Fresh controversy has emerged over Nigeria’s fuel subsidy policy following claims that the petrol subsidy announced as removed by President Bola Tinubu in May 2023 may have continued under a different name in the books of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL).
The debate gained momentum after media personality Emir Sirdam cited figures contained in NNPCL’s audited 2024 financial statements, which reportedly recorded about ₦7.13 trillion as “Energy Security Expenses” in 2024, compared to ₦4.8 trillion in 2023.
According to Sirdam, the expenditure classified as “Energy Security Expenses” represents the same under-recovery costs that were previously described as fuel subsidy before the Federal Government announced its removal. He argued that the subsidy may have been rebranded rather than completely eliminated.
The claims have renewed public interest in the government’s subsidy policy, particularly as petrol prices have risen sharply since the announcement. Pump prices, which were around ₦200 per litre before the policy took effect, have climbed to over ₦1,300 per litre in many parts of the country.
The controversy has also drawn attention to reports indicating that the Federation’s liabilities to NNPCL have increased to about ₦17.5 trillion when under-recovery claims and other receivables are combined, raising fresh questions about the company’s financial obligations.
Adding to the debate, economist Dele Oye was quoted as saying that the subsidy “did not vanish; it metamorphosed,” suggesting that government support for petrol pricing may have continued in another form despite official declarations.
The claims have sparked widespread reactions among Nigerians, with many calling for greater transparency over the interpretation of NNPCL’s financial statements and the nature of the “Energy Security Expenses” recorded in the company’s accounts.
As of the time of filing this report, neither the Federal Government nor NNPCL had publicly responded to the latest claims. However, the development has intensified calls for clarification on whether fuel subsidy was completely removed or whether the associated costs were simply reclassified under a different accounting description.
