When President Bola Ahmed Tinubu announced on May 29, 2023, that “subsidy is gone,” Nigerians knew almost immediately that life was about to change.

It did.

The price of petrol jumped, transport fares followed, food became more expensive, businesses adjusted their prices and household budgets that were already stretched began to break under the pressure.

But there was another side to the policy.

The Federal Government said the removal of petrol subsidy would free money that had been swallowed by the system and redirect those resources into areas that matter to ordinary Nigerians  education, healthcare, infrastructure, security, agriculture and social programmes.

More than three years later, a fresh question is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore:

What has Nigeria actually gained from the money freed by subsidy removal?

The question has become even more relevant after the Federal Government recently disclosed that the removal of the petrol subsidy generated an estimated ₦15.8 trillion in resources for the Federation between June 2023 and December 2025.

But there is an important detail many Nigerians may not realise.

The ₦15.8 trillion was not sitting somewhere in Abuja in a special account waiting to be spent.

According to Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, the money represented resources that became available to the Federation after the government stopped funding the petrol subsidy.

The amount was distributed through the Federation Account, with ₦5.4 trillion going to the Federal Government, ₦6.5 trillion to states and ₦3.9 trillion to local governments.

That means almost two-thirds of the reported subsidy savings went to the sub-national governments.

And that is where the story becomes more complicated.

The money did not disappear — but Nigerians want to see the impact

For many Nigerians, the debate is no longer simply about whether subsidy removal saved money.

It is about whether the money has translated into something they can see, touch and feel.

A trader who spends more money transporting goods to the market does not experience “fiscal space” in the same way government officials describe it.

A civil servant struggling to pay rent does not necessarily feel the benefit of improved government revenue.

A student who cannot afford accommodation may care less about the size of government savings than whether education becomes more affordable.

And a family that spends a large portion of its income on food and transportation naturally wants to know what happened to the money that was previously being spent on fuel subsidies.

The Federal Government argues that the answer lies in a combination of investments, increased allocations and reforms.

The Ministry of Finance says the reforms created additional fiscal room for government and helped fund wages, infrastructure, electricity support, social programmes and other obligations. Its reform scorecard puts additional expenditure pressures between June 2023 and December 2025 at ₦30.6 trillion.

But that explanation also exposes another side of the story.

The government says it generated ₦15.8 trillion from subsidy savings, yet its additional expenditure was considerably higher.

According to the figures released by the government, the Federal Government had ₦20.4 trillion in incremental resources when subsidy savings, additional independent revenue and new borrowing were combined.

Against that, incremental expenditure reached about ₦30.64 trillion.

In other words, the subsidy savings did not create a huge pot of idle cash.

The money was absorbed into a much larger and more complicated fiscal picture.

So where did the money go?

According to the government's breakdown, the Federal Government's share of the subsidy savings was about ₦5.4 trillion.

States received about ₦6.5 trillion, while local governments received approximately ₦3.9 trillion.

That raises an uncomfortable accountability question.

If states and local governments received the larger share, what did they do with it?

The Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association (NECA) has already raised this concern, calling on states and local governments to account for the ₦10.4 trillion distributed to them from the resources generated after subsidy removal.

This is important because many of the services Nigerians complain about every day are not controlled exclusively by the Federal Government.

Primary healthcare, local roads, markets, basic education, sanitation, rural infrastructure and other services are heavily dependent on state and local governments.

So, if Nigerians are asking why the benefits of subsidy removal are not obvious, the answer cannot be found only in Abuja.

It must also be sought in the 36 states and 774 local government areas.

The government's argument: Nigerians are paying now for tomorrow

The Tinubu administration has consistently defended subsidy removal as a painful but necessary reform.

Government officials argue that continuing to subsidise petrol was financially unsustainable and that the money could be put to better use elsewhere.

The Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, recently warned that returning to the old subsidy regime could reverse the fiscal gains achieved since 2023.

He said the resources released by the reform had strengthened the ability of governments to fund infrastructure, security, agriculture, human capital and social interventions.

The government also points to investments in education.

The Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFund), for example, has become one of the administration's flagship interventions, providing loans to students who might otherwise struggle to finance higher education.

There have also been wage adjustments and the implementation of a new national minimum wage, while the government says billions have gone into infrastructure and other interventions.

The official reform scorecard reports about ₦6.47 trillion in additional expenditure on strategic infrastructure during the period under review.

There is also the issue of electricity.

The government says it spent approximately ₦3.14 trillion on electricity subsidies between June 2023 and December 2025, showing that even after petrol subsidy was removed, government continued to carry substantial subsidy-related costs elsewhere in the economy.

But ordinary Nigerians are still waiting for the “better tomorrow”

This is where official figures meet everyday reality.

The argument for subsidy removal was never simply that government would save money.

The promise was that the savings would ultimately produce a more productive economy and improve people's lives.

Advertisement

Yet for many households, the immediate experience has been painful.

Transport costs rose sharply.

Food distribution became more expensive because farmers and traders rely heavily on transportation.

Manufacturers faced higher operating costs.

Small businesses had to adjust prices to survive.

Workers began spending a larger portion of their salaries on transportation and food.

For a family living from one salary to the next, the economic argument can feel distant when the price of a bag of food rises faster than income.

This is why the subsidy debate remains politically explosive.

It is not just an argument about economics.

It is an argument about trust.

The 2027 question is already here

With the 2027 elections approaching, subsidy removal is increasingly becoming one of the issues likely to dominate political campaigns.

Opposition politicians have criticised the policy and some have proposed alternatives, including calls for a return to some form of subsidy.

The APC Professionals Forum, for example, recently defended the policy, arguing that reversing it could return Nigeria to the same fiscal problems that made the old subsidy system unsustainable.

But critics have a different question:

If subsidy removal was necessary, why are Nigerians still struggling so much?

That question cannot simply be dismissed as political opposition.

It deserves an evidence-based answer.

Because the success of any economic reform is ultimately measured not only by government accounts but also by what happens in people's lives.

The real test is not ₦15.8 trillion

The most important number may not actually be ₦15.8 trillion.

The real test is whether that money helped create jobs.

Whether children gained better access to education.

Whether hospitals became better equipped.

Whether roads improved.

Whether farmers became more productive.

Whether electricity became more reliable.

Whether transportation became more affordable.

Whether poverty declined.

Whether households became more financially secure.

And whether Nigerians can look back after several years and say: “Yes, the sacrifice was painful, but it was worth it.”

That is the difficult part of the conversation.

Government has now provided a financial explanation for the subsidy savings. But financial accounting is only one half of accountability.

The other half is showing Nigerians what those resources have achieved.

A new accountability conversation

Perhaps the next phase of the subsidy debate should therefore move away from the familiar argument of “subsidy versus no subsidy.”

Instead, Nigerians should be asking more specific questions.

How much additional money did each state receive?

What projects were funded with it?

How much went into salaries and recurrent expenditure?

How much went into roads, schools, hospitals and water?

What did local governments receive?

What did they spend it on?

Which projects were completed?

Which ones remain abandoned?

And most importantly, what measurable difference did those expenditures make in the lives of citizens?

The Federal Government has opened the books on the ₦15.8 trillion.

Now, perhaps, the states and local governments need to do the same.

Because for the ordinary Nigerian standing at a filling station, boarding a commercial bus, buying food in the market or paying school fees, the debate is no longer theoretical.

Subsidy is gone. The money was saved. Government says it was spent.

The question Nigerians are now asking is much simpler:

“What did we get for the sacrifice?”