“Every Minister Knew Fuel Subsidy Was Killing Nigeria” — Kemi Adeosun Makes Explosive Revelation

Former Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun, has made a striking revelation about Nigeria’s long-running fuel subsidy regime, alleging that virtually all ministers who served alongside her were fully aware that the policy was economically destructive and unsustainable for the country.

Adeosun, who served as finance minister between 2015 and 2018, stated unequivocally that there was no confusion within the federal cabinet about the dangers of fuel subsidy, insisting that the policy was draining Nigeria’s resources while delivering little real benefit to ordinary citizens. According to her, the challenge was never about lack of knowledge, but about the political difficulty of ending a deeply entrenched system.

“There was no minister who did not see that the subsidy was killing us,” Adeosun said, in a remark that has since reignited national debate over one of Nigeria’s most controversial economic policies.

Her comments arrive at a time when fuel subsidy remains one of the most emotionally charged subjects in Nigerian public discourse, particularly following its eventual removal by the Bola Tinubu administration in 2023. For decades, the subsidy system was justified as a social protection mechanism, designed to keep fuel prices low for citizens. However, critics have long argued that it became a massive avenue for corruption, benefiting a small group of marketers and middlemen while starving critical sectors such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure of funding.

Adeosun’s account pulls back the curtain on internal government discussions, suggesting that the political leadership was not ignorant of the damage being done. She implied that ministers consistently saw how subsidy payments ballooned year after year, consuming trillions of naira that could have been invested more productively. Despite this awareness, successive governments continued to allocate funds to the scheme, largely due to fear of public backlash, labour unrest, and political instability.

Under previous administrations, Nigeria reportedly spent trillions of naira annually on fuel subsidy, even as the country struggled with poor power supply, decaying roads, underfunded hospitals, and rising unemployment. Economists repeatedly warned that Nigeria was borrowing money to subsidize consumption rather than investing in growth, a cycle that worsened fiscal deficits and weakened the naira.

Adeosun’s statement also reinforces long-standing claims that fuel subsidy was never truly pro-poor. Numerous audits and investigative reports over the years revealed widespread fraud, including inflated import claims, ghost shipments, and subsidy payments for fuel that never reached Nigerian shores. In effect, public funds were routinely siphoned into private pockets under the guise of social welfare.

Her revelation has triggered intense reactions across social media and political circles. Many Nigerians expressed anger, arguing that if ministers knew the subsidy was “killing” the country, then they should also bear responsibility for allowing it to continue for so long. Others viewed her comments as confirmation that political self-preservation consistently trumped national interest in Nigeria’s governance culture.

Some analysts see Adeosun’s remarks as an indirect defense of subsidy removal, framing it not as a sudden or reckless decision, but as a long-delayed correction that previous governments lacked the courage to implement. They argue that the economic shock Nigerians experienced after subsidy removal was the price of years of postponing an inevitable reform.

However, critics counter that awareness alone does not absolve leadership failure. They argue that knowing a policy is harmful and still maintaining it amounts to deliberate negligence. According to this view, the suffering Nigerians now face from higher fuel prices, increased transport costs, and inflation is the accumulated cost of years of inaction by leaders who prioritized political convenience over long-term economic health.

Adeosun’s disclosure also raises broader questions about transparency and accountability within Nigeria’s executive decision-making process. If ministers were united in recognizing the subsidy’s harm, why was the public consistently told that it was necessary? Why were alternative social safety nets not properly developed earlier to cushion citizens ahead of removal? And why did it take a severe fiscal crisis before decisive action was taken?

For many Nigerians, the fuel subsidy debate is no longer just about petrol prices. It symbolizes a deeper governance problem, where policies widely acknowledged as damaging are preserved because confronting them is politically risky. Adeosun’s words reinforce the perception that Nigeria’s economic struggles are less about lack of ideas and more about lack of political will.

As the country continues to adjust to a post-subsidy economy, her comments may reshape how history judges past administrations. What was once portrayed as a complex and unavoidable dilemma is now being framed, by a former insider, as a problem everyone in power understood but collectively failed to resolve.

In the end, Adeosun’s revelation adds another layer to Nigeria’s ongoing reckoning with its economic past. It challenges both leaders and citizens to confront uncomfortable truths about governance, responsibility, and the cost of delaying hard decisions.

Whether it leads to greater accountability or simply fuels public frustration remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the fuel subsidy era will be remembered not just as an economic burden, but as a test of leadership that many believe Nigeria failed for far too long.