Campaigns: Nigerians Deserve Explanations More Than Promises

With the Independent National Electoral Commission opening the doors for the January 16, 2027 presidential election campaigns, political activities have begun in earnest across the country. Early canvassing is already underway. As has become customary, this is the season of expansive promises. Yet in a political environment defined in recent years by economic hardship and dwindling public trust, Nigerians are asking for more than assurances. They are asking for explanations.

The administration of President Bola Tinubu has, since 2023, pursued two far-reaching economic reforms: the removal of fuel subsidy and the floating of the naira. Both policies have imposed significant costs on households and businesses. The government maintains that they are necessary to correct distortions that have held back the economy for decades. Alongside these, it has introduced the Nigerian Education Loan Fund, NELFUND, an interest-free facility designed to enable students from less privileged backgrounds to access tertiary education, with repayment to commence only after graduation and gainful employment.

But the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has proposed alternatives to some of these measures, and those proposals merit serious consideration because they speak directly to the anxieties of citizens. On fuel subsidy, he has spoken of a reversal through what he described as a producer-based subsidy, under which crude would be sold to domestic refiners at a discount. On education financing, he has suggested converting NELFUND loans to grants, arguing that young graduates should not begin working life saddled with debt. He has also canvassed the opening of borders for freer sub-regional trade, and during the 2019 campaign he proposed the sale of the four dormant state-owned refineries.

It is important to state at the outset that none of these ideas should be dismissed out of hand. They are responses to real problems. What is required, however, is a deeper articulation of how they will be implemented, funded and sustained.

Consider the proposal on subsidy. Nigeria’s membership of OPEC and existing crude-for-loan commitments mean that a substantial portion of the country’s oil production is already encumbered. If a new subsidy regime is to be run through local refiners, where will the feedstock come from and at what cost to the treasury? What mechanisms will be deployed to prevent a recurrence of the inefficiencies that characterised the previous regime, including long queues, round-tripping and the smuggling of petroleum products across our borders? These are not rhetorical questions. They are the fiscal and logistical details on which the credibility of the proposal will rest.

The call to open borders more fully also raises practical concerns. In the past, significant differentials in fuel prices between Nigeria and neighbouring countries created incentives for large-scale smuggling, with the effect that Nigerian taxpayers were indirectly subsidising consumption elsewhere. Any plan to liberalise border trade must therefore be accompanied by a clear strategy for managing arbitrage and protecting domestic supply.

On NELFUND, the impulse behind the proposal to convert loans to grants is understandable. It is difficult to justify burdening young people with debt at a time of high unemployment. But grants are a budgetary item. Where will the resources come from, and how will disbursement be targeted to ensure that support gets to those who need it most, rather than becoming another generalised benefit? Across the world, student loan schemes endure because they are designed to be self-sustaining. Nigeria may well need a hybrid approach: well-targeted grants for the most vulnerable students, and a reformed loan system tied to expanded job opportunities and humane repayment terms.

The question of the refineries cannot be ignored either. The proposal made in 2019 to concession or sell the four moribund facilities remains relevant. If private capital, as demonstrated by the Dangote Refinery, can deliver efficiency and scale, then government should explore similar arrangements for public assets, under a regulatory framework that protects the public interest. That may offer a more durable path to price stability than a return to subsidy.

Nevertheless, accountability must be two-sided. The Tinubu administration is also obligated to provide Nigerians with clarity. How was the reported N600 billion disbursed to 10 million households? What is the breakdown by state and by programme? Also, the government has stated that more than N15 trillion has been saved from subsidy removal. Citizens are entitled to know how those funds have been deployed. They are also entitled to know why borrowing has continued at a significant pace despite those savings, and what exactly to expect from the promised reduction in transportation costs from October.

We urge other presidential hopefuls, including Mr Peter Obi of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, Mr Donald Duke of the Peoples Redemption Party and Mr Omoyele Sowore of the African Action Congress,to also subject themselves to the same scrutiny. The electorate needs to know their positions on subsidy, refinery management, education financing, security and border policy. More importantly, they need to know how these positions will be funded and what deliverables can reasonably be expected within the first months of a new administration.

Elections cannot continue to be decided by rhetoric and symbolism. The Nigerian voter in 2027 is more informed and more demanding. The minimum expectation is that those who seek office will respect that intelligence by presenting not just what they intend to do, but how they intend to do it. That is the difference between campaigning and governing.