The removal of the fuel subsidy by President Bola Tinubu’s administration, a bold step meant to stabilize the economy, has brought significant hardship to Nigerians. Subsidy removal was one of the first major economic reforms after the president’s inauguration in May 2023. Although the government insists that these reforms are necessary to rebuild Nigeria’s broken economy, the ripple effects have been overwhelming for everyday citizens. Inflation has spiked, particularly in the cost of transportation and food, and public sentiment toward the ruling APC has become increasingly negative.

Fuel subsidies had long provided a cushion for Nigerians, keeping the price of petrol relatively affordable. However, with the subsidy gone, fuel prices more than tripled within days. Transport fares followed suit, which led to higher prices for goods, especially food. Small business owners, who depended on affordable petrol to run generators, have found it increasingly difficult to stay afloat. Many of them have resorted to layoffs or even closure, compounding Nigeria’s already high unemployment rate.

Social media has become a battleground of public frustration, with citizens criticizing the APC for implementing the policy without sufficient safeguards. Hashtags like #EndFuelSubsidyRemoval and #TinubuMustGo have trended as citizens vent their anger over worsening living conditions. “I can barely afford to get to work,” one commuter posted on X (formerly Twitter). In response, APC supporters argue that the subsidy was a drain on public resources and benefited mostly a few elites, but many Nigerians feel abandoned by a government that promised to renew hope but instead delivered hardship.

Even among APC’s ranks, there has been internal dissent. Former party leaders like Dr. Salihu Lukman have publicly criticized the timing and execution of the reform, suggesting that the APC’s policies will cost them the 2027 election if things do not improve. Still, the government has stood firm, insisting that it will not reverse the decision, citing the long-term benefits of subsidy removal despite the immediate suffering it has caused.