By Tola Balogun
Peter Obi has finally made one thing clear: he supports the removal of petrol subsidy by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Speaking at the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Annual General Conference in Port Harcourt, Obi said, “I subscribe and maintain that you need to remove subsidy. Mismanagement of the proceeds shouldn’t be the reason for not removing it.” He argued, however, that the resources released by subsidy removal have been mismanaged and that Nigerians should have been given alternative benefits from the money recovered.
That position deserves commendation insofar as it represents an acceptance of the fundamental economic logic behind President Tinubu’s decision.
But there is another question that must be asked: Where is the evidence that the resources released by subsidy removal have simply disappeared or been “mismanaged”?
It is one thing to make a political allegation. It is another thing to examine the records of what has actually been happening across Nigeria.
Subsidy Removal Was Never Supposed to Be Money Sitting in One Account
One important issue in this debate is the way subsidy savings are being discussed.
The resources released by subsidy removal became part of the broader fiscal resources available to the three tiers of government. According to the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, subsidy removal mobilised about ₦15.8 trillion between June 2023 and December 2025. The Federal Government’s share was about ₦5.4 trillion, while approximately ₦10.4 trillion went to states and local governments through the Federation Account.
Therefore, it is misleading to speak as though the entire ₦15.8 trillion is sitting somewhere under the personal control of President Tinubu waiting to be accounted for.
The money has flowed through the federation’s fiscal system and has supported government spending and investments at federal, state and local levels.
Indeed, immediately after the subsidy removal, the Tinubu administration established the Infrastructure Support Fund for the 36 states. The Federal Government specifically said the fund was designed to enable states to invest in transportation and farm-to-market roads, agriculture, healthcare, education, power and water resources.
That is already a direct answer to one of Obi’s arguments.
So, What Has the Government Been Doing?
Let us look beyond political speeches and examine the physical evidence.
Across the country, major road projects are either being reconstructed, dualised, rehabilitated or newly commenced under the Tinubu administration.
Among them are the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, the Sokoto-Badagry Superhighway, the Abuja-Kaduna-Zaria-Kano corridor, the Calabar-Abuja corridor, and several other strategic roads connecting different parts of the federation.
The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway alone is a massive national infrastructure project intended to improve connectivity along Nigeria’s coastline and stimulate trade, tourism and the blue economy. The Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation describes it as a 780-kilometre flagship project.
The Sokoto-Badagry project is equally significant because of its potential to connect communities and economic centres from the North-West to the South-West.
As of August 2026, the Minister of Works reported that different sections of the Sokoto-Badagry Superhighway were progressing at varying stages, including about 40 per cent completion in Sokoto, 60 per cent in Kebbi and 18 per cent in Ogun. He also highlighted work on the Trans-Sahara Trade Route linking Calabar to Abuja through Ebonyi, Benue, Kogi and Nasarawa.
These are not photographs of imaginary projects. They are physical projects being executed across the federation.
The South-West Is Also Feeling the Impact
Take the Ilesa-Ife-Ibadan axis.
The strategic road has received renewed federal attention, with the Tinubu administration approving and commencing reconstruction works on the corridor. The road is economically important because it connects communities and commercial centres across Osun and Oyo states and provides a vital connection into the wider South-West road network.
The administration has also recently flagged off the Osogbo-Iwo-Ibadan and Osogbo-Gbongan road projects, valued at approximately ₦114.85 billion and ₦101.81 billion respectively. These roads connect important agricultural and commercial communities and link into the wider Ife-Ibadan road network.
If the question is whether resources released by economic reforms are being translated into infrastructure, these developments cannot simply be wished away.
What About Abia and the South-East?
The story is not restricted to Lagos or the South-West.
In Aba, the reconstruction of Port Harcourt Road became one of the highly visible infrastructure stories of the Tinubu era. The 6.7-kilometre road was reconstructed and commissioned in 2025, transforming a major commercial artery that had suffered years of deterioration and flooding.
There are also ongoing federal road interventions across the South-East and South-South.
The broader point is that infrastructure spending is not being concentrated in one political region.
The administration’s road programme cuts across the six geopolitical zones.
Agriculture: Another Area Obi Mentioned
Peter Obi correctly identified agriculture as one of the areas where resources released from subsidy should benefit Nigerians.
But again, the question is whether government is doing anything in that direction.
The answer is yes.
The Infrastructure Support Fund established for states expressly included agriculture, including livestock and ranching interventions.
And beyond the infrastructure fund, the administration has continued to place agricultural production, food security, fertiliser availability, mechanisation and agricultural financing among its economic priorities.
Even at the state level, the increased resources available through the federation have allowed states to undertake agricultural interventions that were previously difficult to finance.
The question should therefore not merely be, “Where is the subsidy money?”
A more intellectually honest question is:
What additional resources became available after subsidy removal, how were they distributed among the three tiers of government, and what did each tier do with them?
That is a much more useful question for national accountability.
Healthcare and Education Are Also Part of the Equation
Obi also mentioned healthcare and education.
Again, these are legitimate priorities.
But it is inaccurate to suggest that the government has ignored them simply because Nigerians are still facing serious challenges in those sectors.
Nigeria can simultaneously acknowledge that its healthcare system needs more investment and recognise that government is investing in healthcare.
The same applies to education.
The Infrastructure Support Fund itself was explicitly designed to support basic healthcare and basic education at the state level.
This is why the debate must move beyond political rhetoric.
Government should be challenged to publish more detailed expenditure records. Nigerians deserve transparency.
But transparency should not be confused with the absence of expenditure.
The Most Important Development May Actually Be Economic Stability
There is another dimension of the Tinubu reforms that deserves attention: macroeconomic stability.
Interestingly, this is where a voice that cannot easily be dismissed as a Tinubu partisan has recently made an important observation.
Oby Ezekwesili, a former minister and one of the prominent Nigerians associated with the political space that has strongly supported Peter Obi, recently acknowledged that the Tinubu administration has achieved macroeconomic stability and stabilised the foreign exchange market, while stressing that more needs to be done to bring the benefits of the reforms to ordinary Nigerians.
That observation is significant.
Economic reform is not only about roads one can photograph.
It is also about stabilising the economic environment in which businesses operate, reducing fiscal distortions, improving government revenues, rebuilding foreign-exchange confidence and creating the conditions for investment.
The fact that Nigerians are still experiencing hardship does not automatically mean that every reform is failing.
Similarly, the existence of economic stability does not mean Nigerians should stop demanding better living conditions.
Both things can be true at the same time.
Obi’s Criticism Needs More Evidence
This is where I respectfully disagree with Peter Obi.
It is perfectly legitimate for an opposition politician to scrutinise President Tinubu.
It is even necessary.
But when a politician says that the proceeds of subsidy removal have been “mismanaged and stolen,” the burden of proof becomes much higher.
Where are the detailed figures?
Which specific allocation was mismanaged?
Which project was supposed to be funded from a particular amount of subsidy savings and was abandoned?
How much money was stolen?
By whom?
Through which agency?
Under which budget?
These are the questions Nigerians deserve answers to.
Without such evidence, the allegation risks becoming another political talking point.
The Tinubu Administration Must Also Accept Accountability
This is not an argument that President Tinubu’s government should be immune from criticism.
Far from it.
The administration must continue to publish clear records showing how additional revenues generated by its reforms are being utilised.
Every naira saved from waste or made available through subsidy reform must be subjected to public scrutiny.
Government must also do more to ensure that Nigerians feel the benefits of economic reform in their pockets.
Inflation, food prices, unemployment and the cost of living remain serious concerns.
Roads alone cannot feed a family.
Macroeconomic stability alone cannot pay a child’s school fees.
And government statistics alone cannot replace the lived experience of ordinary Nigerians.
But the existence of hardship does not justify denying visible development.
We Must Not Destroy Progress Because We Dislike the Government
This is perhaps the most important point.
Nigeria has spent decades complaining about the absence of infrastructure.
Now that major infrastructure projects are being executed across different regions, we should not pretend they do not exist simply because we do not support the political party in power.
The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway exists.
The Sokoto-Badagry corridor is being developed.
The Ilesa-Ife-Ibadan road is receiving attention.
The Osogbo-Iwo-Ibadan and Osogbo-Gbongan projects have commenced.
Major roads across the North, South-West, South-East and South-South are receiving federal intervention.
The Infrastructure Support Fund was created for states.
Agriculture, healthcare, education, power, water and transportation were identified as priority areas.
These are facts that deserve acknowledgement.
Opposition Should Criticise, But It Should Also Be Fair
Peter Obi has every constitutional and political right to challenge President Tinubu.That is the essence of democracy.
But opposition should not become an obligation to describe every government action as failure.
If President Tinubu does something right, it should be acknowledged.
If he does something wrong, it should be condemned.
That is how mature democracies function.
And Obi’s recent statement at the NBA conference actually provides an opportunity for that maturity.
He has now accepted the fundamental principle behind subsidy removal.
The next step should be a serious debate about how the additional resources have been deployed, rather than an unsubstantiated conclusion that they have simply been mismanaged.
The Nigerian people deserve facts, figures and evidence—not political assumptions.
Conclusion
Peter Obi is right on one important point: Nigeria cannot afford to return to the old, unsustainable subsidy regime simply because the implementation of reform has been painful.
But if he wants Nigerians to believe that the resources released by subsidy removal have been mismanaged, he must provide more than an assertion.
He must show the records.
Because on the other side of the argument are roads being reconstructed, highways being dualised, agricultural programmes being expanded, healthcare and education interventions being funded, states receiving additional resources, and an economy that even one of his prominent ideological allies, Oby Ezekwesili, has acknowledged has achieved a measure of macroeconomic stability.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu should not be above scrutiny.
But neither should his achievements be beneath recognition.
Nigeria needs an opposition that holds government accountable without deliberately undermining genuine progress.And Nigeria needs a government that does not merely point to projects, but continuously publishes the financial records behind them.
That is the balance democracy requires.
