•Ex-VP changes position three times in one week
•Media aides make contradictory statements
Is the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, for the retention of fuel subsidy or its reversal?
The former Vice President canvassed the two seemingly conflicting options in separate statements by his media aides, Paul Ibe and Phrank Shaibu.
Many were taken aback on Tuesday as the two aides clashed over the position.
Atiku, in a statement by Ibe, said he would restore subsidy if elected president in 2027 and phase it out later.
In another statement by Shaibu, Atiku said there was no going back on reversing fuel subsidy removal, stressing that he would support domestic refining and production, with measurable performance-based exit conditions built in from day one.
On assumption of office on May 29, 2023, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu embarked on economic reforms that halted fuel subsidy and unified the multiple exchange rate windows into a single, market-determined rate.
Between June 2023 and December 2025, N15.8 trillion was freed up and accrued to the Federation Account as a result of stopping subsidy payments, according to the Minister of Finance, Taiwo Oyedele.
The Coordinating Minister of the Economy explained that N5.4 trillion was shared by the Federal Government, while states and local governments got N10.4 trillion.
Atiku, who ran for president in 2019 and 2023 on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), had promised to remove subsidy if elected, like President Tinubu and Peter Obi, who was the candidate of the Labour Party (LP). However, he repudiated his earlier position last week.
He called for the reversal of subsidy removal, alleging that the proceeds had been mismanaged by the Tinubu administration.
Following condemnations by stakeholders cutting across the political class, industry players, manufacturers, organised private sector, academia, labour and the media, Atiku, who modified his position last weekend, recommended what he described as an audited intervention with an exit mechanism.
He said: “The administration cannot claim to have abolished subsidy while granting tax credits, concessions and other fiscal incentives to operators in the same petroleum industry.”
Atiku, therefore, proposed “a targeted, capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited intervention with a clearly defined exit mechanism, accompanied by accelerated domestic refining, competition, mass transportation and measures to restore household purchasing power.”
However, yesterday, Ibe, who clarified Atiku’s previous statements, said the former vice president would restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027 and phase it out later.
Ibe, who spoke on AIT, said the temporary intervention would give Nigerians room to recover, stimulate economic activity and improve productivity.
He said the proposal, which would not revive the old subsidy regime, would tie government support to crude oil production and domestic refining.
Ibe added: “We are not returning to Egypt. We are not going back to the old regime that was opaque. What he’s simply saying is that the subsidy that he is advocating will be tied to the barrel, the crude oil barrel. This is perhaps the only thing that we have in so much abundance that Nigerians have not yet benefited from.”
Ibe said crude oil would be supplied to local refiners at a discounted price to enable them to produce petrol and diesel at lower costs.
The spokesman also said the cheaper production cost would ultimately translate into lower pump prices for consumers.
He said: “The crude oil will be sold at a discounted price, subsidised to refiners, and that will enable refiners to be able to produce fuel and diesel at a cheap cost. And when they produce cheaply, they will sell at the real pump price.”
Ibe said an independent committee would determine the appropriate price at the refinery, taking prevailing market conditions into consideration.
He said although the downstream petroleum sector had been deregulated, the government could still monitor prices to ensure that refiners and marketers operated within the framework of the policy.
Ibe stressed: “There’ll be a window because, of course, we deregulated. You may not fix the price but you can have price monitoring to ensure that everybody aligns with what government hopes to achieve.”
It will be temporary, says Ibe
Ibe emphasised that the intervention being proposed by Atiku would be implemented for a limited period to stimulate economic activity and improve productivity.
He said: “It is for a time, and it is essentially to ensure that we jumpstart this economy. If you recall, his argument, even in 2023, was that they’re going to have recourse to having a phased removal.”
Ibe objected to the removal of petrol subsidy without allowing the economy to adjust.
He said: “No surgeon, no doctor would carry out two or more serious major surgeries, one after the other. They would do one, allow the patient to recuperate, and then undertake the second, or the third.”
Atiku: no going back on reversal of fuel subsidy removal
Atiku, who disagreed with his spokesman, said he would continue to press for an intervention that would be capped, transparently budgeted, independently audited and governed by measurable performance-based exit conditions.
He clarified, in a statement by Shaibu, that his proposed petroleum intervention was not a return to the import-subsidy regime, but a targeted and temporary mechanism to support domestic production, reduce costs and ease the burden on Nigerian families.
Shaibu explained that the clarification became necessary following Ibe’s remark that an Atiku administration would “restore fuel subsidy and remove it later.”
Shaibu described the remark as “an unauthorised, imprecise and materially misleading characterisation of Atiku’s policy position.”
He said while Atiku, as a candidate, held the copyright on any policy statement, spokespersons had the responsibility of communicating the policy accurately, not creating formulations that could confuse Nigerians.
Shaibu said: “For the avoidance of doubt, Atiku has never proposed restoring the old import-subsidy regime and subsequently removing it on a predetermined date. That is not his policy and should not be attributed to him.
“What Atiku proposes is a targeted, capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited intervention to support domestic refining and production, with measurable performance-based exit conditions built in from day one.
“The objective is not to subsidise inefficiency indefinitely. It is to reduce the cost of production, strengthen domestic refining, increase supply, deepen competition and create the conditions under which government support will no longer be necessary.
“There will be no arbitrary withdrawal based simply on a calendar date. The intervention will progressively decline as clearly defined conditions are met, including increased domestic refining, improved supply stability, stronger competition and the emergence of a market capable of delivering affordable petroleum products without continued government support.
“You do not remove scaffolding because the calendar says so. You remove it when the building can stand securely on its own.”
Shaibu said Nigerians should not be distracted by arguments over terminology when the central issue was the cost of living.
Atiku broke the news of his new position on the subsidy during an interactive interview with online and media platforms broadcasting in Hausa on Wednesday.
He said: “If elected, I will bring back the oil subsidy, and whoever stole the money must refund it.
“The government successfully removed the subsidy, but we do not know where the money went. If they had used the money for development, to solve security problems, for education, and to create opportunities for the youth, it would be different. If elected, I can remove the subsidy and use the money to do all these properly.”
