By Annette Ikponmwonba | August 31, 2026
Key Points
- Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has questioned the whereabouts of the estimated $10 billion that would have been spent on fuel importation.
- Falana argued that the petrol subsidy had effectively ended before President Bola Tinubu announced its removal on May 29, 2023.
- He said no money had been allocated for fuel subsidy in the 2023 budget when Tinubu announced that the subsidy was gone.
- Falana argued that the expected savings from subsidy removal have been eroded by the devaluation of the naira.
- He also criticised what he described as the Federal Government’s neoliberal economic policies.
- Falana made the comments during an appearance on Channels Television’s Sunday Politics.
Main Story
Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has questioned what happened to the estimated $10 billion that would have been spent on fuel importation following the removal of the petrol subsidy, Falana made the comments during an appearance on Channels Television’s Sunday Politics while assessing the impact of President Bola Tinubu’s fuel subsidy removal policy.
He argued that the subsidy had already effectively ended before Tinubu announced its removal on May 29, 2023, because no money had been allocated for subsidy payments in the 2023 budget, “At the commercial rate, by the time President Tinubu announced in May that fuel subsidy was gone, it had already gone because not a dime was earmarked for subsidy that year,” Falana said.
He subsequently questioned what had happened to the resources that were expected to be saved from fuel importation, “The $10 billion that would have been spent on the importation of fuel, where is it?” he asked.
Falana maintained that the expected savings had been undermined by the depreciation of the naira and other economic policies implemented by the Federal Government, “The naira, the exchange rate, has been devalued. So it’s been eaten up by devaluation and other neoliberal policies of the government,” he said.
The Issues
The central issue raised by Falana is whether the financial benefits expected from the removal of petrol subsidy have translated into meaningful savings for the country and improved economic conditions for Nigerians, The debate also centres on the impact of the naira’s depreciation. While subsidy removal was intended to reduce government expenditure and free up resources, the weaker naira has significantly increased the local-currency cost of imported goods and foreign obligations.
Falana’s argument is that the gains expected from eliminating fuel subsidy cannot be assessed in isolation from exchange-rate pressures and the broader economic policies introduced during the reform period.
What’s Being Said
Falana maintains that the government must account for the resources that were expected to become available after the subsidy regime ended, His criticism focuses particularly on the estimated $10 billion associated with fuel importation and whether the removal of that burden has produced corresponding fiscal benefits, The Federal Government, however, has consistently defended subsidy removal as a major economic reform aimed at improving fiscal sustainability and redirecting resources towards infrastructure, social investment and other areas of national development.
What’s Next
The debate over the economic impact of subsidy removal is expected to continue as the Federal Government faces scrutiny over the management of additional fiscal resources and the wider consequences of its reforms, Attention will remain on government revenue, public expenditure, fuel prices, exchange-rate movements and whether the benefits of the reforms become more visible to households and businesses.
Bottom Line
Falana’s intervention puts the spotlight on one of the most contentious questions surrounding Nigeria’s economic reforms: where are the financial benefits of fuel subsidy removal? While the government maintains that the reform has created additional fiscal space, Falana argues that naira devaluation and other economic policies have absorbed much of the expected gains.
