By Emmanuel Enebeli
ABUJA/Nigeria: The Presidency has questioned the consistency of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s proposal to restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027, following differing explanations from his political and media team over how the policy would operate.
The criticism was contained in a statement issued on Wednesday by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Information and Strategy, who said the former vice-president had presented Nigerians with conflicting explanations of his proposed intervention within the space of one week.
The controversy began after Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, said an Atiku administration would restore petrol subsidy if elected, but would eventually phase out the intervention after the economy had recovered.
That position was subsequently challenged by another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, who described Ibe’s explanation as an unauthorised and misleading representation of Atiku’s position.
Shaibu said the proposed intervention was not a return to the former import-dependent subsidy arrangement. He explained that Atiku’s plan would be tied to increased domestic refining, improved supply and stronger competition, with the objective of reducing production and transportation costs and easing pressure on consumers.
Atiku later intervened personally, however, and said his position on subsidy had not changed.
The former vice-president, who is the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, said he would restore what he described as a targeted subsidy if elected, arguing that Nigeria had sufficient resources to provide relief to citizens facing high living costs.
That sequence of statements prompted the Presidency to question the coherence of the proposal.
Onanuga argued that Nigerians needed to know precisely what Atiku meant by a targeted subsidy, including how much it would cost government, who would benefit, how it would be financed and what conditions would determine its eventual withdrawal.
The presidential aide also challenged the argument that reducing petrol prices through subsidy would, on its own, resolve the country’s wider cost-of-living pressures.
He noted that petrol prices are affected by several factors, including crude oil prices, foreign exchange movements, refining expenses, transportation and distribution costs.
While acknowledging the relationship between energy, transportation and food prices, Onanuga argued that food inflation also reflects factors such as agricultural productivity, insecurity, logistics, storage challenges, flooding, input costs and supply constraints.
The Presidency therefore maintained that addressing the country’s economic difficulties required broader interventions rather than relying primarily on petrol price support.
Onanuga further questioned the logic of concentrating government support on petrol when crude oil refining produces several petroleum products used by households and businesses.
He cited diesel, aviation fuel and kerosene among products that also have significant economic uses, particularly for transportation, electricity generation and household energy.
The presidential aide argued that any subsidy arrangement should therefore be examined in the context of the wider petroleum value chain and its implications for government finances and consumers.
The dispute has emerged against the backdrop of the Tinubu administration’s decision to remove petrol subsidy, a policy the Federal Government has defended as part of its wider economic reforms.
The Presidency has maintained that the reforms have improved the fiscal position of the three tiers of government and contributed to efforts to stabilise the macroeconomic environment.
Atiku, however, has framed his proposed intervention primarily around the effect of high energy and transportation costs on households, businesses and domestic production.
He has argued that the strength of an economy should not be measured only by government revenue, but also by the purchasing power available to citizens.
His running mate, former Rivers State governor Chibuike Amaechi, has also said the proposal is intended to support local refining and reduce the cost burden on Nigerians rather than recreate the former import-based subsidy regime.
The disagreement has consequently shifted the debate from whether subsidy should return to what form any proposed intervention would take, who would pay for it and how it would affect domestic production and public finances.
With the 2027 presidential election approaching, petrol pricing and the wider question of how to cushion Nigerians from high living costs are expected to remain important issues in the competing economic programmes of the political parties.
For now, the Presidency is demanding greater detail from Atiku, while the former vice-president insists that a targeted intervention would form part of his plan to reduce living costs and restore purchasing power.
