Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s position on petrol subsidy has come under fire from the Presidency, which accused him of policy inconsistency and playing politics with Nigerians’ economic challenges.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said Atiku had offered three different explanations of his proposed petrol subsidy policy within one week, describing the development as evidence of a lack of clarity in his economic position.
The controversy began after Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, said the former vice-president would restore petrol subsidy if elected president and subsequently phase it out. Ibe described the measure as a temporary intervention to enable Nigerians and businesses to recover.
However, another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, later rejected the statement as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position. Shaibu said Atiku would not impose a predetermined deadline for ending subsidy but would retain it until domestic refining capacity expanded, fuel supply stabilised and market competition could deliver affordable prices without government support.
Atiku subsequently intervened, insisting that his position had not changed and that he would restore what he described as a “targeted subsidy” if elected.
Onanuga said the conflicting statements raised fundamental questions about the former vice-president’s proposed economic policy.
“Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error,” he said, arguing that petrol prices are influenced by several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses.
He also challenged the suggestion that petrol prices alone were responsible for Nigeria’s cost-of-living crisis, noting that food inflation is affected by agricultural productivity, insecurity, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, exchange rates and supply constraints.
Onanuga further questioned what Atiku’s proposed “targeted subsidy” would entail, demanding clarity on its cost, beneficiaries, funding mechanism and the economic conditions that would determine its eventual termination.
The presidential aide also criticised Atiku’s argument that subsidy should follow the price of crude oil, pointing to the range of products obtained from a barrel of crude beyond petrol.
According to him, refined petrol accounts for about 45 per cent of a barrel, while diesel accounts for roughly 25 per cent. Aviation fuel and kerosene make up about nine per cent, while other portions produce petrochemical feedstocks, asphalt, hydrocarbon gas liquids, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke and sulphur.
Onanuga questioned whether Atiku’s proposed subsidy regime would extend to these other petroleum products, particularly diesel and kerosene, which are widely used by households, businesses, transport operators and industries.
He also raised concerns about the implications of providing discounted crude to domestic refineries while subsidising only petrol, arguing that refineries would continue to derive revenue from other products obtained from the same crude.
Onanuga recalled that the administration in which Atiku served as vice-president deregulated diesel in 2004, while kerosene and aviation fuel were subsequently deregulated.
He therefore urged the former vice-president to provide Nigerians with a coherent, 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,” Onanuga said.
He maintained that the current administration’s reforms had strengthened government revenues and contributed to macroeconomic stabilisation, insisting that Nigerians deserved a clear explanation of how any proposed subsidy regime would be financed and sustained.
