Atiku’s subsidy position suffers third U-turn in one week — Presidency

The Presidency has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of giving conflicting positions on petrol subsidy, saying the former vice-president’s latest comments show that he is “simply playing politics” with the economic hardship facing Nigerians.

The accusation was contained in a statement issued on Wednesday by the Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga. He said Nigerians had heard three different explanations within one week about what an Atiku administration would do regarding petrol subsidy, describing the development as a sign of policy confusion.

According to him, Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially said the former vice-president would restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027 and later phase it out. Ibe had described the proposed subsidy as a temporary intervention aimed at giving Nigerians and businesses time to recover from the impact of rising fuel prices.

However, another senior aide to Atiku, Phrank Shaibu, later rejected Ibe’s explanation, describing it as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position. Shaibu said Atiku would not set a fixed date for ending the subsidy. Instead, he said the policy would remain until domestic refining increased, fuel supply became stable, competition improved and market conditions could deliver affordable prices without government support.

But Onanuga said Atiku himself later intervened and reaffirmed the original position, insisting that his position had “not changed” and that he would restore what he called a “targeted subsidy” if elected president.

Atiku was quoted as saying, “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”

The presidential aide said the different statements raised serious questions about the former vice-president’s actual position on petrol subsidy.

“This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction,” Onanuga said.

He questioned why one of Atiku’s principal aides would describe the subsidy as temporary and subject to a phase-out if the former vice-president’s position had not changed. He also asked why another senior aide had to publicly reject that explanation before Atiku later stepped in to reaffirm the subsidy proposal.

“Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error,” Onanuga said.

The presidential aide also challenged Atiku’s argument that petrol prices were largely responsible for rising transport and food costs. He acknowledged that energy and transport costs affect food prices but argued that petrol prices were not the only drivers of inflation.

According to him, factors such as agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply shortages also contribute to rising food prices. Onanuga said a serious economic programme should therefore address the wider factors responsible for the cost-of-living crisis instead of reducing the problem mainly to petrol prices.

He also questioned the practicality of Atiku’s proposed “targeted subsidy”, asking the former vice-president to explain how much it would cost, who would benefit, how beneficiaries would be identified, how the programme would be funded and what conditions would determine its eventual termination.

The Presidency further challenged Atiku’s understanding of the petroleum refining process, particularly his argument that subsidy could be tied to the price of crude oil. Onanuga noted that petrol accounts for only part of the products obtained from a barrel of crude oil, while other products include diesel, aviation fuel, kerosene, lubricants, asphalt, hydrocarbon gas liquids and petrochemical feedstocks.

He recalled that diesel was deregulated in 2004 during the Obasanjo-Atiku administration, while kerosene and jet fuel were deregulated at different times. Onanuga therefore questioned whether Atiku would also subsidise the other products derived from crude oil if his proposed policy was based on the price of a barrel.

He specifically asked whether the government would subsidise diesel, which is widely used to power generators and transport goods, as well as kerosene, which is used by some low-income households for cooking. He also questioned whether refineries supplied with discounted crude would be allowed to make profits from other products derived from the same crude while government support focused mainly 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?” Onanuga asked.

He accused the former vice-president of having a “lack of basic understanding” of the policy he was proposing. The Presidency also defended the Tinubu administration’s removal of petrol subsidy, arguing that the policy had helped restore fiscal health to the three tiers of government and stabilise the country’s macroeconomic environment.

Onanuga urged Atiku to present a clear, costed and workable petroleum policy rather than what he described as “policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks.”

“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” he said.

Atiku is expected to challenge President Tinubu in the 2027 presidential election, with the issue of fuel prices and the wider cost-of-living crisis likely to remain major campaign issues.