Reform without relief: Tinubu’s 2027 bid under threat as hardship fuels populism

…Populism dangerous for economy, investment – Analysts warn

…Atiku, others capitalising on citizens’ misery

…Tinubu, governors in aggressive push to ease Nigerians’ pain

For three years, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s economic reforms have demanded patience from Nigerians.

The removal of petrol subsidy on his first day in office and the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market were presented as necessary measures to rescue an economy burdened by weak revenues, rising debt, distortions and an expensive subsidy regime.

The reforms have since altered Nigeria’s fiscal and monetary landscape. Government revenues have increased, foreign exchange liquidity has improved, inflation has begun to moderate from its recent highs, while the government says investor confidence is returning.

But for millions of Nigerians, the most important measure of economic performance remains what their income can buy. On that score, the reforms have produced a more complicated story.

Petrol, which sold for about N200 per litre before subsidy removal, now costs more than N1,200 in many parts of the country. The naira has lost substantial value since the foreign exchange market was liberalised, while transport, food, housing and other essentials have become more expensive.

Reform without relief

The Tinubu administration inherited an economy weighed down by petrol subsidies, foreign exchange distortions, high debt-service obligations and weak government revenues.

Under the subsidy regime, government spent heavily to keep petrol prices low, even as public finances came under pressure. The policy also created opportunities for arbitrage and smuggling and limited resources available for infrastructure and social services.

The reforms therefore addressed genuine structural problems. But structural correction does not automatically translate into immediate welfare gains.

Subsidy removal transferred a major cost from the government balance sheet to consumers, while the naira adjustment increased the cost of imported goods, machinery and raw materials. These costs filtered through to transportation, food and other consumer prices.

The Federal Government says the reforms are now generating resources that can finance development.

It recently disclosed that about N15.8 trillion had accrued to the country from subsidy removal, with Finance Minister Taiwo Oyedele saying N5.4 trillion went to the Federal Government while N10.4 trillion was shared among states and local governments.

The argument is that money previously spent subsidising consumption can now support infrastructure and productive investment.

But the political question is whether Nigerians can see the benefits.

The World Bank estimates that the number of Nigerians living below the national poverty line increased from about 125 million in 2023 to an estimated 143 million in 2026.

That creates a difficult environment for an incumbent seeking re-election.

When hardship becomes political capital

Populism tends to gain ground when there is a disconnect between government policy and lived experience.

In Nigeria, opposition politicians now have a straightforward message: while government reports stronger revenues and improving macroeconomic indicators, ordinary Nigerians are struggling to make ends meet.

Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has offered perhaps the clearest example.

Atiku, who has for years argued that petrol subsidy should be removed, has now promised to restore it if elected in 2027.

“On the question of subsidy…, I will restore it! A nation as blessed as ours has no business abandoning its citizens to hardship. Nigeria is rich enough to look after her own,” Atiku said.

He added: “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians. When fuel rises, transport rises. When transport rises, food rises. When food rises, families suffer.”

The appeal is straightforward. For a commuter paying more to get to work, a farmer struggling with transportation costs or a household spending an increasing share of its income on food, the technical arguments for subsidy removal can seem distant from daily reality.

The question becomes less about whether subsidy was fiscally sustainable and more about whether its removal has improved their lives.

Atiku has also promised to reopen some land borders, particularly in northern Nigeria, another proposal likely to resonate with communities affected by restrictions on cross-border commerce.

The battle over the reform agenda

The administration has responded by warning that reversing the reforms could return Nigeria to the fiscal weaknesses that made the old system unsustainable.

“I saw one of my opponents now say he will go back to subsidy. I read it. That is a demonstration of serious ignorance on governance and economy,” Tinubu said in reaction to Atiku’s statement.

The Independent Media and Policy Initiative (IMPI) has also warned that Nigeria could lose projected foreign direct investment of more than $50 billion if a future administration restores fuel subsidy.

The concern comes as the government seeks to attract long-term capital into the petroleum sector. Tinubu recently signed the Deep Offshore Oil and Gas Projects Incentives (Tax Remission) Order, 2026, which the government says is designed to unlock up to $50 billion in petroleum-sector investment by replacing project-by-project negotiations with clearer rules.

The government’s argument is that removing distortions and attracting investment will eventually increase production, create jobs and expand revenues.

But the political timetable is shorter than the economic timetable. An investment decision made today may take years to translate into production and employment. Higher petrol prices, however, are felt immediately.

That asymmetry gives populist politics an advantage.

John Okiyi Kalu, a public affairs analyst, warned that electoral calculations could undermine economic policy.

“Populism may win votes, but who pays the price? I see what Atiku is doing, and I hope his rivals-and Nigerians generally, are seeing it too. From promising to reintroduce fuel subsidy to proposing the reopening of borders, particularly in the North, he is making calculated moves aimed at winning over specific constituencies.

“Smart politics, perhaps. But potentially dangerous for Nigeria if political calculations begin to override sound economic policy. Nigeria must not become a laboratory for populist policies simply because they are electorally attractive,” he said.

Festus Keyamo, the aviation minister, also dismissed Atiku’s strategy.

“Atiku Abubakar is going for broke, like in a gambling game; he is throwing everything in, even if they don’t make sense. It is his last attempt (according to him), so this is expected. It spices up the race, and we are loving it. Nice try, but unfortunately for Atiku, Nigerians have since crossed the Rubicon,” Keyamo said.

Making the reforms felt

The administration is increasingly trying to shift the conversation from macroeconomic indicators to direct relief.

One example is its renewed emphasis on compressed natural gas (CNG) as a cheaper alternative to petrol.

After meeting with governors on Thursday, Tinubu said measures were being developed to reduce transportation costs through CNG and electric vehicles.

“A vehicle running on CNG spends 60 to 80 percent less on fuel than one running on petrol,” Tinubu said.

“From October 1, our goal is that Nigerians begin to partake in those savings through lower transport fares.”

The promise captures the administration’s central challenge. It is no longer enough to explain why the old system was unsustainable. The government must demonstrate what Nigerians are receiving in return.

2027 and the reform dividend

The economic contest ahead of 2027 is therefore likely to revolve around a simple question: who can convince Nigerians that economic policy will improve their lives?

Tinubu’s argument is that reversing the reforms risks returning Nigeria to the fiscal weaknesses that made subsidy and foreign exchange distortions unsustainable.

His opponents have a simpler proposition: whatever the long-term benefits, Nigerians cannot continue to endure hardship while waiting for them.

Both arguments have political appeal.

For Nigerians who have borne the immediate cost of adjustment for three years, the question is increasingly simple: when does the reform dividend arrive?

The answer could determine whether Tinubu receives political credit for repairing Nigeria’s economy or whether the hardship associated with the repair becomes the foundation of a populist backlash in 2027.