The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has challenged the Federal Government to show Nigerians tangible benefits from the N15.8 trillion it says has been saved since the removal of petrol subsidy.
HURIWA argued that the huge savings being celebrated by government mean little to citizens who are still battling high food prices, transport fares, energy costs and declining purchasing power.
The group made the demand in a statement on Monday by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, while rejecting the Federal Government’s insistence that there would be no return to the subsidy regime.
The association said the key question was no longer how much government had saved from subsidy removal, but “what Nigerians have gained from the trillions of naira said to have been saved.”
It described the subsidy removal as “illegitimate, unconstitutional and anti-poor”, arguing that Nigerians were not given the opportunity to participate in any meaningful national debate or broad-based consultation before the policy was introduced.
President Bola Tinubu announced the removal of petrol subsidy on May 29, 2023, the day he assumed office.
HURIWA said the presidential announcement could not substitute for national consultation on a policy with far-reaching consequences for the economy and welfare of citizens.
The group’s position comes amid the Federal Government’s defence of the policy and its warning that there is “no going back” to subsidy.
HURIWA said no economic policy should be placed beyond public scrutiny, particularly when its effects were being felt through rising transportation, food and energy costs.
The group cited the claim by the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, that subsidy removal generated N15.8 trillion for the federation between June 2023 and December 2025.
According to Oyedele, N5.4 trillion accrued to the Federal Government, while N10.4 trillion was shared among states and local governments.
But HURIWA asked: “Where are the tangible benefits of these trillions of naira in the lives of ordinary Nigerians?”
The association argued that government savings could not, on their own, justify a policy that had left citizens struggling with food inflation, high transportation costs, unemployment and declining living standards.
HURIWA also took issue with the Presidency’s argument that reversing subsidy removal could create legal and fiscal complications and discourage investment in domestic refining.
The group said such concerns deserved consideration but should not override government’s responsibility to protect citizens from unbearable economic hardship.
It also referenced former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s proposal for a controlled intervention in the oil and gas sector rather than a return to what he described as the opaque subsidy regime of the past.
HURIWA said alternative proposals for reducing energy costs should be subjected to serious public debate rather than outright dismissal.
The association maintained that Nigeria should not be forced to choose between an opaque subsidy system and unaffordable energy prices.
It called for a transparent framework that would protect vulnerable Nigerians, support domestic refining, curb smuggling and rent-seeking, and prevent the corruption historically associated with subsidy administration.
HURIWA further demanded full transparency on the utilisation of funds saved from subsidy removal.
It urged the Federal Government to publish verifiable evidence showing how the savings had improved transportation, healthcare, education, infrastructure, wages, social protection and other essential services.
The group warned that further increases in energy prices could deepen inflation, raise production costs, weaken local businesses and push more households into poverty.
HURIWA also urged the government to respect Nigerians’ constitutional rights to peaceful assembly, expression and protest.
It called on Nigerians to peacefully demand greater transparency and accountability in the management of the savings from subsidy removal.
The association insisted that no economic reform could be sustainable if citizens were excluded from meaningful consultation and left to bear the heaviest burden of policies imposed in their name.