The Presidency has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of policy inconsistency over his position on petrol subsidy, saying his conflicting statements within one week showed that he was “simply playing politics” with Nigerians’ economic difficulties. In a statement on Wednesday, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo……
The Presidency has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of policy inconsistency over his position on petrol subsidy, saying his conflicting statements within one week showed that he was “simply playing politics” with Nigerians’ economic difficulties.
In a statement on Wednesday, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said Atiku and his aides had offered three different explanations of what his administration would do about petrol subsidy if elected president.
Onanuga said Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially stated that the former vice-president would restore petrol subsidy if elected and later phase it out as a temporary measure to allow Nigerians and businesses to recover.
He said another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described Ibe’s position as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s policy, saying the subsidy would instead remain until domestic refining expanded, supply stabilised and competition deepened.
“Then just hours later, Atiku himself intervened and effectively overruled that clarification. He insisted that his position ‘has not changed’ and that he would restore what he called a ‘targeted subsidy’ if elected president,” Onanuga said.
The presidential aide quoted Atiku as saying, “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”
Onanuga said the conflicting positions represented more than a disagreement over semantics, describing them as “a serious policy contradiction and confusion.”
Read Also: 2027: Atiku Reiterates Commitment To Restore Targeted Fuel Subsidy If Elected
He asked why Atiku’s principal aides would issue different explanations if his position had not changed.
“Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error,” he said.
The Presidency also challenged Atiku’s argument that restoring subsidy would make petrol cheaper, saying pump prices were influenced by several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses.
“Competition can improve efficiency and margins, but it cannot magically insulate Nigeria from global crude oil prices or other input costs,” Onanuga said.
He also rejected what he described as an oversimplification of the relationship between petrol prices and food inflation.
“There is also a troubling oversimplification in Atiku’s argument that ‘when fuel rises, transport rises. When transport rises, food rises. When food rises, families suffer,’” he said.
According to him, while energy and transportation costs affect food prices, other factors such as agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints also contribute to food inflation.
Onanuga said the Tinubu administration had been addressing these factors over the past three years rather than reducing the cost-of-living crisis solely to petrol prices.
He challenged Atiku to provide details of his proposed “targeted subsidy”, including its cost, beneficiaries, funding mechanism and the economic conditions that would determine 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?” Onanuga said.
The presidential aide warned that Nigerians could not afford another “opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language.”
He argued that Atiku must demonstrate that his proposal was based on a coherent and costed economic plan rather than political considerations.
“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” he said.
Onanuga further questioned Atiku’s proposal to link subsidy to the price of crude oil, arguing that petrol represents only part of the products obtained from a refined barrel of crude.
He said petrol accounts for about 45 per cent of refined crude output, while other products include aviation fuel, kerosene, diesel and petrochemical feedstocks.
Onanuga noted that diesel was deregulated in 2004 under the Obasanjo-Atiku administration, while kerosene and jet fuel were deregulated in subsequent years.
He also listed other products derived from crude, including materials used in synthetic rubber, nylon, polyester and plastics, as well as asphalt, hydrocarbon gas liquids, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke and sulphur.
He asked whether Atiku’s proposed subsidy would extend to those products or be limited 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?” he asked.
Onanuga also questioned whether refineries supplied with discounted crude would be allowed to profit from the other products derived from the same barrel while subsidy support was focused on petrol.
He concluded by accusing the former vice-president of lacking a clear understanding of the policy he was proposing, saying the former vice-president was “suffering from a lack of basic understanding of his newfound policy prescription.”
