By Abba Dukawa
Has President Bola Tinubu’s economic reform programme truly laid the foundation for prosperity, as the administration repeatedly argues? The next phase, the President says, should make that prosperity visible in Nigerians’ daily lives through lower living costs, more jobs, higher production, greater opportunities and rising household incomes.
That promise now faces a decisive test: Are Nigerians beginning to see the rewards of reform, and where exactly are the savings from subsidy removal going?.When petrol subsidy was removed in 2023, Nigerians were told the policy would eliminate waste, protect public finances and redirect scarce resources towards development. Citizens were asked to endure higher transport fares, rising food prices and increased household costs in the expectation that the sacrifice would eventually produce a stronger economy.
Three years later, that argument requires a rigorous public audit.
The latest financial disclosures from the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC) raise difficult questions. NNPC’s 2025 audited accounts show ₦11.2 trillion in receivables from the Federation, representing costs and advances incurred on behalf of government, including expenditure associated with securing the country’s oil and gas assets. That is about 57 per cent higher than the ₦7.13 trillion energy-security expense recognised in 2024.
There is an important question: the ₦11.2 trillion should not be interpreted as ₦11.2 trillion of new petrol subsidy spending in 2025. NNPC says no new energy-security expense was recognised during the year after reconciliation with government agencies. Nevertheless, its accounts show an energy-security-cost balance of about ₦8.67 trillion, alongside other amounts owed by the Federation.
That distinction is important, but it does not resolve the accountability issue. Instead, it underscores the need for greater transparency.
From petrol subsidy to energy-security expenditure. For years, government defended petrol subsidy as a way to shield Nigerians from the full cost of petroleum products. Critics countered that the system was expensive, inefficient and vulnerable to abuse.
In 2023, the subsidy regime was effectively dismantled. The case for doing so was straightforward: Nigeria could no longer afford to keep petrol artificially cheap while infrastructure, healthcare, education, electricity and social services remained underfunded.
Yet NNPC’s 2024 accounts reported ₦7.13 trillion in energy-security expenditure, compared with ₦4.8 trillion in 2023. The expenditure was widely associated with petrol subsidy or under-recovery.
Since then, the terminology has become more complex.
Energy-security costs, advances, Federation receivables and spending to protect oil and gas infrastructure now overlap in public discussions.
For ordinary Nigerians, however, the labels matter less than the scale of the obligation. Changing the classification of expenditure does not eliminate the obligation to explain it.
while government continues to assume substantial petroleum-related obligations, there must be a convincing explanation of where the corresponding public value is being created.
Nigeria should therefore establish a public-benefit test for major energy-security expenditure. Every major project should answer five questions:
What problem is being solved? How much public money is committed? Who receives it? What measurable outcome is expected? What independent evidence shows that the outcome was achieved?
The ₦11.2 trillion figure should prompt more than another political argument. It should trigger a detailed public accounting.
The Federal Government and NNPC should publish a full, independently verified account of the ₦11.2 trillion receivable and ₦8.67 trillion energy-security balance, including relevant contracts, beneficiaries, procurement processes, audit findings and measurable results.The National Assembly and the Auditor-General should subject the figures to rigorous public scrutiny, recover any improperly spent funds and hold responsible officials and contractors accountable.
Subsidy removal cannot be defended as fiscal reform if one opaque petroleum obligation is simply replaced by another.
Energy security is essential, but it must not become a blank cheque, a substitute subsidy or a mechanism for transferring public wealth to undisclosed beneficiaries.
Until Nigerians can see where the money went, what it achieved and who benefited, the promised dividends of subsidy removal will remain more a matter of faith than evidence.
Dukawa wrote in from Abuja and can be reached at abbahydukawa@gmail.com.
About The Author
