The Presidency has criticised former vice-president and presidential candidate of African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, over what it described as contradictory positions on planned restoration of petrol subsidy.
Bayo Onanuga, special adviser to President Bola Tinubu on information and strategy, said the conflicting statements from Atiku’s aides and the former vice-president himself raised questions about the seriousness and viability of the proposal.
Recall that Atiku had promised to restore fuel subsidy if elected president in 2027, citing the economic hardship bedeviling many Nigerians.
Meanwhile, in a statement issued on Wednesday, Onanuga said Nigerians had received three different explanations of Atiku’s position within a week.
He noted that Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially said the former vice-president would restore petrol subsidy if elected and subsequently phase it out as a temporary measure to enable Nigerians and businesses recover.
According to Onanuga, another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, later described Ibe’s position as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s policy.
Shaibu, he said, argued that Atiku would not set a fixed timeline for ending the subsidy but would retain it until domestic refining capacity expanded, fuel supply stabilised and market competition could deliver affordable prices without government intervention.
However, Onanuga said Atiku subsequently overruled the clarification by reaffirming that his position had not changed and that he would restore a “targeted subsidy” if elected.
Atiku had said, “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”
The Presidency described the sequence as a policy contradiction rather than a mere disagreement over terminology.
“Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error,” Onanuga said.
He questioned why Atiku’s aides had offered different explanations if the former vice-president’s position had remained unchanged.
Onanuga also challenged the argument that restoring petrol subsidy would automatically bring down the cost of living, saying pump prices are influenced by several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses.
He argued that while competition could improve efficiency in the petroleum market, it could not completely shield Nigeria from fluctuations in global crude prices and other production costs.
The presidential aide further rejected what he described as an oversimplification of the relationship between petrol prices and food inflation.
He acknowledged that higher fuel and transportation costs could affect food prices but argued that food inflation was also driven by factors such as agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs and supply constraints.
Onanuga said the government’s economic policies under Tinubu were aimed at addressing the broader challenges 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 projected cost, beneficiaries, funding mechanism and the economic conditions that would determine when the policy would end.
“Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language,” he said.
The Presidency also questioned Atiku’s argument that his proposed subsidy would be linked to crude oil, drawing attention to the various products obtained from a barrel of crude after refining.
Onanuga said petrol accounts for only part of a refined barrel, while other products include diesel, aviation fuel, kerosene, petrochemical feedstocks, asphalt, hydrocarbon gas liquids, lubricants and waxes, petroleum coke and sulphur.
He specifically recalled that diesel was deregulated in 2004 under the administration in which Atiku served as vice-president, while kerosene and jet fuel were deregulated at later periods.
Onanuga therefore asked whether Atiku’s proposed discounted crude supply would effectively subsidise other petroleum products as well, particularly diesel and kerosene, which are used by households, businesses and transport operators.
He also questioned whether refineries receiving discounted crude would be permitted to profit from the other products derived from the same barrel while government support was focused on 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.
The presidential aide accused Atiku of lacking sufficient understanding of the petroleum economics underpinning his newly articulated subsidy proposal.
He maintained that the former vice-president must provide Nigerians with a clear, costed and workable policy rather than what he described as political messaging ahead of the 2027 election.
“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” Onanuga said.
