Fuel Subsidy: Atiku’s Third U-Turn in One Week Exposes Political Posturing, Presidency Says

Fuel Subsidy: Atiku’s Third U-Turn in One Week Exposes Political Posturing, Presidency Says

The Presidency has again taken a swipe at former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, over what it describes as his third policy U-turn on petrol subsidy within one week, accusing him of political posturing and lacking understanding of petroleum economics. In a statement by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency questioned whether Atiku was seriously proposing an economic policy or simply playing politics with the temporary discomfort Nigerians face.

The Presidency detailed what it described as three conflicting positions emerging from the Atiku camp within days. The first position came from Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, who stated that the former vice president would restore petrol subsidy if elected and later phase it out, describing it as a temporary intervention to give Nigerians and businesses room to recover. The second position emerged when another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, dismissed Ibe’s statement as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position. According to Shaibu, Atiku would not set a predetermined date for ending the subsidy, which would remain until domestic refining expanded, supply stabilised, competition deepened, and the market could deliver affordable prices without government support. The third position came when Atiku himself intervened hours later, insisting his position “has not changed” and that he would restore what he called a “targeted subsidy” if elected. He stated, “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”

The Presidency argued the differing explanations amounted to more than semantics, describing it as “a serious policy contradiction.” Onanuga asked that if Atiku’s position has not changed, why did one of his principal aides say the subsidy would be temporary and phased out, why did another senior aide have to publicly disown that explanation and introduce a completely different framework based on market conditions, and why did Atiku then step in to reaffirm the original position? He added that Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error.

READ ALSO:

• Subsidy removal stabilising Nigeria’s economy despite hardship — Doro
• FG Unveils $1bn HOPE-SP Programme Targeting 7.6m Vulnerable Households
• ‘Give Me My Child Back’: Grief, Fury After Pakistan Hospital Fire Kills 14 Newborns

The Presidency challenged Atiku to explain precisely what he means by “targeted subsidy,” including how much it will cost, who will benefit, how beneficiaries will be identified, how it will be funded, and what objective economic conditions will determine its eventual termination. The statement said that Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language.

Atiku has sought to draw a distinction between his proposal and the previous import-subsidy regime. According to his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president is proposing “a targeted, capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited intervention” to support domestic refining and production, with measurable performance-based exit conditions. Shaibu explained that you do not remove scaffolding because the calendar says so; you remove it when the building can stand securely on its own. Atiku himself stated on his X platform that he would not restore the import racket but would restore relief.

The Presidency also faulted Atiku’s argument that competition and subsidy would automatically reduce petrol prices, noting that several factors influence pump prices, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation, and distribution. The statement said that competition can improve efficiency and margins, but it cannot magically insulate Nigeria from global crude oil prices or other input costs.

The Presidency also rejected what it described as an oversimplification of the relationship between petrol prices and food inflation. While acknowledging that energy and transportation costs affect food prices, it argued that petrol prices alone have never caused food inflation. Onanuga said that agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints also matter. He added that a serious economic programme must address these factors, as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been doing for the past three years, rather than reduce the entire cost-of-living crisis to petrol prices.

The Presidency further questioned Atiku’s suggestion that subsidy would “follow the barrel of crude,” pointing out that petrol accounts for only about 45 per cent of products from a refined barrel. According to the statement, diesel, which was deregulated in 2004 under the Obasanjo-Atiku administration, accounts for roughly 25 per cent of a barrel, while aviation fuel and kerosene make up about nine per cent. Onanuga asked whether Atiku would also subsidise these other products, since kerosene is used by the underprivileged to cook, and many homes and factories use diesel to power generators.

The subsidy debate has returned to the centre of the 2027 presidential contest, with Atiku seeking to position himself as the candidate who will make life more affordable for Nigerians. According to Shaibu, the choice is not removal of subsidy versus restoration of subsidy; it is Expensive Nigeria versus Affordable Nigeria. The Presidency, however, warned against what it called “policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” saying the economy is too serious for such approaches.

Fuel Subsidy: Atiku’s Third U-Turn in One Week Exposes Political Posturing, Presidency Says