Presidency, Atiku Clash Over Fuel Subsidy Promise

…I’ll Remove Subsidy If Elected President — Atiku
…Atiku’s Plan Retrogressive, Will Cripple Economy — Presidency
— Ex-VP Confused, A Voodoo Economist—Wike

The presidency and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar have clashed over his promise to restore fuel subsidy if elected president.

The Federal Government described the proposal as regressive and questioned how it would be funded under Nigeria’s current petroleum-sector structure.

The dispute was further escalated on Thursday by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, who slammed Atiku for abandoning his earlier position on subsidy removal and described him as a “voodoo economist.”

The Presidency, in a statement by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said Atiku’s proposal amounted to a return to a subsidy regime that had been dismantled under the Petroleum Industry Act.

Onanuga noted that Atiku had supported subsidy removal but now changed his position five months before the election in an alleged attempt to win political support.

I Will Restore Petrol Subsidy – Atiku

In an interview on Wednesday, Atiku said the current administration failed to account for the funds saved from the removal of petrol subsidy.

“I did not oppose the removal of the oil subsidy, but where is the money? Where did it go? It was intended to reduce poverty and help children attend school. Where is the money now? It seems they are just stealing it,” Atiku said in Hausa.

“If elected, I will bring back the oil subsidy, and whoever stole the money must refund it.”

Atiku said subsidy removal could have been justified if the savings had been channelled into development projects.

“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,” he stated.

Reacting, the presidency said: “We respect Alhaji Atiku Abubakar’s constitutional right to propose alternative policies, to seek the support of Nigerians and recant a major policy prescription,” the presidency said.

“However, Nigerians also deserve to understand what the proposed restoration of subsidy would actually mean, how it would be funded, and whether it is compatible with the legal and structural changes that have taken place in the petroleum sector.”

The presidency argued that the subsidy was not simply money kept in government coffers for the purpose of reducing petrol prices.

It described the former arrangement as the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation’s sale of petrol below its acquisition cost, with government absorbing the resulting losses.

“It is the massive discount the NNPC offered the Nigerian government: selling fuel it bought at N100 at N50 at the pump, leading to under-recovery of costs and massive losses,” the statement said.

It also rejected Atiku’s claim that the removal of subsidy had created N30trn in savings, saying, “no N30 trillion subsidy windfall or savings exists anywhere except in his imagination.”

According to the presidency, the petrol subsidy regime had already been dismantled under the Petroleum Industry Act, which provided for its removal by the end of June 2023.

It said President Bola Tinubu only brought the removal forward by several weeks to prevent further financial losses.

The presidency noted that any attempt to restore the former arrangement would therefore require more than an announcement by a future government, adding that it would require a new legal, fiscal and administrative framework.

It further questioned what exactly would be subsidised under the current petroleum market, following the growth of domestic refining capacity and the emergence of private refineries.

“The Dangote Refinery would not have kickstarted production for local consumption were the subsidy regime operative,” the statement said.

It argued that restoring the former arrangement could undermine local refining and expose smaller domestic refineries to financial pressure, with possible consequences for employment and foreign exchange.

The presidency also pointed to the shift from dependence on imported petrol to domestic refining, saying Nigeria was increasingly able to process crude locally and supply the domestic market.

It said the government had also stopped using substantial public funds to finance discounted petrol, with the money instead contributing to increased allocations to the three tiers of government.

“The N15 trillion that would have been borrowed and spent on selling discounted petrol has now significantly gone into the coffers of the three tiers of government,” the statement said.

It cited the distribution of about N3 trillion from the Federation Account in July as evidence of the increased revenue available to governments.

The Presidency said the higher allocations had strengthened the finances of state governments and allowed them to pay salaries and undertake infrastructure projects.

Wike, who spoke while inspecting infrastructure projects in Abuja on Thursday, focused largely on Atiku’s previous statements on subsidy removal.

He recalled that Atiku had said in 2022 that he would remove fuel subsidy within his first 100 days in office if elected president.

“Now, in 2026, he is not going to remove the fuel subsidy. Is he going back to the fraud, which he had alleged that fuel subsidy was?” Wike asked.

The FCT minister accused Atiku of changing his position to suit political circumstances and said presidential candidates should be consistent in their policy positions.

He said, “Atiku, who is confused, who acts like a voodoo economist, Atiku will say anything just to be president.

“Leadership is not you coming out, you say one thing now in the morning, in the afternoon you say a different thing, in the night you are talking of a different thing. That is not it.”

The presidency called on Atiku to provide specific details on the cost and financing of his proposal, including the annual cost of subsidy, the revenue source, whether the government would borrow to fund it and whether amendments to the Petroleum Industry Act would be required.

It also asked how subsidy payments would be verified and protected against the abuses associated with the former system.

“And, now that Nigeria has substantially increased domestic petrol production, what precisely would the proposed subsidy be subsidising—the cost of local production, transportation and distribution, or some other component of the petroleum value chain?” the statement asked.

The Presidency said the debate over the cost of living and economic policy was legitimate but should take account of changes in Nigeria’s petroleum sector since 2023.

It urged political actors to present Nigerians with the full fiscal and legal implications of any proposal to restore fuel subsidy.

Meanwhile, the FCT minister has questioned how a future government would implement subsidy under the present structure of the petroleum industry.

He said the Petroleum Industry Act had changed the status of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company, transforming it from the former state-controlled corporation into NNPC Limited.

“He (Atiku) is living in the past. If not, he will know that with the Petroleum Industry Act, NNPC is now fully commercialised. It has transformed the old NNPC into a limited liability company (NNPC Limited), and no longer the sole importer or producer of fuel,” Wike said.

He also questioned whether a government led by Atiku would subsidise petrol produced by privately owned refineries.

“Will Atiku, as President (which he never be), pay subsidy on fuel produced by Dangote Refinery?” he asked.

The minister said restoring government-controlled fuel prices could reverse reforms in the petroleum sector and recreate some of the problems associated with the former subsidy system, including smuggling and arbitrage.

Wike also challenged Atiku to explain what he believed should happen to the money previously spent on subsidy.

“All I thought he would have argued, ‘Yes, I still believe in the removal of fuel subsidy, and I think that the savings made would have been utilised in this way or that way,’” Wike said.

He defended the removal of subsidy, saying the policy had increased allocations to federal, state and local governments.

According to him, the additional revenue had enabled governments to meet salary and pension obligations, reducing delays in payments to workers.

“Nobody talks about non-payment of pension, nobody talks about non-payment of salary. Before, for you to pay salary, you would beg and beg the banks to give you money. But all those things are things of the past,” he said.

The Presidency, however, acknowledged the pressure created by higher petrol prices, particularly on households and businesses.

It said the government was encouraging the adoption of Compressed Natural Gas as a cheaper alternative to petrol, noting that CNG was 70 per cent cheaper and was already being used by some major companies in their transport fleets.

The statement said the government’s position was that relief from high energy costs should be achieved without recreating a subsidy system that had placed a heavy burden on public finances.

“We believe sustainable relief is different from recreating a fiscal arrangement that will again cripple our country,” it said.

Wike also dismissed suggestions that Atiku was among the leading opposition contenders for the 2027 presidential election.

“I disagree with you that Atiku is one of the leading candidates,” Wike told a journalist, adding, “You have only one leading candidate, and that’s Asiwaju Ahmed Bola Tinubu.”

He argued that the opposition was less cohesive than it was in 2023 and lacked the strength to challenge the All Progressives Congress.

“That’s why I say that 2027 is gone. It’s gone because you don’t have an opposition that want to wrestle power from the government,” he said.