ABUJA — The Presidency has criticised former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, over his position on petrol subsidy, accusing him of inconsistency and political posturing.
The Presidency also questioned the former vice president’s understanding of the petroleum market, saying his recent proposal to restore a “targeted subsidy” lacked clarity on its cost, implementation and eventual removal.
Atiku had recently said he would restore petrol subsidy if elected president, arguing that the measure would help cushion the impact of rising fuel prices and restore the purchasing power of Nigerians.
However, his position has generated different explanations from members of his political team.
Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, had said the former vice president would restore the subsidy as a temporary measure before eventually phasing it out.
Another aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described that explanation as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position.
Shaibu said Atiku would not set a predetermined date for ending the subsidy, arguing that it should remain in place until domestic refining capacity expands, fuel supply stabilises, competition improves and market conditions allow consumers to access petrol at more affordable prices without government intervention.
Atiku, however, later intervened and reaffirmed that his position had not changed, insisting that he would restore what he described as a “targeted subsidy” if elected president.
Reacting in a statement, Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the conflicting explanations had created uncertainty over what an Atiku administration would actually do about petrol subsidy.
Onanuga said, “Within a week, Nigerians have heard three different explanations of what an Atiku administration would do about petrol subsidy. The confusion has now become impossible to ignore.”
According to him, the disagreement between Atiku’s aides and the former vice president himself amounts to a serious policy contradiction rather than a mere difference in wording.
He questioned why one aide described the subsidy as a temporary intervention that would eventually be phased out, while another rejected that position and introduced a framework based on market conditions.
He added that Atiku’s subsequent reaffirmation of the original position had further complicated the issue.
The presidential aide said Nigerians deserved clarity on the proposed policy, particularly concerning the cost and scope of the subsidy.
“More fundamentally, Atiku’s argument appears to misunderstand the dynamics of the petroleum market,” Onanuga said.
He argued that petrol prices are influenced by several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation, distribution and other market-related expenses.
According to him, while competition can improve efficiency and reduce margins, it cannot completely shield Nigeria from movements in international crude prices or other input costs.
Onanuga also rejected what he described as an oversimplification of the relationship between petrol prices and food inflation.
Atiku had argued that increases in fuel prices raise transportation costs, which subsequently increase food prices and put additional pressure on households.
The presidential aide acknowledged that energy and transportation costs affect food prices but argued that petrol prices were not the sole cause of food inflation.
He listed agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints among the factors that influence food prices.
Onanuga said a comprehensive economic programme should therefore address the broader causes of the cost-of-living crisis rather than focus primarily on petrol prices.
He challenged Atiku to explain what he meant by “targeted subsidy” and provide details on its proposed implementation.
He asked the former vice president to state how much the programme would cost, who would benefit, how beneficiaries would be identified, how the policy would be funded and what economic conditions would determine its eventual termination.
“Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language,” he said.
The presidential aide further argued that Atiku needed to demonstrate that his proposal was a coherent and properly costed economic policy rather than an attempt to appeal to Nigerians ahead of the 2027 election.
He maintained that the removal of petrol subsidy had helped improve government finances and contributed to the stabilisation of the country’s macroeconomic environment.
“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” Onanuga said.
He also questioned Atiku’s argument that his proposed subsidy would follow the price of a barrel of crude oil, pointing to the fact that crude oil refining produces several petroleum products apart from petrol.
According to him, petrol accounts for only part of the products obtained from a refined barrel of crude oil, while other products include aviation fuel, kerosene and diesel.
Onanuga noted that diesel was deregulated in 2004 during the administration in which Atiku served as vice president.
He added that kerosene and jet fuel were also subsequently deregulated, with subsidies on the products eventually removed.
The presidential aide said other products derived from crude oil include feedstocks used in the production of synthetic rubber, nylon, polyester and plastics, as well as asphalt, hydrocarbon gas liquids, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke and sulphur.
He therefore questioned whether Atiku’s proposed subsidy would apply only to petrol or extend to other petroleum products derived from the same barrel of crude.
Onanuga also raised concerns over the possibility of subsidised crude being supplied to domestic refineries while the refineries continued to generate revenue from other refined products.
He asked whether Atiku would subsidise those products as well, particularly diesel, which is widely used by households, businesses and transport operators to power generators and move goods.
The Presidency concluded by urging Atiku to provide Nigerians with a clear, detailed and financially sustainable explanation of his proposed subsidy policy rather than what it described as shifting positions.
It maintained that any policy designed to address rising living costs must be transparent, properly costed and based on realistic economic conditions.
