Presidency: Atiku playing Politics with Fuel subsidy 

The Presidency has accused former Vice-President and Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, of playing politics with his plan to reverse the removal of fuel subsidy if elected in 2027.

While saying that Atiku is also confused, the Presidency explained that his latest comments on petrol subsidy raises a fundamental question: “is he seriously proposing an economic policy, or is he simply playing politics with the temporary discomfort Nigerians face?”

Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, argued that within a week, “Nigerians have heard three different explanations of what an Atiku administration would do about petrol subsidy. The confusion has now become impossible to ignore.”

• Championship: Femi Azeez Named In PFA Team Of The Year
• Man remanded for allegedly assaulting 75-year-old hospital worker in Kano

According to Onanuga, “First, Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, said Atiku would restore petrol subsidy if elected president and later phase it out. Ibe described it as a temporary intervention intended to give Nigerians and businesses room to recover.

“Then came a clarification from another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, who said Ibe’s statement was an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position. According to Shaibu, Atiku would not set a predetermined date for ending the subsidy. Instead, it would remain until domestic refining expands, supply stabilises, competition deepens, and the market can deliver affordable prices without government support.

“But just hours later, Atiku himself intervened and effectively overruled that clarification. He insisted that his position “has not changed” and that he would restore what he called a “targeted subsidy” if elected president. He also said, “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”

The Presidency said the scenario is not merely a “matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction and confusion.”

Onanuga said if Atiku’s position has not changed, why did one of his principal aides say the subsidy would be temporary and phased out? Why did another senior aide have to publicly disown that explanation and introduce a completely different framework based on market conditions? And why did Atiku then step in to reaffirm the original position, and adding that “Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error.”

Onanuga argued that Agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints also matter, insisting that 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.

The Presidency asked 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?

“Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language.”

Onanuga urged Atiku to be honest with Nigerians: “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 to the three tiers of government and stabilised the macroeconomic environment.

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