A chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Kola Ologbondiyan, says the removal of fuel subsidy is taking a heavy toll on Nigerians, amid the continuing pressure of rising living costs.
Mr Ologbondiyan made the comment while discussing the economic impact of the Federal Government’s fuel subsidy policy and the approach that would have been adopted by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.
He argued that the removal of the subsidy should have been handled more gradually to prevent a sudden increase in the cost of living and minimise its impact on ordinary Nigerians.
According to him, Mr Atiku would have adopted a staggered approach to subsidy removal, rather than implementing the policy in one sweeping move.
The debate over fuel subsidy has remained a major political and economic issue in Nigeria since President Bola Tinubu announced its removal shortly after taking office in May 2023. The policy was intended to reduce government spending and redirect public funds towards other areas of the economy, but it also contributed to a sharp increase in petrol prices and living costs.
Mr Ologbondiyan, who served as the Peoples Democratic Party’s national publicity secretary, has previously argued that Mr Atiku’s proposed approach would have involved a more carefully managed and phased withdrawal of the subsidy.
He said the immediate concern should be how to protect Nigerians from the economic consequences of reforms while ensuring that government policies translate into tangible improvements in people’s lives.
The comments come as Nigeria heads towards the 2027 general election, with economic hardship, inflation, fuel prices and living standards expected to feature prominently in the political campaign.
Mr Atiku is among the leading opposition figures challenging President Tinubu, as the ADC seeks to build support ahead of the presidential election. Recent analysis of Nigeria’s political landscape has identified economic hardship and insecurity among the key concerns likely to influence voters.
The government, however, maintains that the subsidy removal was necessary to address longstanding distortions in the economy, improve government revenue and attract investment.
The controversy over the policy is therefore expected to remain a central issue in the unfolding 2027 presidential contest, with opposition parties using its impact on household finances as part of their case for political change.
