The Presidency has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of repeatedly changing his position on petrol subsidy, describing his latest pledge to restore a targeted subsidy as politically motivated and lacking a clear economic framework.
The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the accusation in a statement on Wednesday titled, “Atiku confused on petrol subsidy; third U-turn in one week shows he is simply playing politics.”
Onanuga said Atiku and his aides had offered Nigerians three different explanations within one week on what an administration led by the former vice-president would do about petrol subsidy if he wins the 2027 presidential election.
He said the conflicting statements had raised questions about the consistency and viability of Atiku’s proposed policy.
“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.
The presidential aide explained that Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially said the former vice-president would restore petrol subsidy if elected and subsequently phase it out.
According to Onanuga, Ibe presented the proposed subsidy as a temporary measure intended to give Nigerians and businesses time to recover from current economic pressures.
However, he said another senior aide to Atiku, Phrank Shaibu, later described Ibe’s position as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of the former vice-president’s policy.
Onanuga said Shaibu instead explained that Atiku would not set a predetermined date for ending the subsidy, arguing that it would remain until domestic refining increased, fuel supply stabilised, competition deepened and market conditions allowed affordable prices without government intervention.
The presidential aide said Atiku subsequently intervened and reaffirmed that his position had not changed, pledging to restore what he described as a targeted subsidy if elected in 2027.
Onanuga quoted Atiku as saying, “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”
He described the sequence of statements as a policy contradiction rather than a mere difference in wording.
“This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction,” Onanuga said.
The Presidency challenged Atiku to explain why his aides had offered different positions on the duration and conditions for ending the proposed subsidy.
“Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error,” the statement said.
Onanuga also questioned Atiku’s argument that restoring petrol subsidy would significantly reduce the cost of living, saying fuel prices were influenced by several factors beyond government subsidy.
He listed international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses, among other market factors, as determinants of petrol prices.
The presidential aide argued that increased competition alone could not shield Nigeria from fluctuations in global crude oil prices and other input costs.
He also rejected what he described as an oversimplification of the relationship between petrol prices and food inflation.
Atiku had argued that higher petrol prices increase transportation costs, which in turn drive up food prices and worsen hardship for households.
While acknowledging that energy and transportation costs influence food prices, Onanuga said other factors, including insecurity, agricultural productivity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs and supply constraints, also contribute to food inflation.
“Petrol prices alone have never caused food inflation. Nigerians experienced rising food prices even during the years when petrol subsidy was in place,” he said.
He argued that a credible economic programme should address the broader factors driving inflation rather than reducing the country’s cost-of-living crisis to petrol prices.
Onanuga also challenged Atiku to provide details of his proposed targeted subsidy, including its projected cost, beneficiaries, funding source and conditions for its eventual termination.
“We therefore urge Atiku to stop shifting positions and explain precisely what he means by ‘targeted subsidy’: how much will it cost, who will benefit, how will beneficiaries be identified, how will it be funded, and what objective economic conditions will determine its eventual termination?” he said.
The Presidency warned that Nigeria could not afford what it described as another opaque and potentially expensive subsidy regime.
Onanuga maintained that the removal of petrol subsidy under President Bola Tinubu had strengthened government finances and contributed to macroeconomic stability.
He urged Atiku to demonstrate that his proposal was based on a properly costed and workable petroleum policy rather than political considerations ahead of the 2027 election.
“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” Onanuga said.
The presidential aide also questioned Atiku’s understanding of the economics of crude oil refining, particularly his proposal to link petrol subsidy to the price of crude oil.
According to him, petrol accounts for only about 45 per cent of the products derived from a barrel of crude oil, while the remaining portion produces several other petroleum products.
He said diesel accounts for roughly 25 per cent of a refined barrel, while jet fuel and kerosene make up about nine per cent.
Onanuga noted that diesel was deregulated in 2004 during the administration in which Atiku served as vice-president, while kerosene and jet fuel were deregulated in 2009, with kerosene subsidies eventually removed in 2016.
He further said about 10 to 15 per cent of a barrel produces base ingredients used in manufacturing synthetic rubber, nylon, polyester and plastics.
Other products from crude oil refining, he added, include asphalt, hydrocarbon gas liquids such as propane and butane, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke and sulphur.
The Presidency therefore questioned whether Atiku’s proposed intervention would extend to those products or be restricted to petrol.
“Will Atiku subsidise all these by-products of the barrel as well, since kerosene is used by the underprivileged to cook, and many homes and factories use diesel to power generators and delivery trucks?” Onanuga asked.
He also questioned whether refineries receiving discounted crude under Atiku’s proposed policy would be allowed to make profits from other petroleum products while government subsidised only petrol.
Onanuga concluded by accusing the former vice-president of lacking sufficient understanding of the petroleum economics underlying his proposed policy.
The latest exchange comes amid an increasingly heated political debate over petrol subsidy ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with Atiku insisting that targeted subsidy should be restored to ease economic hardship, while the Tinubu administration continues to defend the removal of the subsidy as a necessary component of its economic reforms.
West Trybe reports that the disagreement has positioned petrol subsidy as one of the emerging economic policy issues likely to dominate political campaigns and debates ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
