The Lagos State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has criticised opposition parties for condemning the Federal Government’s 30-day petrol discount initiative, urging them to offer practical alternatives to ease the economic burden on Nigerians.
The party said the opposition’s reaction to the intervention, introduced through Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd) retail outlets with priority for public transport operators, reflected political point-scoring rather than a genuine commitment to citizens’ welfare.
In a statement issued on Friday, October 9, 2026, the Lagos APC spokesman, Mogaji Seye Oladejo, argued that the initiative should be assessed on its objectives, implementation and impact rather than dismissed on partisan grounds.
Oladejo noted that Nigerians continued to face rising transportation costs, increasing food prices, pressure on household budgets and mounting business expenses, stressing that any credible measure aimed at providing immediate relief deserved objective consideration.
According to him, the opposition should welcome efforts to ease the hardship while raising legitimate concerns and proposing improvements where necessary.
The party maintained that the 30-day arrangement was not a return to the former blanket fuel subsidy regime but a temporary, targeted discount under which petrol would be sold at cost through designated NNPC retail outlets, with public transport operators receiving priority.
It added that the Federal Government had outlined complementary measures to moderate fuel-price pressures and support vulnerable Nigerians.
However, the APC acknowledged that questions surrounding the initiative’s sustainability, transparency, financing and overall reach required proper scrutiny.
“Scrutiny is not the same as reflexive condemnation, and accountability does not require political cynicism,” Oladejo stated.
On concerns about what would happen after the 30-day period, the party said the government should clearly communicate its exit strategy, the criteria for reviewing the intervention and the additional measures planned to promote greater price stability.
It argued that the temporary nature of the initiative did not automatically invalidate its potential benefits, insisting that its effectiveness should be determined by its design, affordability, implementation and measurable outcomes.
The Lagos APC also challenged opposition parties alleging a possible return of fuel subsidy through the back door to examine the policy’s structure and provide credible evidence of any fiscal irresponsibility or legal irregularities.
The party stressed that the government must demonstrate how the discount would be financed, how associated costs would be accounted for and what safeguards would prevent abuse.
While welcoming the initiative as a potential source of immediate relief, the APC acknowledged that a 30-day petrol discount alone could not resolve Nigeria’s wider cost-of-living challenges.
It called for sustained efforts to stabilise prices, improve domestic refining and fuel distribution, reduce logistics costs, strengthen public transportation, expand access to affordable credit and improve household purchasing power.
Oladejo said President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration must pursue these objectives with urgency, consistency and measurable results, adding that government policies should be judged by their ability to deliver tangible benefits to Nigerians.
The party further urged opposition parties that considered the initiative inadequate to explain what they would do differently, how their proposals would be financed and how quickly such alternatives would deliver relief.
“As the country approaches another election cycle, we urge political actors to resist the temptation to exploit genuine public concerns for partisan advantage,” the statement said.
The APC emphasised that the economic difficulties confronting households and businesses remained real and required empathy, practical solutions and responsible political engagement.
It concluded that the petrol discount should be supported where it delivered benefits, scrutinised where necessary and improved to address identified shortcomings.
“The difference between constructive opposition and opportunistic opposition is simple: one offers better answers; the other merely objects to the answers on the table,” Oladejo said.
