The political battle ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election is taking shape around two increasingly contentious issues: the removal of petrol subsidy and the long-running controversy over power-sector spending during the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, now the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, has challenged the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute him if it has evidence connecting him to alleged irregularities in the multibillion-dollar power projects undertaken during the Obasanjo administration.
Atiku accused the Bola Tinubu administration of reviving old allegations as a distraction from questions surrounding the use of the fiscal resources created by the removal of petrol subsidy.
In a statement issued on Wednesday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said Nigerians had endured higher petrol prices, transportation costs and food prices on the understanding that the money previously spent on subsidy would be redirected towards development.
He therefore demanded greater transparency over how the government had used the resources freed by the subsidy reform.
“Where is the people’s money?” Atiku asked.
The former vice president also rejected attempts to associate him with alleged misuse of funds allocated to power-sector projects during the Obasanjo years.
The controversy, often referred to as the “$16bn power saga,” dates back to investigations conducted after Obasanjo left office in 2007. The figure itself has been disputed over the years, with earlier allegations putting the amount at about $11bn.
Atiku said he chaired the National Council on Privatisation as vice president but did not supervise the implementation of the disputed power projects.
According to him, successive governments have had almost two decades to investigate the allegations and bring charges if sufficient evidence existed.
He said he had repeatedly invited investigation and challenged the government to present any evidence of criminal conduct in court.
“If there is evidence that I stole public money, why has no government produced it before a court?” he asked.
Atiku added that he had spent much of the period since leaving office in opposition to successive administrations and argued that any government with evidence against him should use the appropriate legal channels.
“It is still not too late. Investigate me. Invite me. Produce the evidence. Prosecute me if you have a case. But propaganda cannot substitute for evidence,” he said.
The disputed power expenditure
The historical power-sector controversy has generated different figures and interpretations.
Reports from investigations into the sector have cited substantial allocations to the National Integrated Power Projects and the then Power Holding Company of Nigeria. One reported investigation found that about ₦1.2tn had been allocated to NIPP, while approximately ₦360.7bn had been paid to contractors by the time Obasanjo left office.
Another figure cited in reporting was about ₦273.65bn spent on PHCN between 1999 and 2007.
However, the figures should not automatically be interpreted as proof that the entire amount was stolen or wasted.
Obasanjo had previously disputed the suggestion that $16bn was simply squandered on power projects. He pointed to investigations and a presidential review which, according to accounts of his defence, found that only about $3.7bn of a $10bn budgeted amount had actually been disbursed, with the balance reportedly retained at the Central Bank of Nigeria.
The controversy has nevertheless remained politically useful, with opponents of the former administration repeatedly questioning the effectiveness and transparency of the expenditure.
Atiku turns subsidy removal into campaign issue
Atiku’s latest intervention is part of a broader effort to make the economic consequences of Tinubu’s reforms a major issue ahead of 2027.
Tinubu announced the removal of petrol subsidy shortly after assuming office in May 2023. The government argued that the subsidy had become too expensive and was placing unsustainable pressure on public finances.
The reform immediately resulted in a sharp increase in petrol prices and contributed to higher transportation and living costs.
Atiku now argues that Nigerians were asked to accept those sacrifices because the government promised that the resources released would be invested in programmes capable of improving their lives.
He said the government could not ask citizens to accept painful economic reforms while providing insufficient information about the use of the resulting fiscal savings.
Atiku also criticised what he described as preferential treatment for powerful economic interests through tax credits, waivers and other concessions.
“You cannot take relief away from the poor, celebrate the resulting revenue and then tell the same impoverished citizens that government intervention on their behalf is economically irresponsible while interventions benefiting powerful interests are called incentives,” he said.
The former vice president has increasingly advocated some form of targeted subsidy, arguing that government should restore purchasing power to Nigerians while domestic refining capacity and competition in the petroleum market improve.
Presidency accuses Atiku of changing position
The Presidency has responded by attacking both the substance and consistency of Atiku’s subsidy proposal.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, accused Atiku of changing or clarifying his position several times within a single week.
According to Onanuga, Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially indicated that Atiku would restore petrol subsidy and eventually phase it out.
Another aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently rejected that interpretation, saying Atiku’s position was that subsidy should remain until domestic refining increased, supply stabilised and market competition improved.
Atiku later described his proposal as a “targeted subsidy”.
The Presidency said the conflicting explanations raised questions about the precise nature of Atiku’s economic programme.
Onanuga challenged the opposition candidate to explain how the proposed subsidy would operate, how much it would cost, who would qualify and how the government would finance it.
He also questioned the basis for concentrating subsidy exclusively on petrol when crude oil refining produces numerous other petroleum products.
The Presidency argued that Nigeria’s cost-of-living crisis cannot be attributed solely to petrol prices. It pointed to other factors, including exchange-rate movements, insecurity, logistics, flooding and agricultural production costs.
That argument has some economic basis: petrol prices are an important component of transportation and inflation, but they are not the only forces driving Nigeria’s cost-of-living crisis.
APC challenges Atiku over ‘thieves’ allegation
The confrontation has also moved beyond economic policy into increasingly personal political attacks.
Atiku was recently quoted as saying that the 2027 election would be a contest against “thieves”, alleging that those in power had stolen the election and subsequently “stolen the economy”.
The All Progressives Congress responded by challenging him to take his allegations to court.
APC Director of Publicity Bala Ibrahim said that if Atiku had evidence that individuals had stolen public resources or manipulated elections, he should present the evidence before the judiciary.
The party also questioned why Atiku would seek another presidential mandate if he had lost confidence in the country’s judicial institutions.
The exchange illustrates the increasingly combative nature of the emerging 2027 campaign, with economic policy, corruption allegations and electoral legitimacy becoming intertwined.
NANS rejects return to old subsidy system
The National Association of Nigerian Students has also criticised Atiku’s proposal.
NANS President Akinteye Babatunde argued that the former subsidy regime was financially unsustainable and disproportionately benefited heavy fuel consumers while encouraging smuggling and other distortions.
He said the removal of subsidy was a difficult but necessary reform, but acknowledged that the government must demonstrate that the savings are being used effectively.
For NANS, the central issue is therefore not simply whether subsidy should be restored but whether the government can translate the resources released by its removal into improvements in education, healthcare, infrastructure, agriculture and other areas.
The organisation warned that returning to the previous system without addressing its structural weaknesses could recreate the same problems that led to its abolition.
A defining issue for 2027
The subsidy debate is likely to become one of the defining economic issues of the 2027 presidential election.
For the Tinubu administration, the argument is that Nigeria could not continue financing an expensive subsidy regime that placed enormous pressure on public finances while benefiting wealthier consumers disproportionately.
For Atiku and the opposition, the issue is increasingly about what Nigerians received in return for accepting the reform.
Both arguments contain elements of truth.
Subsidy removal created significant fiscal space for government, but it also imposed severe short-term costs on households. The success of the reform will therefore depend not only on the amount saved but on whether those resources produce visible improvements in living standards and public services.
The political question confronting Tinubu is whether his government can convincingly demonstrate those benefits before Nigerians vote in 2027.
For Atiku, the challenge is equally significant: if he wants to restore a targeted subsidy, he must explain exactly how it would work, who would receive it, how much it would cost and how he would prevent the abuses associated with the old system.
As the election approaches, the argument is likely to move beyond the simple question of whether subsidy should exist.
The bigger question will be who has the more credible plan for reducing the cost of living without returning Nigeria to an economically unsustainable subsidy regime—and who can convincingly account for the public resources already released by reform.