic policy or merely a campaign slogan.

Over my subsequent CharlesCNG articles, I will examine each of these 15 questions in detail, using Nigeria's previous subsidy experience and the realities of today's petroleum market.

ATIKU HAS A PROMISE.
HE HAS NOT YET SHOWN US THE PLAN. HE MUST.

anonimi:
ADC manifesto is simply about bringing back 16 years of PDP prosperity, peace and security with cheap petrol, cheap dollars and less debt burden, inspired by genuine deregulation and privatisation unlike the balablu bulaba abracadabra magic of Tinubu and APC.

How long did it take to crash telecom prices after GSM licences were auctioned out in 2001? Why has Tinubu failed to crash petrol prices as he promised almost four years ago? Do you know? Any idea why?

This is a false equivalence twice over: telecoms are not petrol, and “genuine deregulation” is not government guaranteeing cheap prices.

Nigeria’s telecom revolution worked because government opened the market to competing operators, while technology, massive network expansion and economies of scale gradually drove costs down. Prices did not magically crash immediately after the 2001 auction. Calls started around ₦50 per minute; serious competitive pressure intensified after Globacom entered in 2003, and tariffs declined over subsequent years. SIM costs likewise fell dramatically over time.

Petrol is completely different. Its principal raw material—crude oil—is an internationally traded commodity. Refiners compete, but they cannot competitively “innovate” the global crude price away. Their naira costs also move with the exchange rate. If crude rises or the naira weakens, domestic petrol economics change.

And here is the contradiction that destroys the argument:

You cannot promise “genuine deregulation” and simultaneously promise Nigerians administratively cheap petrol and cheap dollars.

Deregulation means allowing prices to reflect supply, demand and competition.