The Presidency has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of repeatedly shifting his position on petrol subsidy, describing his latest proposal as his third policy “U-turn” within one week.
In a statement on Wednesday, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, questioned whether Atiku’s subsidy proposal represented a serious economic policy or an attempt to capitalise politically on the economic difficulties facing Nigerians.
According to the Presidency, three different explanations have emerged within days about what an Atiku administration would do regarding petrol subsidy.
Onanuga said Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially stated that the former vice-president would restore petrol subsidy if elected and subsequently phase it out, describing the proposed intervention as temporary support intended to give households and businesses room to recover.
He said another senior aide to Atiku, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described Ibe’s explanation as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position.
According to the Presidency’s account of Shaibu’s clarification, there would be no predetermined date for terminating the intervention. Instead, it would remain until domestic refining capacity increased, supply stabilised, competition improved and market conditions could deliver affordable prices without government support.
Onanuga said Atiku later intervened personally and maintained that his position “has not changed,” while reiterating his intention to restore what he described as a targeted subsidy.
“I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians,” the statement quoted Atiku as saying.
The Presidency argued that the differing explanations amounted to a significant policy contradiction rather than merely differences in terminology.
“If Atiku’s position has not changed, why did one of his principal aides say the subsidy would be temporary and phased out? Why did another senior aide have to publicly disown that explanation and introduce a completely different framework based on market conditions? And why did Atiku then step in to reaffirm the original position?” Onanuga asked.
“Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error.”
The Presidency also challenged the economic assumptions behind Atiku’s proposal, arguing that competition and government intervention alone could not determine petrol prices.
It said international crude prices, foreign exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses, among other factors, influence the price consumers ultimately pay.
“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 also faulted Atiku’s argument linking higher petrol prices to transportation and food costs, saying that while energy costs contribute to inflation, they are not the sole determinant of food prices.
He listed agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints among other factors affecting food inflation.
The Presidency consequently challenged Atiku to provide details of what he means by a “targeted subsidy,” including its projected cost, intended beneficiaries, funding mechanism and the economic conditions that would trigger its termination.
“Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language,” the statement said.
“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.”
The Presidency further questioned Atiku’s proposal that subsidy should “follow the barrel” of crude supplied to domestic refineries.
According to Onanuga, petrol constitutes about 45 per cent of the products derived from a refined barrel of crude oil, while the remainder consists of products including diesel, aviation fuel, kerosene, asphalt, lubricants, waxes and petrochemical feedstocks.
He noted that diesel, which he said was deregulated during the Obasanjo-Atiku administration in 2004, accounts for roughly 25 per cent of a barrel, while jet fuel and kerosene together represent about nine per cent.
The statement said between 10 and 15 per cent could yield base materials used for synthetic rubber, nylon, polyester and plastics, while asphalt, hydrocarbon gas liquids, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke and sulphur account for other portions.
Onanuga therefore questioned how Atiku’s proposed discounted crude arrangement would account for products other than petrol produced from the same subsidised barrel.
“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.
He also questioned whether refineries receiving discounted crude would be permitted to earn market returns on products other than petrol while the government subsidy focused on petrol.
The Presidency maintained that the questions demonstrated what it described as weaknesses in Atiku’s proposed policy and urged the former vice-president to provide a detailed explanation of its fiscal and operational implications.
“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” the statement added.
Follow us on:
