21/08/2026
WIKE DISPLAYED A TROUBLING ABSENCE OF ECONOMIC LITERACY IN NOT BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ATIKU'S SUBSIDY REMOVAL POLICY RETHINK.
Wike’s description of Atiku Abubakar’s reconsideration of fuel subsidy policy as *“voodoo economics”* is itself a remarkably superficial response to a serious economic question. It demonstrates not intellectual vigour, but a lack of capacity to interrogate the assumptions, outcomes and unintended consequences of the policy he is defending.
Atiku initially accepted the argument for subsidy removal. This was based on his experience in government as a Vice President, where he led negotiations and conducted studies on how best to achieve the objective through a gradual phase by phase implementation. The government he served actually implemented phase one two of the gradual subsidy removal before the effluxion caught with them. But public policy is not a religious creed in which a position, once declared, becomes sacred and immutable. Economic policy must be continuously evaluated against outcomes.
The central question is therefore simple: What has subsidy removal actually delivered, and at what cost?
The argument becomes even more compelling when the government's own fiscal numbers are subjected to scrutiny. The Minister of Finance has cited approximately ₦15.8 trillion in savings from subsidy removal. Yet, over a broadly comparable period, Nigeria has reportedly incurred about ₦11.9 trillion in external borrowing. On the face of it, the celebrated subsidy savings have not translated into a commensurate reduction in the government's appetite for borrowing.
That raises an important question Wike ought to be asking rather than dismissing Atiku's position: If subsidy removal has created such enormous fiscal space, why has Nigeria simultaneously had to sustain such substantial borrowing?
And the problem does not end there.
Questions have also been raised about substantial expenditure outside conventional budget tracking, including figures attributed to World Bank reporting, as well as billions classified under “energy security” arrangements. These figures require proper reconciliation with the government's subsidy-savings claims. Nigerians deserve to know whether the money supposedly liberated by subsidy removal has genuinely reduced fiscal pressure or whether it has simply created additional resources for distribution while government continues borrowing to finance expenditure.
This is where the economics of ceteris paribus becomes important.
An economic policy cannot be evaluated by looking at one variable in isolation. If subsidy removal was premised on the assumption that removing the fiscal burden would improve government finances, reduce borrowing, stimulate investment and ultimately improve citizens' welfare, then those outcomes must be measured against the actual fiscal and socioeconomic data.
You cannot celebrate ₦15.8 trillion in “savings” while ignoring the borrowing undertaken within the same period, additional expenditure outside the conventional budget framework, the continuing expansion of debt and the deteriorating purchasing power of Nigerians.
That is not rigorous economic analysis.
It is precisely this kind of evidence that makes Atiku's policy rethink legitimate.
Atiku is not simply saying: “Bring back the old subsidy and continue as before.” His argument is fundamentally about rethinking the architecture of government intervention in the petroleum sector.
There is a major difference between subsidising imported refined petroleum products through a notoriously opaque system and creating a targeted mechanism that supports domestic refining, potentially through crude supplied to Nigerian refineries at an appropriate intervention price.
The latter can keep more value within the domestic economy: refining margins, employment, transportation, logistics, industrial activity, taxation and foreign-exchange savings. It can also reduce the transmission of international crude and foreign-exchange volatility into domestic fuel prices.
The question is therefore not whether Atiku once supported subsidy removal. The question is whether the economic assumptions that informed that position have been vindicated.
If they have not, then reviewing the policy is not desperation or voodoo.
It is economic prudence.
Indeed, there is nothing intellectually serious about defending a policy merely because one once supported it. A policymaker who refuses to change course when evidence changes is not necessarily principled; he may simply be trapped by his own previous statement.
This is the fundamental weakness in Wike's argument.
Calling Atiku's position “voodoo economics” avoids the substantive questions. Wike should instead interrogate the policy on its economic merits.
Where are the ₦15.8 trillion savings?
How much of it actually reduced the deficit?
How much was distributed to the three tiers of government?
How much was subsequently borrowed?
What projects were financed with those borrowings?
How much was spent outside the conventional budgetary framework?
What is the fiscal impact of the so-called energy-security expenditures?
And, most importantly, what measurable improvement has the average Nigerian experienced in exchange for the enormous economic pain imposed by subsidy removal?
These are legitimate questions.
The irony is that the “subsidy is gone” policy may have created additional revenues for the Federal Government, states and local governments without necessarily creating the fiscal discipline that Nigerians were promised. If government simultaneously celebrates subsidy savings and expands borrowing, Nigerians are entitled to ask whether the policy has actually strengthened the nation's finances, or merely provided more money for government expenditure while debt continues to accumulate.
That is the real “robbing Peter to pay Paul” concern.
The success of subsidy removal should therefore not be measured by how much money government says it has saved. It should be measured by what happened to the money, what happened to borrowing, what happened to productivity, what happened to inflation, what happened to household incomes and what happened to the welfare of Nigerians.
That is precisely why Atiku's rethink deserves serious economic interrogation rather than political ridicule.
Economic policy is not a monument to consistency. It is an instrument of public welfare.
When circumstances change, assumptions fail or outcomes contradict expectations, responsible leaders review policy.
The intellectually weak position is not changing one's mind in response to evidence. The intellectually weak position is refusing to examine the evidence because one is afraid to change one's mind.
So, before Wike dismisses Atiku's proposal as “voodoo economics,” perhaps he should first engage the arithmetic.
Because if ₦15.8 trillion in subsidy savings can coexist with ₦11.9 trillion in external borrowing, additional disputed expenditure and worsening socioeconomic indicators, then the real question is not whether Atiku lacks intellectual vigour.
The real question is whether the government's own numbers have been sufficiently interrogated. And whether they add up.
Alex Ter Adum, PhD
DDG THE NARRATIVE FORCE
