Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s petrol subsidy position amounts to political posturing rather than a coherent economic plan, the presidency on Wednesday rebuked the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in the 2027 general election.
“Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error,” Special Adviser on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga said in a statement.
According to Onanuga, in the space of seven days Atiku’s camp offered three different explanations of what an incoming administration would do about fuel subsidies, leaving voters and markets with a simple question: is this a serious policy proposition or stagecraft for electioneering?
The first formulation, delivered by Atiku’s spokesman Paul Ibe, promised a restoration of subsidy on arrival, followed by a phased withdrawal.
Ibe portrayed the measure as a temporary relief intended to cushion households and businesses as the economy recovered.
That assertion was swiftly contradicted by another senior aide of the former Vice President Phrank Shaibu, who described Mr Ibe’s statement as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of the candidate’s position.
Shaibu said Atiku would not commit to a timetable for ending the subsidy; instead, any change would be contingent on expanded domestic refining capacity, more stable supply, deeper competition and market‑driven affordability.
Hours later the ADC Atiku himself intervened. Atiku told supporters his position “has not changed”, insisting that he would reintroduce what he termed a “targeted subsidy”.
“I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians,” Atiku said — a restatement that effectively overruled the aide’s more conditional framework.
The resulting contradiction matters. “If Mr Atiku’s stance truly “has not changed”, why did a principal aide speak of a temporary, phased approach?
Why did another senior official publicly repudiate that claim and substitute a market‑contingent framework? And why then did the candidate return to a blunt pledge to reintroduce targeted support?” the presidential spokesman noted.
Onanuga argued that such flip‑flopping undermines confidence.
“Either he has a coherent, costed and workable petroleum policy, or he is simply playing politics with a policy that has significantly restored fiscal health and stabilised the macroeconomic environment,” he said.
There are also substantive economic concerns with the pitch. Restoring a subsidy does not by itself render petrol cheap.
Pump prices are a function of global crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, logistics, distribution margins and domestic taxes or levies. Competition can compress margins and improve service, but it will not insulate the Nigerian consumer from movements in international markets.
Onanuga therefore cautioned against simplifying the cost‑of‑living crisis to petrol prices alone.
“When fuel rises, transport rises. When transport rises, food rises,” the former Vice President Atiku had argued.
“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.” Of course, energy and transportation costs affect food prices. But petrol prices alone have never caused food inflation. Nigerians experienced rising food prices even during the years when petrol subsidy was in place.
“Agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints also matter. A serious economic programme must address these factors, as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been doing for the past three years, rather than reduce the entire cost-of-living crisis to petrol prices.
“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 pressed Atiku to define what he means by “targeted subsidy”: the fiscal cost, the mechanism for identifying beneficiaries, the funding source, and the economic triggers for termination.
“Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language,” he said.
The presidential spokesman further noted a technical inconsistency in Atiku’s rhetoric about crude barrels. “Is he aware that refined petrol comprises only about 45 per cent of the by‑products of a refined barrel?” Onanuga asked.
The remainder yields diesel, aviation fuel, kerosene, feedstock for petrochemicals, asphalt and other products — many of which have been deregulated for years. Diesel alone accounts for roughly a quarter of a barrel; kerosene and jet fuel have been deregulated since 2009, and subsidies removed in 2016.
“That raises practical questions. Will any renewed subsidy extend to kerosene or diesel — widely used by poorer households and businesses for cooking and power generation — or will it be confined to petrol? If subsidy is focused narrowly on petrol, how will governments address the cross‑product distortions that can emerge when refineries and distributors sell other derivatives at market rates?”
Onanuga said that Atiku’s campaign needs to move beyond slogan and soundbite.
“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” he said.
Onanuga added that voters require a transparent, costed and implementable policy — not incremental promises that shift with the next press conference.
