Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election has entered an important phase. Campaigning formally began on August 19, 2026, ahead of the presidential election scheduled for January 16, 2027. But the more important question is whether this election can become a genuine contest over how Nigeria should be governed, rather than another competition built primarily around personalities, parties and slogans.
Former vice president and African Democratic Congress presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar has already put two politically sensitive issues before Nigerians: petrol subsidy and the reopening of Nigeria’s land borders. On August 25, Atiku reaffirmed his intention to restore petrol subsidy after confusion over whether the intervention would be temporary. His campaign subsequently described a more targeted arrangement linked to domestic refining, with fiscal limits, transparency and independent auditing. On August 28, he said he would reopen Nigeria’s land borders if elected, while developing southern ports to improve the movement of goods and revive legitimate cross-border commerce.
The reactions have followed familiar political lines. Supporters see the proposals as a response to the economic hardship Nigerians have experienced since 2023. Critics see them as a return to policies that generated fiscal leakages and encouraged smuggling. But Nigerians should resist reducing the debate to whether Atiku is right or wrong.
Atiku has opened a policy debate. The country should now deepen it.
The first-principles question is not simply what a candidate promises to do. It is what problem the intervention is designed to solve, what it will cost, what incentives it will create, which institutions will implement it and whether its benefits will outweigh its costs. That is the standard by which both opposition proposals and government reforms should be judged.
President Bola Tinubu’s declaration on May 29, 2023 that “fuel subsidy is gone” became the defining economic decision of his administration. It also became one of its greatest political vulnerabilities. Petrol prices rose sharply, transportation and logistics became more expensive, businesses faced higher operating costs and those pressures fed into food and household expenditure. For millions of Nigerians, the language of fiscal reform translated into a simpler reality: life became more expensive.
Atiku has identified a genuine political and economic problem. A government cannot indefinitely point to improved fiscal aggregates while ignoring the distributional consequences of the reforms that produced them. Macroeconomic stability matters, but so does whether households can afford transportation, food and basic services.
Yet identifying a problem does not validate every proposed solution. If the subsidy is restored, Atiku must explain its fiscal architecture. How much will it cost? What exactly will be subsidised? Will it be linked to domestic refining and Nigerian crude production? How will eligible volumes be verified? How will diversion and cross-border arbitrage be prevented? Who will audit the programme, and under what conditions will it end?
These are not hostile questions. They are the minimum questions any responsible government should answer before committing public resources. A “targeted subsidy” is not automatically a good subsidy. Targeting becomes meaningful only when beneficiaries, eligibility, fiscal limits, safeguards and measurable outcomes are clearly defined. Atiku should therefore be required to cost the promise before asking Nigerians to vote for it.
The same standard must apply to Tinubu. If subsidy removal created fiscal space, Nigerians are entitled to know how that space has been used. How much was saved? How much accrued to the federal government? How much went to states and local governments? How much financed debt service, infrastructure, social protection, wages and other obligations? Most importantly, what measurable improvement did Nigerians receive in return?
This is not an argument for restoring the old subsidy regime. It is an argument for making reform accountable. Reform is ultimately a political bargain: the government asks citizens to endure present costs because it promises future benefits. That bargain becomes fragile when the costs are visible but the benefits remain abstract.
Atiku must therefore explain the cost and risks of restoring the subsidy, while Tinubu must demonstrate the value generated by removing it. One must account for the proposed expenditure; the other must account for the reform dividend.
The border question presents the same policy challenge.
The major land-border restrictions introduced under President Muhammadu Buhari in August 2019 were justified by concerns about smuggling, food security and illicit goods. Those concerns were legitimate. A sovereign state cannot abdicate responsibility for controlling what enters its territory.
But borders are also economic infrastructure. For communities adjoining Niger, Benin, Chad and Cameroon, cross-border commerce is part of everyday economic life. Traders, transporters, farmers and small businesses depend on the movement of goods and people across these boundaries.
Atiku’s argument that restrictions have damaged legitimate businesses therefore deserves serious consideration. But “reopen the borders” is not, by itself, a border policy. The real question is how Nigeria can facilitate legitimate commerce without simultaneously facilitating smuggling, weapons trafficking, narcotics and revenue leakage.
The answer should neither be permanent closure nor uncontrolled openness. It should be intelligent border governance: efficient customs administration, digital documentation, risk-based controls, integrated intelligence, transparent tariffs and effective enforcement. The choice is not simply between open and closed borders; it is between poorly governed borders and intelligently governed borders.
This also explains why subsidy and border policy are connected. Both are fundamentally about prices and incentives. If Nigeria subsidises petrol below prevailing prices in neighbouring countries, fuel has an incentive to move across the border. If Nigeria opens its borders while neighbouring economies operate different price and tariff regimes, goods will move towards the most profitable market. Markets respond to incentives; informal markets often respond even faster.
The lesson is fundamental: policy design cannot be separated from institutional capacity. A subsidy intended to protect consumers can become a subsidy to smugglers if price differentials are badly managed. An open-border policy intended to promote trade can become an invitation to revenue leakage if customs administration is weak. This is where the debate must move beyond Atiku and Tinubu.
Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, should enter the fray. Obi has called for presidential candidates to present their credentials, defend their records and subject their plans to public scrutiny. That is the right position. The next step is to apply that standard to the substantive choices now emerging.
What would an Obi administration do about subsidy? Would it retain its removal, restore a targeted intervention or pursue another mechanism for reducing energy and transport costs? How would it balance household relief with fiscal sustainability? What would it do about the land borders? How would it reconcile regional trade, domestic production and national security?
The same questions should be put to every presidential candidate. Atiku has put propositions on the table. Tinubu has a record to defend. Obi has alternatives to present. Other candidates must bring their own governing propositions into the arena. Nigerians deserve to compare governing ideas, not merely political personalities.
That requires more than campaign rallies and media appearances. Every serious presidential candidate should commit now to a structured programme of organised, issue-based debates.
Nigeria should not wait until the final weeks of the campaign for a ceremonial encounter dominated by prepared talking points. Candidates should confront the same questions on the economy and public finance, energy, infrastructure, security, justice, governance, constitutional reform, foreign policy and human development. There should be common rules, equal speaking time, independent fact-checking and meaningful opportunities for Nigerians to question the candidates directly.
There is already evidence that substantive engagement is possible. At the Nigerian Bar Association’s Annual General Conference in Port Harcourt on August 24, presidential contenders engaged on issues including security, policing, elections and fuel subsidy. Such engagements should become the norm rather than the exception.
No candidate should hide behind political convenience. If Atiku believes his policies are superior, he should defend them. If Obi believes candidates must face Nigerians, he should lead by example. If Tinubu believes his reforms are delivering results, he should defend his record. If another candidate believes he has a better model, he should bring it forward. The presidency is too consequential to be won by proxy.
The greatest opportunity in the emerging 2027 debate is not whether Atiku wins the argument over subsidy or borders. It is whether Nigerians can change the terms of political competition. Candidates promising cheaper petrol should explain the fiscal cost and safeguards against leakage. One promising to reopen borders should explain how legitimate trade will be facilitated while security and customs controls are strengthened. A candidate promising jobs should explain where they will come from, what investment will generate them and how success will be measured. Anyone promising to continue reforms should demonstrate what those reforms have delivered.
The opportunity is to turn the 2027 election into Nigeria’s great policy audit. Every major proposal should answer five questions: What problem does it solve? What will it cost? Who pays? Who benefits? How will Nigerians know it worked? That should be the minimum democratic standard.
The election should not simply ask Nigerians to choose between competing candidates. It should ask them to choose between competing theories of how Nigeria should be governed and how scarce public resources should be converted into public value.
Atiku has started the conversation. Now the other candidates must enter the fray, and all must commit to facing Nigerians in organised, substantive debates.
Nigeria does not need another election in which politicians merely speak at citizens. It needs one in which candidates speak to citizens, and answer to them. The ultimate beneficiary should not be Obi, Atiku or Tinubu. It should be the Nigerian voter.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
John Onyeukwu, is a lawyer and public policy analyst with interdisciplinary expertise in law, governance, and institutional reform. He holds an LL.B (Hons) from Obafemi Awolowo University, an LL.M from the University of Lagos, and dual master’s degrees in Public Policy from the University of York and Central European University. He also earned a Mini-MBA. John has managed development projects on governance, public finance, civic engagement, and service delivery. He can be reached on john@apexlegal.com.ng
2027: Let the debate begin