• challenges ex-VP to show clarity from cost, beneficiaries, funding, exit plan for his proposal
The Presidency has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of issuing contradictory positions on petrol subsidy, describing his latest intervention as the third shift in policy within one week.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said Atiku’s comments had created confusion over whether he had a coherent economic plan or was merely exploiting Nigerians’ concerns about the rising cost of living.
The controversy followed a series of conflicting statements from Atiku’s camp on the proposed return of petrol subsidy.
Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, had initially said the former vice-president would restore the subsidy if elected president and later phase it out. Ibe described the measure as a temporary intervention aimed at helping Nigerians and businesses recover from economic hardship.
However, another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently dismissed the statement as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position.
Shaibu said Atiku would not set a fixed date for ending the subsidy, insisting that it would remain in place until domestic refining expanded, supply stabilised, competition deepened and market forces could deliver affordable petrol prices without government support.
But Atiku later intervened, declaring that his position “has not changed” and reaffirming his plan to restore what he termed a “targeted subsidy”.
“I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians,” Atiku said.
Onanuga said the conflicting explanations amounted to more than a disagreement over wording.
“This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction and confusion,” he said.
The presidential aide questioned why Atiku’s spokesperson described the proposed subsidy as temporary and subject to eventual removal, while another aide publicly repudiated that position before Atiku himself returned to reaffirm it.
“Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error,” Onanuga said.
The Presidency also challenged Atiku’s claim that subsidy and increased competition would automatically reduce petrol prices, arguing that pump prices are influenced by several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation, distribution and other market costs.
“Competition can improve efficiency and margins, but it cannot magically insulate Nigeria from global crude oil prices or other input costs,” the statement said.
Onanuga further criticised what he described as an oversimplification of the relationship between petrol prices and food inflation.
He acknowledged that energy and transportation costs affect food prices but argued that petrol prices alone did not account for Nigeria’s cost-of-living crisis.
According to him, agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints also contribute to food inflation.
“A serious economic programme must address these factors, rather than reduce the entire cost-of-living crisis to petrol prices,” he said.
He added that the administration of President Bola Tinubu had, over the past three years, implemented policies aimed at improving Nigeria’s fiscal position and stabilising the macroeconomic environment.
The Presidency challenged Atiku to provide details of his proposed policy, including its cost, beneficiaries, funding arrangements and the conditions that would trigger its eventual termination.
“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 asked.
He warned that Nigerians could not afford another opaque and expensive subsidy regime presented under a different name.
“The former vice-president should 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,” he said.
Atiku’s “basic understanding” questioned
Onanuga also questioned Atiku’s suggestion that the subsidy would “follow the barrel of crude”, arguing that petrol represented only part of the products obtained from refined crude oil.
According to the statement, refined petrol accounts for about 45 per cent of the products from a barrel of crude, while diesel accounts for roughly 25 per cent. Aviation fuel and kerosene were said to make up about nine per cent, while other products include materials used in the production of plastics, nylon, polyester, synthetic rubber, lubricants, waxes, asphalt, propane and butane.
“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 further questioned whether refineries supplied with discounted crude would be permitted to profit from the remaining 55 per cent of refined products while government support focused exclusively on petrol.
“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?” he asked.
Onanuga concluded by accusing the former vice-president of lacking a sound understanding of the policy he was proposing.
“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” he said.
