The Presidency has criticised former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar over his position on petrol subsidy, accusing the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate of sending conflicting signals on the policy and “playing politics” with Nigeria’s economic future.
Gatekeepers News reports that in a statement issued on Wednesday, Bayo Onanuga, presidential spokesperson, said Atiku’s latest comments raised questions about whether he was proposing a coherent economic policy or responding politically to Nigerians’ concerns over the rising cost of living.
On August 19, Atiku said he would restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027.
Speaking during an interview with an ADC media group, the former vice-president also accused President Bola Tinubu’s administration of failing to account for funds saved from the removal of the subsidy.
The comments drew criticism, with opponents pointing to Atiku’s 2023 campaign position on subsidy removal.
Tinubu subsequently criticised the proposal, describing it as evidence of “serious ignorance of governance and the economy” and noting that some states struggled to pay salaries and pensions before he assumed office.
Paul Ibe, one of Atiku’s media aides, later defended the former vice-president’s position, saying Atiku would restore the subsidy temporarily before phasing it out.
Speaking on AIT, Ibe said the temporary measure would give Nigerians and businesses time to recover, stimulate economic activity and improve productivity.
Atiku, however, distanced himself from Ibe’s comments on Tuesday, saying his aide did not speak on his authority and insisting that his position on petrol subsidy had not changed.
‘Atiku’s remarks created deep confusion’
Onanuga said the conflicting statements from Atiku’s camp had created “deep confusion” over what an Atiku administration would actually do about petrol subsidy.
“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,” Onanuga said.
He said Ibe initially stated that Atiku would restore the subsidy and later phase it out, describing the measure as a temporary intervention.
Onanuga said another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described Ibe’s statement as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position.
According to him, Shaibu said Atiku would not set a predetermined date for ending the subsidy but would maintain it until domestic refining expanded, supply stabilised, competition deepened and market conditions produced affordable prices without government support.
“Then, just hours later, Atiku himself intervened and effectively overruled that clarification,” Onanuga said.
He said Atiku insisted that his position “has not changed” and that he would restore what he described as a “targeted subsidy” if elected.
Atiku also said: “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”
Onanuga described the development as “not merely a matter of semantics” but “a serious policy contradiction.”
He questioned why Atiku’s aides had offered different explanations if the former vice-president’s position had remained unchanged.
“Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error,” he said.
Presidency questions Atiku’s subsidy proposal
Onanuga also challenged Atiku’s argument that restoring petrol subsidy would make fuel and transportation more affordable and consequently ease food inflation.
He said petrol prices were influenced by several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses.
“Competition can improve efficiency and margins, but it cannot magically insulate Nigeria from global crude oil prices or other input costs,” he said.
The presidential spokesperson also rejected what he described as an oversimplification of the relationship between petrol prices and food inflation.
“Of course, energy and transportation costs affect food prices. But petrol prices alone have never caused food inflation,” he said.
He listed agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints among other factors affecting food prices.
Onanuga urged Atiku to explain the details of his proposed “targeted subsidy”, including its cost, beneficiaries, funding mechanism and the economic conditions that would determine its eventual termination.
“Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language,” he said.
He added that Atiku should demonstrate that his proposal was “coherent, costed, and workable” rather than an attempt to exploit public frustration over the cost of living.
Presidency challenges Atiku over crude oil subsidy
The Presidency also questioned Atiku’s statement that his proposed subsidy would “follow the barrel of crude”.
Onanuga argued that crude oil refining produces several petroleum products and questioned whether Atiku’s proposed subsidy would extend to other products derived from crude oil.
He said diesel, which the Obasanjo-Atiku administration deregulated in 2004, accounts for roughly 25 percent of a barrel’s output, while jet fuel and kerosene account for about 9 percent.
He said kerosene and jet fuel were deregulated in 2009, with subsidies removed in 2016.
Other products derived from crude oil include materials used to produce synthetic rubber, nylon, polyester and plastics, as well as asphalt, hydrocarbon gas liquids, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke and sulphur.
Onanuga questioned whether Atiku would subsidise those products as well, given their importance to households and businesses.
He also questioned whether refineries supplied with discounted crude would retain profits from other refined products while subsidy support was focused on petrol.
“The former Vice President is definitely suffering from a lack of basic understanding of his newfound policy prescription,” Onanuga said.
