ADC Blasts Presidency Over Atiku’s N600 Fuel Plan

… N19.1trn Subsidy Claim Phantom Figure, Party Says

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has launched a fresh attack on the Presidency over its rejection of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar’s proposal to reduce petrol prices to about N600 per litre.

It described the government’s projected N19.1 trillion annual subsidy bill as a “phantom figure” designed to discredit the ADC candidate’s plan.

The party challenged the Presidency to prove its N19.1 trillion estimate, accusing President Bola Tinubu’s administration of using “fiscal scare-mongering” instead of addressing the hardship caused by the removal of petrol subsidy.

In a position paper released on Monday and signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC said the Presidency’s calculation was based on an assumed $80 per barrel crude price and a $40-per-barrel subsidy differential, which, he said, did not form part of Atiku’s proposal.

“The ADC does not concede that implementing the AERP would cost N19.1 trillion annually, because it does not,” Abdullahi said.

He accused the Presidency of constructing a subsidy model that Atiku did not propose and subsequently attacked it as though it were the former vice president’s policy.

“That is a classic straw man argument, the Presidency attacking the model it created by itself and passing it off as an attack on the opponent’s position. That is dubious,” he said.

The party said Atiku’s proposal was not a return to the controversial subsidy regime that relied heavily on imported refined petroleum products.

Instead, it said the proposal was designed to support domestic refineries through a controlled crude-feedstock incentive, with government intervention capped and linked to actual production.

According to Abdullahi, the proposed model would allow the government to intervene only when crude prices rise above an established benchmark, with the intervention subject to a predetermined fiscal ceiling.

He argued that the arrangement would encourage domestic refining, reduce petroleum imports, conserve foreign exchange and ultimately lower transportation, food, manufacturing and logistics costs.

The ADC also turned the subsidy argument against the Federal Government, demanding that it disclose the cost and economic benefits of its own petroleum-related interventions.

Abdullahi cited NNPC’s audited 2024 accounts, which he said recorded about N7.13 trillion under “Energy Security”, while broader petroleum-related expenditures and receivables could amount to roughly N17.5 trillion, depending on the accounting categories included.

He stressed that the ADC was not claiming that the entire amount represented conventional petrol subsidy, but demanded greater transparency over the expenditure.

“The government has a responsibility to explain clearly, transparently and accountably what these enormous petroleum-related expenditures represent, what Nigerians received for them and what economic value they created,” he said.

The opposition party also accused the government of double standards in its approach to fiscal incentives.

It pointed to President Tinubu’s Deep Offshore Oil and Gas Projects Incentives (Tax Remission) Order 2026, which provides production tax credits that can rise to $11.50 per barrel for qualifying oil projects.

Abdullahi argued that the government could not justify granting incentives to oil investors while portraying an incentive aimed at reducing domestic fuel prices and strengthening local refineries as irresponsible.

“If Nigeria can provide a production-linked fiscal incentive of up to $11.50 per barrel to stimulate offshore oil production, why is a carefully controlled crude-input incentive for domestic refineries dismissed as economic madness when its objective is to make fuel cheaper for Nigerians and build domestic refining capacity?” he asked.

The ADC further cited the reported N34 trillion value of import-duty exemptions approved by the Nigeria Customs Service, saying the policy demonstrated that the government was willing to forgo revenue when it believed an incentive could generate broader economic or social benefits.

The party said the same principle should apply to domestic refining and cheaper energy for Nigerians.
It also faulted the Presidency for calculating only the alleged fiscal cost of Atiku’s proposal without considering the potential foreign-exchange savings from reduced fuel imports.

“Where is its calculation of the foreign-exchange savings? Where is its calculation of the industrial multiplier? Where is its calculation of the cost of maintaining the status quo?” Abdullahi asked.

The ADC spokesman argued that cheaper petrol would have effects beyond motorists, noting that fuel prices influence transportation, food distribution, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, logistics and household purchasing power.

The party also dismissed concerns that Atiku’s proposal could enrich wealthy refinery owners, saying appropriate safeguards could prevent rent-seeking and diversion.

It proposed measurable refinery intake, audited production, compulsory domestic supply, transparent pricing, digital tracking and penalties for diversion.

Abdullahi said the Presidency must demonstrate that Atiku’s plan would actually cost N19.1 trillion annually before using the figure to discredit the proposal.

He also challenged the government to establish that the policy’s economic benefits would not outweigh its fiscal cost and that foreign-exchange savings and increased domestic production would not significantly offset the intervention.

“Fictitious numbers are not an economic argument,” he said.
The party maintained that the central question was not simply whether Nigeria could afford a subsidy, but what the country should subsidise and for whose benefit.

“The debate is not: subsidy or no subsidy. The debate is: What should Nigeria subsidise, why, and for whom?” Abdullahi said.
He added: “What Nigerians need is cheaper fuel, because Nigerians are too poor not to be subsidised. Nigerian crude should create Nigerian value for Nigerians.”

The ADC therefore challenged the Presidency to explain why a controlled incentive designed to make energy cheaper for Nigerians should be considered fiscally irresponsible while other multi-trillion-naira interventions and investment incentives were being granted.

It said Atiku’s proposal represented a transparent, capped and auditable production-support regime rather than a return to the opaque subsidy system of the past.