Atiku Disowns Aide, Vows to Restore Subsidy — But With a Crucial Difference

Presidential candidate clarifies policy position after media aide’s interview sparks confusion, drawing clear line between proposed targeted intervention and old fuel subsidy regime.

The political landscape was thrown into a brief confusion on Tuesday when Paul Ibe, a media aide to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, appeared on African Independent Television (AIT) and suggested that his principal would restore petrol subsidy if elected in 2027, but would gradually phase it out after the economy recovers. That statement, however, did not sit well with the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). Hours later, Atiku Abubakar publicly disowned Ibe’s comments, stating unequivocally that his media aide was not speaking on his authority. Speaking while receiving the Osun State leadership of the ADC in Abuja, Atiku declared that one of his press aides had contradicted him in a policy statement as far as subsidy is concerned, and he wanted to repeat categorically that when he said he would return to subsidy, he would. He emphasised that Nigeria is rich enough to look after the welfare of its citizens and made it clear that the aide was not speaking on his own authority.

Taking to his official X account, the former vice president doubled down on his commitment, framing it as a moral and economic imperative for a nation blessed with vast resources. He declared that on the question of subsidy, his position had not changed and would not change, insisting that he would restore it and that a nation as blessed as Nigeria has no business abandoning its citizens to hardship. He argued that Nigeria is rich enough to look after her own. He linked the fuel subsidy debate directly to the everyday struggles of ordinary Nigerians, describing the chain reaction triggered by high energy costs. He stated that he believes the wealth of a nation is not measured by how much government collects, but by how much the money in the pockets of its people can buy. He expressed his desire for wages to have value again, for farmers to move produce without transport swallowing their profits, for families to fill their baskets without emptying their pockets, and for businesses to produce, employ and prosper. He added that when fuel rises, transport rises; when transport rises, food rises; and when food rises, families suffer, and he vowed to break that wretched chain that has defined the national life in the nearly four years of Tinubu’s presidency.

READ ALSO:

• Poco Lee to face UK court September 15 over alleged rape and assault charges
• Nigerian Journalism Mourns: Eagle Online Publisher Dotun Oladipo Dies Suddenly at 56
• Trump orders US flags lowered nationwide for one week to honour Dolly Parton

While the headline-grabbing statement from Atiku was a firm “I will restore subsidy,” his campaign team quickly moved to provide critical context to prevent what they described as “unauthorised, imprecise and materially misleading” interpretations of his policy. In a statement, Atiku’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, explained that the candidate is not proposing a return to the old, opaque import-subsidy system that was abolished by President Bola Tinubu in 2023. Instead, Atiku advocates for a “targeted, capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited subsidy” designed to support domestic refining and production. Shaibu stressed that for the avoidance of doubt, policy belongs to the candidate, not the spokesperson, and that their responsibility as communicators is to explain Atiku’s position accurately, not create formulations capable of confusing Nigerians or handing opponents convenient talking points. To drive the point home, Shaibu employed an analogy, stating that you do not remove scaffolding because the calendar says so; you remove it when the building can stand securely on its own. This suggests that t

he subsidy intervention under an Atiku administration would be phased out gradually based on concrete economic indicators—such as expanded domestic refining capacity, stable fuel supply, and improved market competition—rather than an arbitrary date. Atiku himself reinforced this distinction by declaring that he would not restore the import racket but would restore relief.

This incident has reignited the fuel subsidy debate, placing it at the centre of the 2027 presidential election campaign. President Bola Tinubu’s decision to abolish petrol subsidy at his inauguration on May 29, 2023, triggered a sharp increase in petrol prices and contributed to a broader cost-of-living crisis in Nigeria. Atiku’s camp argues that the current administration’s reforms, including the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market, have transferred the burden of economic shock to households and businesses. They are positioning the 2027 election as a choice between what they term “Expensive Nigeria versus Affordable Nigeria.” The ADC presidential candidate argues that Nigerians have not benefited sufficiently from the savings associated with the subsidy removal and that the government has failed to provide adequate palliatives to cushion the impact.

The controversy has drawn sharp reactions from across the political spectrum. While Atiku’s camp frames the policy as a pragmatic approach to easing hardship and boosting local production, critics have accused

him of proposing a retrogressive policy. The Presidency has previously criticised the proposal, arguing that returning to any form of subsidy could undermine local refining, threaten jobs, and increase foreign exchange losses. The debate is expected to intensify as the 2027 election draws nearer, with both sides seeking to define the economic narrative.

To cut through the confusion, here is a clear breakdown of what Atiku Abubakar is actually proposing regarding his subsidy policy as clarified by his campaign. First, it is not a return to the old system, meaning the proposed intervention is not the previous import-subsidy regime that was fraught with corruption and leakages. Second, it is targeted at domestic production, so the subsidy will be designed to support local refining capacity, ensuring that crude oil is processed within Nigeria. Third, it will be capped, transparent, and audited, meaning the new model will have clear financial limits, public transparency, and independent audits to prevent abuse. Fourth, it will feature a performance-based phase-out, so the withdrawal of the subsidy will be tied to measurable improvements in the economy, domestic refining, and market stability, not a fixed timeline.

2027: Sanwo-Olu’s Aide Accuses Atiku of Using Subsidy to Turn Nigerians Against Tinubu

Jubril Gawat, Senior Special Assistant on New Media to Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of attempting to weaponise the fuel subsidy debate to turn Nigerians against President Bola Tinubu, as the political war of words over the controversial policy intensifies ahead of the 2027 elections. Gawat said this while reacting to Atiku’s promise to restore petrol subsidy if elected president in the 2027 general election. The presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) had last week pledged to restore the subsidy, arguing that its removal had not translated into improved living conditions for Nigerians. Atiku said although he initially did not oppose the decision to remove the subsidy, developments since its removal had changed his position.

“I initially did not oppose the removal of the fuel subsidy. But now that it has been removed, where is the money?” Atiku asked. He also promised to recover funds allegedly stolen from the subsidy scheme, saying his administration would prosecute those responsible for the diversion of public funds. “If I win the presidential election, I will restore the subsidy. And anyone who stole Nigeria’s subsidy funds must return the money,” he said.

Reacting to the pledge, Gawat described the return of subsidy as a major setback to initiatives established following its removal, including the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND). “For me, away from other very important issues, bringing back subsidy to knock off a solid initiative like NELFUND is already a big negative to any right thinking person,” Gawat said on X on Tuesday. He argued that the subsidy debate should no longer be part of the country’s policy discussions, suggesting that Atiku’s position was politically motivated. “I also believe the issue of subsidy should not even be on any form of discussion table anymore, the person that brought it believes he can use it to rile up the people against Mr President, same person shockingly commended Mr President in a series of tweets when subsidy was removed,” he said. Atiku had also argued that funds previously spent on subsidising petrol could have been channelled into critical sectors including healthcare, education, security and youth empowerment. “Now it has been removed. Where is the money? If the funds were used to improve healthcare, education, insecurity, security and youth empowerment, things would have been better,” he said.

READ ALSO:

• Ogogo’s First Wife Opens Up: Why He Asked Me to Quit Acting After Marriage
• BREAKING: Tinubu Orders Immediate Rescue of Niger Mosque Abduction Victims
• 47 Dead, 22 Injured as Gangs Target Displaced Persons Camp in Haiti Church

The Tinubu administration has maintained that the subsidy removal was a “difficult but necessary decision” that has created fiscal space for the three tiers of government. According to the Federal Ministry of Finance, the subsidy savings have mobilised N15.827 trillion for the Federation between June 2023 and December 2025. Of this amount, states received approximately N9.17 trillion in additional allocations and local governments received about N6.66 trillion. Net FAAC distribution rose from N10.846 trillion in 2023 to N21.897 trillion in 2025, representing a 102% increase. The government has also pointed to the NELFUND initiative as one of the tangible benefits of the subsidy removal. According to the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, the reform scorecard showed that about N6.47 trillion had been spent additionally on strategic infrastructure, while more than N400 billion had been committed to social investment programmes, including NELFUND and CREDICORP. Idris warned against calls to restore petrol subsidy, asking whether the country could afford to choose petrol subsidy over programmes such as student loans and consumer credit for young people. He noted that Nigeria spent about $10 billion on petrol subsidies in 2022, at a time when oil production and government revenues were declining. “A reinstatement of the subsidy could also reduce funding available for roads, railways, electricity and security, while limiting government’s ability to invest in healthcare, education and social protection,” Idris said.

Atiku has intensified his criticism of the Tinubu administration’s handling of the subsidy removal, describing it as “one of the biggest economic frauds sold to Nigerians.” In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice-president made several key arguments against the current policy. Atiku argued that while the Tinubu administration claims to have abolished subsidy, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited’s (NNPCL) audited accounts tell a different story. He cited that NNPCL recorded approximately N4.84 trillion as “energy-security expenses” in 2023 and about N7.13 trillion in 2024. Atiku contended that these figures represent a continued government intervention in petrol pricing, merely renamed to avoid political backlash. “Nigerians do not eat semantics. Whether government calls it subsidy, under-recovery, shortfall or energy security, public resources were being used to bridge a gap between economic cost and the price at which petrol was sold. You cannot abolish subsidy at the podium and resurrect it in the accounts under an alias,” he said.

READ ALSO:

• Kano diphtheria outbreak: Over 50 children reportedly dead as lawmakers demand urgent action
• 2027: APC Denies Withdrawing Tinubu Campaign Council List Amid Controversy
• Stop Inviting African Dictators, Falana Tells NBA Over George Weah Invitation

Atiku has also accused the administration of applying a double standard, granting fiscal incentives to petroleum investors while denying relief to struggling households. He cited the Deep Offshore Oil and Gas Projects Incentives framework, under which qualifying petroleum developments can receive production tax credits beginning at $3 and $4.50 per barrel. “Tinubu stood at Eagle Square and declared that subsidy was gone. This is the fraud at the heart of Tinubunomics. That is not reform; it is an upside-down economy. You cannot subsidise capital and criminalise relief for citizens. That is not economic reform. It is classic economic apartheid,” he said.

Paul Ibe, an aide to Atiku, has said the former vice-president would restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027, but phase out the intervention after the economy improves. Ibe said the proposed measure would be temporary and designed to give Nigerians and businesses room to recover, stimulate economic activity and improve productivity. “We are not returning to Egypt. We are not going back to the old regime that was opaque,” Ibe said. He explained that crude oil would be supplied to local refiners at a discounted price, enabling them to produce petrol and diesel at lower costs, which would eventually translate into lower pump prices for consumers. He criticised the Tinubu administration for removing petrol subsidy alongside other major economic reforms without, in his view, allowing the economy sufficient time to adjust. “No surgeon, no doctor would carry out two or more serious major surgeries, one after the other. They would do one, allow the patient to recuperate, and then undertake the second, or the third,” Ibe said.

The Presidency has also responded to Atiku’s criticisms, with Special Adviser on Media and Public Communications Sunday Dare describing Atiku’s stance as an act of “political apostasy.” Dare accused the former vice-president of flip-flopping on the issue, pointing out that Atiku had advocated for subsidy removal during the 2023 presidential campaign. “To watch a self-styled statesman, who less than four years ago cast himself as an uncompromising apostle of market-driven reform, scramble to promise the reintroduction of petrol subsidies is nothing short of political apostasy,” Dare said.

Dr. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim, Accord Party presidential candidate, also directed his criticism at Atiku, challenging the ADC candidate over his new position on subsidy removal. Hashim described Atiku as one of the earliest major political advocates of subsidy removal during the Fourth Republic, arguing that his current position required an explanation. “Atiku’s recant on subsidy removal without an apology is dishonesty. If you change your position because circumstances or evidence have changed, tell Nigerians why you changed,” Hashim said. However, Hashim, who has consistently opposed subsidy removal, argued that a targeted and transparent subsidy should be restored to protect citizens and productive sectors from severe economic shocks.

With the 2027 general election approximately five months away, the subsidy debate has become a defining issue. Atiku’s camp has framed his proposal as a central plank of the Atiku Economic Recovery Plan, positioning him as a champion of the poor against what they describe as Tinubu’s “brutally savage capitalism.” Meanwhile, the Tinubu administration and the APC have warned that reversing the reforms without a credible alternative could undermine investor confidence, worsen fiscal pressures, and jeopardise the economic gains being pursued by the administration.