The Presidency has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of repeatedly shifting his position on petrol subsidy, describing his latest intervention as the third policy change within one week.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, in a statement on Wednesday, said the conflicting positions from Atiku and his aides had raised questions about whether the former Vice-President had a coherent economic plan or was merely exploiting Nigerians’ concerns over the rising cost of living.
The Presidency consequently challenged Atiku to explain the cost of his proposed subsidy, its beneficiaries, how it would be funded and the conditions under which it would eventually be terminated.
The controversy followed a series of statements from Atiku’s camp over his proposal to restore petrol subsidy.
Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, had initially said the former Vice-President would restore the subsidy if elected president and subsequently phase it out, describing the measure as a temporary intervention to help Nigerians and businesses recover from economic hardship.
Another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, however, 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 until domestic refining expanded, supply stabilised, competition deepened and market forces could deliver affordable petrol prices without government support.
Atiku subsequently intervened, insisting that his position “has not changed” and reaffirming his plan to restore what he described as a “targeted subsidy.”
“I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians,” Atiku said.
But Onanuga said the differing 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.
“Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error.”
The presidential aide also faulted Atiku’s argument that subsidy and increased competition would automatically reduce petrol prices, saying pump prices were influenced by international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation, distribution and other market factors.
“Competition can improve efficiency and margins, but it cannot magically insulate Nigeria from global crude oil prices or other input costs,” he said.
Onanuga also rejected what he described as an oversimplification of the relationship between petrol prices and food inflation.
While acknowledging that energy and transportation costs affected food prices, he said agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints also contributed 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.
Onanuga said the Tinubu administration had, over the past three years, implemented policies aimed at strengthening Nigeria’s fiscal position and stabilising the macroeconomic environment.
He challenged Atiku to provide specific details of his proposed targeted subsidy.
“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 against replacing the previous subsidy arrangement with another costly and opaque regime 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.
Onanuga also questioned Atiku’s suggestion that the subsidy would “follow the barrel of crude,” arguing that petrol represented only one of several products obtained from refining crude oil.
According to him, petrol accounts for about 45 per cent of products from a barrel of crude, diesel roughly 25 per cent and aviation fuel and kerosene about nine per cent, with the remainder consisting of other petroleum products.
“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?” he asked.
Onanuga also questioned whether refineries supplied with discounted crude would be allowed to profit from other refined products while government support was restricted to 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.
He concluded that the economy was too important to be subjected to what he described as inconsistent policy proposals.
“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” Onanuga said.
