The former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has been accused by the presidency 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.
Following what he said, 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.
Nevertheless, 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.
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.
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 precisely explain to Nigerians what he intended to subsidise and how he plans to sustain the policy.
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.
Furthermore, Onanuga 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 alleged former Vice-President of lacking adequate 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.