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

Former Vice President of Nigeria, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar

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:

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.