…As rift pushes Obidients toward Atiku
By Eshioromeh Sebastian and Joel ARINZE
The Nigerian Bar Association’s 2026 Annual General Conference in Port Harcourt on Monday hosted a presidential candidates’ panel that quickly descended into heated exchanges over security, governance, and the future of fuel subsidy.
The clash over subsidy removal has since spilled onto social media, with supporters of both camps trading fierce blows online.
But the war of words obscures a deeper shift. Some Obidients, frustrated by Obi’s rigid stance on subsidy removal, are now signalling support for Atiku, a shift that could reshape opposition dynamics ahead of the 2027 elections.
The session featured Peter Obi of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), Rotimi Amaechi representing the Atiku Abubakar-led African Democratic Congress (ADC), and Omoyele Sowore of the African Action Congress (AAC).
The exchanges exposed a widening ideological rift among opposition figures ahead of the 2027 elections. But beyond the conference hall, the battle has been even more ferocious on X (formerly Twitter), where supporters of both candidates have been locked in a bitter war of words since Atiku announced his plan to restore subsidy.
The disagreement centred on fuel subsidy, with Obi insisting on its removal and Atiku’s camp vowing to restore it if elected.
Obi Stands Firm on Removal
Peter Obi used the opportunity to reaffirm his support for subsidy removal. He argued that reversing the policy simply because of poor management would be a mistake.
“I subscribe and I maintain that you need to remove subsidy. Mismanagement of the proceeds should not be the reason for not removing it,” Obi declared.
The former Anambra governor said the government should have provided alternatives for Nigerians rather than leaving them to bear the full weight of the policy without relief.
“What we should have done is that when we removed the subsidy, we would have given the people alternative usage for the subsidy,” he said.
Obi alleged that the resources saved from the policy, which he said the government had reported at about N16 trillion, were being mismanaged and stolen. He had previously anticipated the need for a structured approach in his 2023 manifesto, where he proposed that whatever was recovered from the policy should be invested appropriately.
Offering a specific alternative, Obi suggested that just five per cent of the N16 trillion—about N800 billion—could have been channelled into primary healthcare infrastructure across Nigeria’s wards. He also proposed investing in kidney treatment facilities, noting the country’s shortage of dialysis centres.
“The number one thing a nation needs to develop is health. But today, our health is very poor, our primary care is very poor,” Obi lamented.
Atiku Camp Promises Return of Subsidy
Speaking for Atiku Abubakar’s ADC coalition, Rotimi Amaechi took a different position. He argued that poor Nigerians needed to be protected from the harsh effects of the policy.
“I will not remove subsidy because the poor in Nigeria need to be subsidised instead of the rich. We are already subsidising them with waivers. We have a duty to return power to the people,” Amaechi said.
The former Rivers governor also took aim at Obi’s record, questioning his governance credentials.
“Peter Obi did not subsidise education in his state. Lecturers and doctors went on strike for 13 months. You may like him as a person, but he did not perform as a governor. That is the truth,” Amaechi fired back.
Atiku himself had earlier in the week vowed to restore a targeted fuel subsidy if elected in 2027, insisting that President Bola Tinubu could not stop him from implementing the policy. He challenged the government’s claim that subsidy had been completely abolished, citing NNPCL’s audited accounts which recorded N4.84 trillion in energy-security expenses in 2023 and N7.13 trillion in 2024.
“Nigerians do not eat semantics. Whether government calls it subsidy, under-recovery, shortfall or energy security, public resources were being used to bridge a gap between economic cost and the price at which petrol was sold,” Atiku had said in a statement.
He promised a “targeted and capped subsidy” that would be transparently budgeted and independently audited, with a clearly defined exit strategy.
Sowore: Politicians of Subsidising Themselves
In a dramatic intervention, Sowore accused mainstream politicians of using the subsidy discourse to protect their own interests.
“The question about subsidy is, who are you subsidising? You are subsidising the elite. You are subsidising the governors. The only people who are doing well since they removed subsidy were the governors of states,” Sowore said.
He traced the history of subsidy removals, arguing that the same promises had been made repeatedly without results.
“I was a student in 1989, they removed subsidy. In 1990, they removed subsidy. They said Nigeria will be better. We are in 2026, they are still removing subsidy,” he noted.
Sowore further challenged Amaechi’s record, arguing that the rail lines built during his tenure as transport minister had failed to serve the people.
“We have a former governor of Rivers State here, Amaechi, who built a rail line that went nowhere. If that rail line was working, subsidy would have been working for the people of Rivers State,” Sowore argued.
Amaechi, visibly irritated, cut him off: “Stop lying. Stop lying, Sowore. I said, judge us by our achievements,” he retorted.
Obidients vs Atiku Supporters
While the NBA conference provided a formal platform for the clash, the real battle has been raging on social media.
Since Atiku announced his plan to restore subsidy, supporters of both camps have flooded social media platforms with opposing arguments. Atiku’s backers have not only accused Obi of being disconnected from the suffering of ordinary Nigerians, they have also accused of working for President Tinubu, while Obidients have branded the former vice president a political opportunist who changed his position only after it became politically convenient.
Some Obi supporters have gone further. A faction within the Obidient movement, frustrated by what they see as Obi’s rigid stance on subsidy, have begun signalling that they would vote for Atiku in 2027 if it means relief from the economic hardship caused by the removal.
The tensions within the opposition coalition are not new. When Obi defected to the ADC in December 2025, his supporters intensified calls for Atiku to step aside for Obi, triggering sharp pushback from Atiku’s camp. Atiku himself had to appeal for restraint, warning that attacks on either camp only weaken the opposition.
“Anyone who insults Obi or Atiku do not mean well for the leaders, the Coalition ADC and for Nigeria and Nigerians. The only persons who benefit from such a civil war are the APC urban bandits who want to maintain the satanic status quo. We are better together!” Atiku wrote on X at the time.
But the ceasefire did not last. The subsidy debate has reopened old wounds, with supporters on both sides accusing each other of sabotage.
One online commentator, responding to the subsidy clash, argued: “To be honest, this Subsidy subject matter is very delicate and very important to the Nigeria people. With fuel subsidy whether to remove or leave it puts the Country btw the devil and the deep blue sea.”
Another user, reflecting the frustration of some Obi supporters, suggested Atiku might have the stronger case: “As Atiku suggested, the FG can subsidise cost of crude oil to Dangote/local refineries to ensure Nigerians buy fuel at reduced prices. Sounds a fair argument to me.”
The Realignment Question
Speculation is now rife that the subsidy debate could trigger a significant realignment within the opposition. Some observers believe that if Obi refuses to soften his stance, he risks losing a section of his support base to Atiku—especially those who feel the hardship from subsidy removal has become unbearable.
Dele Momodu, a chieftain of the ADC, had earlier warned that Obi’s political decisions were heavily influenced by his supporters, who had threatened to disown him if he accepted a vice-presidential slot under anyone. That same pressure could now work in reverse, with supporters demanding a more pragmatic approach to subsidy.
The question many are asking is: will the subsidy debate fracture the opposition beyond repair, or will it force a recalibration that ultimately benefits Atiku?
Background to Subsidy Debate
The fuel subsidy debate is not new to Nigerian politics. President Bola Tinubu announced the removal of petrol subsidy on his inauguration day in May 2023. The move triggered a sharp rise in petrol prices and widespread hardship. The government defended the policy as necessary to reduce fiscal pressure and redirect funds to critical sectors.
Data suggests that the policy’s fiscal benefits have been more complex than advertised. The World Bank found that by 2022, the subsidy consumed 32.4 per cent of total government revenues and cost about 2.2 per cent of GDP. NNPC had accumulated approximately N2.8 trillion in subsidy arrears.
The economics of the removal meant that the gains were not a pile of cash appearing in the treasury, but rather the cessation of an expensive obligation that the government no longer had to finance. The World Bank also noted that the old subsidy was fiscally unsustainable and socially unfair, with poorer Nigerians capturing only about three per cent of the total benefit.
A Preview of 2027?
As the 2027 elections approach, the subsidy debate is shaping up to be a defining issue. Obi’s camp argues for keeping the removal but fixing its implementation—investing in healthcare, agriculture, and other productive sectors. Atiku’s camp, having reversed its earlier position, promises to restore a reformed, targeted subsidy to protect the poor.
“You cannot abolish subsidy at the podium and resurrect it in the accounts under an alias,” Atiku said, accusing the Tinubu administration of continuing the policy under different names.
Discussion about this post