By Kazeem Ugbodaga
The Presidency has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of playing politics with the hardship faced by Nigerians, questioning the consistency of his position on petrol subsidy ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Information and Strategy, made the accusation on Wednesday, saying Atiku and his aides had offered three different explanations of the former Vice-President’s subsidy policy within one week.
Onanuga said the conflicting positions had raised fundamental questions about whether Atiku was proposing a serious economic policy or merely exploiting the temporary hardship confronting Nigerians for political advantage.
According to him, the controversy began when Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, announced that an Atiku administration would restore petrol subsidy if elected and subsequently phase it out.
Ibe had presented the proposal as a temporary measure designed to give Nigerians and businesses relief and allow the economy to recover.
However, another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, later described Ibe’s position as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s policy.
Shaibu said Atiku would not impose a predetermined deadline for ending the subsidy. Instead, he said the intervention would remain until domestic refining capacity expanded, fuel supply stabilised, competition increased and market conditions could deliver affordable petrol without government support.
But Atiku subsequently intervened personally and rejected the suggestion that his position had changed.
The former Vice-President insisted that his position “has not changed”, maintaining that he would restore what he described as a “targeted subsidy” if elected president.
Atiku said he would “restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”
It was this sequence of statements that Onanuga described as evidence of confusion and political opportunism.
The presidential aide asked why Atiku’s spokesperson initially described the proposed subsidy as temporary and subject to a phase-out, while another senior aide publicly rejected that explanation and introduced a different framework based on market conditions.
Onanuga also questioned why Atiku subsequently had to intervene to reaffirm the original position.
“This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction and confusion,” Onanuga said.
He argued that Nigerians deserved a clearly defined economic programme rather than policy positions that appeared to change depending on the circumstances.
“Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error,” he said.
Onanuga also challenged Atiku’s understanding of the factors determining petrol prices, arguing that government subsidy alone could not guarantee cheaper fuel.
He said international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation, distribution and other market expenses all contribute to the final pump price.
According to him, increased competition could improve efficiency and margins but would not completely insulate Nigeria from fluctuations in global crude prices or other input costs.
The presidential aide also took issue with Atiku’s argument that higher petrol prices automatically translate into higher food prices.
He acknowledged the connection between energy costs, transportation and food prices but said petrol prices were only one of several factors driving inflation.
Onanuga identified agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints as other factors affecting food prices.
He argued that a serious economic programme should address those structural challenges rather than reduce the country’s cost-of-living crisis primarily to petrol prices.
The Presidency challenged Atiku to explain the details of his proposed targeted subsidy, including its cost, beneficiaries, funding source and the conditions that would eventually trigger its termination.
Onanuga said the former Vice-President should tell Nigerians precisely what he intended to subsidise and how the policy would be sustained.
“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?” he said.
He warned that Nigerians could not afford what he described as another opaque and potentially expensive subsidy regime presented under a new name.
“Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language,” Onanuga said.
The presidential aide further challenged Atiku to demonstrate whether he had a coherent, costed and workable petroleum policy or was using the issue as an electoral strategy.
“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” he said.
The Presidency also questioned Atiku’s argument that his proposed subsidy would follow the price of crude oil, pointing to the range of products obtained from a barrel of refined crude.
Onanuga said petrol accounts for about 45 per cent of the products produced from a refined barrel, while the remainder consists of other products, including diesel, aviation fuel, kerosene, petrochemical feedstocks, asphalt, Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids, lubricants and waxes, as well as petroleum coke and sulphur.
He said diesel accounts for roughly 25 per cent of the barrel, while jet fuel and kerosene account for about 9 per cent, with another 10 to 15 per cent producing base ingredients for synthetic rubber, nylon, polyester and plastics used in everyday products, while asphalt accounts for about 2 to 4 per cent.
“Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids, including propane and butane, account for about 4 per cent, while lubricants and waxes constitute roughly 1 to 2 per cent,” he said.
Against that background, Onanuga questioned whether Atiku intended to extend the proposed subsidy to all the products derived from crude.
“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.
He also questioned whether refineries supplied with discounted crude would be allowed to profit from the other products produced from the same barrel while government support focused only on petrol.
“And will he allow the refineries he will supply discounted crude oil to profit from 55 per cent of the by-products, while focusing subsidy only on petrol, his obsession?” Onanuga asked.
Onanuga further pointed to Atiku’s record as Vice-President under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, recalling that diesel was deregulated in 2004.
He noted that kerosene and jet fuel were deregulated in 2009, while subsidies on kerosene were removed in 2016.
The Presidency used the history to question the consistency of Atiku’s current proposal, particularly his emphasis on petrol subsidy while other petroleum products remain subject to market forces.
Onanuga accused the former Vice-President of lacking sufficient understanding of the petroleum-market dynamics underlying his proposed policy.
“The former Vice President is definitely suffering from a lack of basic understanding of his newfound policy prescription,” he said.
