By Augustine Ehikioya
The Presidency has accused former Vice President Atiku Abubakar of “playing politics” with petrol subsidy, alleging that his camp has issued three conflicting positions on the policy within a week.
In a statement signed by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, the Presidency said Nigerians deserved clarity on such a critical economic issue rather than what it described as “policy by trial and error.”
Onanuga cited statements by three figures in Atiku’s camp over the proposed return of petrol subsidy.
According to him, Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially said an Atiku administration would restore petrol subsidy and later phase it out as a temporary intervention.
However, another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently disowned that position, saying there would be “no predetermined date” for ending the subsidy. He said it would remain in place until domestic refining capacity expanded, fuel supply stabilised and market conditions delivered affordable prices.
Atiku later reaffirmed his position, saying it “has not changed” and that he would restore what he described as a “targeted subsidy” to “put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”
Onanuga questioned what he described as the apparent inconsistencies.
“If Atiku’s position has not changed, why did one of his principal aides say the subsidy would be temporary? Why did another senior aide publicly disown that explanation? And why did Atiku then step in to reaffirm the original position?” he asked.
The Presidency also rejected Atiku’s argument that restoring subsidy would help address the rising cost of living, describing the proposal as a misunderstanding of the dynamics of the petroleum market.
According to Onanuga, petrol pump prices are influenced by several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses, rather than subsidy or competition alone.
He also challenged the argument that rising petrol prices automatically drive up transport costs and, in turn, food prices.
“Petrol prices alone have never caused food inflation. Nigerians experienced rising food prices even during the years when petrol subsidy was in place,” Onanuga said.
He listed agricultural productivity, insecurity, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs and money supply among the factors contributing to food inflation, adding that the Tinubu administration had been addressing these issues since taking office.
The Presidency also demanded greater clarity from Atiku on what he meant by a “targeted subsidy.”
Onanuga warned that the proposal could amount to “another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language” unless its scope and funding were clearly defined.
He further questioned Atiku’s claim that the subsidy would “follow the barrel of crude,” noting that petrol accounts for only about 45 per cent of the products obtained from a refined barrel.
The remaining products, he said, include diesel, aviation fuel, kerosene, asphalt and petrochemicals, most of which have been deregulated for years.
“Will Atiku subsidise all these by-products as well, since kerosene is used by the underprivileged to cook, and many homes and factories use diesel?” the statement asked.
The Presidency accused the former vice president of lacking a coherent policy framework for his proposed subsidy regime and argued that the economy could not afford what it described as “policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks.”
