A Nigerian US-based Professor of African History, Prof. Moses Ochonu, has criticised the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), Peter Obi, over his continued support for the removal of fuel subsidy, arguing that the position could hurt his electoral prospects in the forthcoming election.
Ochonu, in a Facebook post, said the issue of fuel subsidy removal and its aftermath could play a decisive role in the election, particularly among voters whose choices are shaped by economic conditions and political sentiments.
According to him, Obi’s position has now created a clear ideological divide among the leading presidential contenders, with Obi and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the side of subsidy removal, while Omoyele Sowore and Atiku Abubakar favour its restoration.
He argued that although Obi could earn some credit for maintaining consistency on the issue, such consistency may not necessarily translate into electoral gains, especially given the hardship Nigerians have experienced since the subsidy was removed.
“The problem with Peter Obi’s position is that apart from a few points he may get for consistency, which rarely translates to electoral fortunes, his defense of subsidy removal is neither good politics nor good policy,” Ochonu stated.
He maintained that public sentiment had shifted significantly against subsidy removal because Nigerians had experienced what he described as the negative consequences of the policy, including worsening economic hardship and rising poverty.
Ochonu also questioned the policy justification for subsidy removal, arguing that many of the benefits promised by the government had failed to materialise.
“The political sentiment in Nigeria has soured on subsidy removal because Nigerians have seen and are groaning from its aftermath,” he said, adding that “the policy side of subsidy removal too is now in tatters, discredited by the failure of any of its many promised benefits to materialize.”
The academic noted that Obi’s position might have made political sense in 2023, when subsidy removal had not yet been implemented and there was a strong elite consensus in favour of the policy.
However, he argued that the circumstances had changed considerably following the implementation of the policy and its impact on the cost of living.
“Obi’s position made some political and electoral sense in 2023, before we tried the subsidy removal gambit and at a time when there was a strong, if wrong, elite consensus on the side of removing subsidy,” Ochonu said.
He contended that having experienced the consequences of the policy, Obi should have reconsidered his position, describing subsidy removal as an “emotive and substantive electoral issue” that could shape the outcome of the next presidential election.
According to Ochonu, Obi’s attempt to distinguish his position from that of Tinubu by arguing that the problem lies in the alleged mismanagement of proceeds from subsidy removal may not resonate with ordinary voters.
He said Nigerians were unlikely to appreciate the nuance between supporting subsidy removal in principle and criticising how the proceeds were managed.
“Obi won’t get the benefit of nuance and differential minutiae, nor will he get the benefit of contrast with the incumbent,” he stated.
Ochonu consequently described Obi as being in a political “limbo,” arguing that his continued defence of subsidy removal had locked him into a position that had become unpopular with many Nigerians.
“He has locked himself into an unrewarding and discredited position on fuel subsidy, an emotive and substantive electoral issue that may define the next presidential elections,” he said.
The commentator, however, suggested that Obi’s continued stance might be deliberate, speculating that the former Anambra State governor could have concluded that President Tinubu was likely to secure re-election regardless of his position.
“Perhaps he has concluded, as many Nigerians have cynically done, that Tinubu is headed, by crooked means, to reelection anyway, so why change position on the most consequential economic issue of the day now,” Ochonu added.
The debate over fuel subsidy has remained one of Nigeria’s most contentious economic and political issues since its removal, with supporters arguing that the policy frees government resources for other priorities, while critics contend that its immediate and wider effects have imposed severe hardship on citizens.
Ochonu’s intervention therefore adds a fresh political dimension to the subsidy debate, particularly as presidential contenders position themselves on an issue likely to remain central to voters’ assessment of the economy and the direction of the country.
