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

Ogun 2027: Radio Interview that Triggered APC Move for Hunye’s Arrest, Prosecution 

What Happened in Osun Will Be a Child’s Play in Ogun — Hunye

The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ogun State has distanced itself from Abayomi Hunye and called for his arrest and prosecution for allegedly impersonating a governorship candidate of the party, following comments he made during a radio interview in which he vowed to challenge the emergence of Senator Solomon Adeola, popularly known as Yayi, as the party’s 2027 governorship candidate.

Hunye, who described himself as an APC governorship aspirant, made the comments on Tuesday during an interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State.

During the programme, Hunye warned that the political crisis surrounding the APC’s 2027 governorship ticket could become far more intense than the recent political upheaval witnessed in Osun State.

“They saw what happened in Osun. What happened in Osun is going to be a child’s play to what is going to happen in Ogun State in 2027,” he said.

The comments appeared to have heightened the controversy surrounding the APC governorship ticket and prompted the party to disown Hunye, insisting that he had no authority to present himself as its governorship candidate.

The party maintains that Adeola is its duly nominated candidate for the 2027 Ogun governorship election.

Hunye, however, said he remained committed to his legal challenge against the outcome of the party’s governorship primary, arguing that the dispute was fundamentally about the integrity of the process and the right of party members to participate in a free and fair contest.

According to him, political grievances cannot simply be suppressed by imposing a preferred candidate on party members.

“What happened in Osun was the same thing. You cannot deprive people of their rights and want them to now keep quiet. They will not keep quiet,” he said.

Hunye also accused Governor Dapo Abiodun and the APC leadership of imposing Adeola on other aspirants, challenging the party to subject the senator to a transparent primary if he was genuinely popular among party members.

“He imposed him on us. And you want to force us to obey it. If you agree that he is popular, let the primaries be free and fair. And if he wins the primary, everybody will agree,” Hunye said.

He maintained that his court action was not driven solely by personal ambition, but by what he described as the need to ensure that the APC’s candidate emerged through a credible and acceptable process.

Hunye further claimed that opposition to Adeola’s emergence extended beyond his camp, alleging that some members of Governor Abiodun’s cabinet were also unhappy with the development.

“Quite a number of people in Dapo Abiodun’s cabinet are with us. They are not happy. People are not happy,” he claimed.

The radio interview has since become central to the latest development in the dispute, with the APC using Hunye’s public statements and his self-description as an aspirant to reinforce its position that he has no mandate to speak or act as the party’s governorship candidate.

The controversy comes as political activities intensify ahead of the 2027 Ogun governorship election, with the APC leadership seeking to consolidate support around Adeola while the internal dispute over the primary process continues to generate tension.

Hunye’s warning that the situation in Ogun could surpass the political crisis witnessed in Osun has also added a new dimension to the dispute, raising concerns about the possibility of further confrontation within the ruling party if the grievances of aggrieved aspirants and their supporters remain unresolved.