The Presidency has launched a blistering attack on former Vice President Atiku Abubakar over his proposal to restore petrol subsidy, accusing the 2027 presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) of abandoning economic principles for what it described as a “desperate” bid to return to power.
In a strongly worded statement issued on Thursday by the Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency said Atiku’s latest position amounted to a dramatic reversal of his earlier opposition to fuel subsidy.
It questioned whether the former vice president was offering Nigerians a genuine economic alternative or simply telling voters what they want to hear ahead of the 2027 election.
“Atiku has finally revealed his economic plans to Nigerians,” the statement declared, arguing that his proposal to revive subsidy amounted to a return to a system the government considers wasteful, opaque and fiscally unsustainable.
The Presidency’s response came after Atiku reportedly advocated a return to petrol subsidy as part of measures to cushion the economic hardship confronting Nigerians.
Rather than treating the proposal as an ordinary policy disagreement, Onanuga framed it as a dangerous attempt to resurrect a petroleum regime that, according to the Presidency, drained public resources while creating opportunities for corruption and abuse.
‘Who Will Pay for the Subsidy?’
At the heart of the Presidency’s counterattack is a simple question: who will foot the bill if subsidy returns?
Onanuga challenged Atiku to disclose the proposed pump price, annual cost of the programme and the source of funding.
“If petrol is sold below its economic cost, which is about N1,200 to N1,300, someone must absorb the difference,” the statement said, warning that the burden would eventually fall on public finances through reduced spending, lower allocations, increased borrowing or higher public debt.
It also dismissed Atiku’s claim of a N30 trillion subsidy windfall or savings, describing the figure as nonexistent and accusing the former vice president of presenting Nigerians with an unrealistic picture of what subsidy removal has achieved.
The Presidency argued that subsidy was not simply money sitting in government coffers waiting to be distributed as a discount to motorists.
Rather, it said, the arrangement involved government absorbing the gap between the actual cost of supplying petrol and the regulated pump price, creating huge financial obligations and losses.
A Different Oil Market
One of the strongest arguments advanced by the Presidency is that Nigeria’s petroleum industry has changed dramatically since the old subsidy regime was dismantled.
With the emergence of major domestic refining capacity, particularly the Dangote Refinery, government argued that Nigeria is gradually moving away from dependence on imported refined petroleum products.
It claimed Atiku’s proposal failed to adequately recognise this new reality.
According to the statement, restoring the old subsidy structure could undermine emerging domestic refineries and reverse the progress being made towards local production, foreign-exchange conservation and energy security.
The Presidency further argued that subsidy had previously encouraged an import-dependent petroleum economy in which billions of dollars were spent annually importing refined products.
That, it suggested, represented one of the sharpest contrasts between the petroleum economy inherited by the Tinubu administration and the direction it claims to be pursuing.
From Reform to 2027 Campaign Weapon?
Beyond the economics, however, Thursday’s statement exposed what could become a major political battle ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
The Presidency accused Atiku of abandoning a position he previously held against petrol subsidy simply because the political climate has changed.
It described the former vice president as having “opportunistically recanted” a major plank of his earlier economic position.
That accusation is likely to intensify the emerging contest over who has the more credible solution to Nigeria’s cost-of-living crisis.
For millions of Nigerians struggling with higher transportation, food and energy costs, subsidy removal remains one of the most politically sensitive aspects of Tinubu’s economic reforms.
While government insists that subsidy removal was necessary to rescue public finances, critics argue that ordinary Nigerians have borne the immediate pain through higher petrol prices, transportation costs and inflation.
Atiku’s proposal therefore taps directly into one of the administration’s biggest political vulnerabilities: the gap between long-term reform arguments and the immediate hardship being experienced by households.
Presidency Offers CNG as Alternative
Onanuga said the administration was not oblivious to the hardship caused by high energy costs, pointing to its promotion of Compressed Natural Gas as a cheaper alternative to petrol.
Government claims CNG can be about 70 per cent cheaper than petrol for vehicles and commercial transportation.
The statement noted that major businesses, including Dangote and BUA, have already deployed CNG-powered trucks, arguing that wider adoption could reduce transportation and distribution costs.
Yet the political question remains whether such alternatives can deliver relief quickly enough for ordinary Nigerians who are currently paying more for transportation and essential goods.
‘Political Promises Must Face Fiscal Arithmetic’
The Presidency ended its response by challenging Atiku to go beyond campaign rhetoric and provide Nigerians with the numbers behind his proposal.
It wants the former vice president to explain how much subsidy would cost annually, where the money would come from, whether government would borrow to finance it and whether existing petroleum legislation would have to be amended.
It also wants clarification on what exactly would be subsidised now that Nigeria has significantly expanded its domestic refining capacity.
The questions could become a defining feature of the 2027 economic debate.
For Tinubu’s camp, subsidy represents a costly past Nigeria must not revisit. For Atiku and other opposition figures, however, the debate provides an opportunity to argue that reform cannot be judged solely by fiscal savings while citizens continue to struggle with its consequences.
With the 2027 contest already taking shape, petrol subsidy may therefore prove to be more than an economic policy issue.
It could become one of the biggest political weapons in the battle over who caused Nigeria’s pain, who can end it and who can be trusted with the country’s economic future.
0 Comments