Isaac Samuel
Confusion has continued to trail the fuel subsidy proposal of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, following differing explanations by members of his campaign team over whether he plans to restore the controversial subsidy regime or introduce a new form of targeted support for domestic refining.
The latest clarification came on Tuesday from Atiku’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, who rejected an earlier description of the policy by another spokesman, Paul Ibe, that an Atiku administration would restore the subsidy and eventually remove it.
Shaibu described Ibe’s formulation as an “unauthorised, imprecise and materially misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position, insisting that the former vice-president had never proposed returning to the old import-subsidy regime.
Instead, he said Atiku’s proposal was for a “targeted, capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited” intervention to support domestic refining and production.
According to Shaibu, the support would become unnecessary as domestic refining expands, competition increases and the market becomes capable of delivering affordable fuel without government assistance.
The clarification, however, has raised questions about the consistency of Atiku’s campaign messaging, coming days after Atiku himself was widely reported to have promised to restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027.
Atiku had reignited the subsidy debate last week when he said he would restore the policy if elected, arguing that the government had failed to account for the savings generated by its removal.
He maintained that he had not opposed subsidy removal in principle but questioned what had happened to the resources that were expected to be saved and used to improve Nigerians’ welfare.
The proposal immediately drew criticism from the Presidency, which accused him of reversing his earlier position and seeking to revive a policy it considers fiscally damaging.
President Bola Tinubu described the proposal as evidence of Atiku’s “serious ignorance on governance and economy,” arguing that the subsidy regime had imposed a heavy burden on government finances.
The Presidency also challenged Atiku to provide the fiscal arithmetic behind his proposal, including how much the intervention would cost and who would finance it.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, argued that the economic circumstances surrounding Nigeria’s petroleum sector had changed considerably since 2023, particularly with the emergence of significant domestic refining capacity.
He warned that subsidising imported petrol could undermine domestic refiners by making imported products artificially cheaper.
The Presidency has also disputed Atiku’s claim that there was a massive pool of subsidy savings that could simply be returned to Nigerians through a renewed subsidy.
Faced with the criticism, Atiku’s campaign subsequently began presenting the proposal differently.
In his detailed explanation of the Atiku Economic Recovery Plan, the former vice-president said the proposed intervention would move subsidy “from importation to production” and ensure that government support follows crude oil allocated to Nigerian refineries.
Under the proposal, qualifying refineries would receive domestic crude at preferential prices, subject to conditions on production, efficiency, transparency and domestic supply.
Atiku said every subsidised barrel would be tracked from allocation to refining and ultimately to consumers.
He also proposed an annual fiscal ceiling, with the National Assembly expected to approve the maximum government exposure.
He argued that the objective would not be permanent subsidy but temporary support to strengthen domestic refining until the industry could operate without it.
That explanation is substantially different in presentation from the straightforward political message that he would “restore fuel subsidy.”
The situation became more complicated after Paul Ibe, another member of Atiku’s communication team, was reported as saying that the former vice-president would restore the subsidy and subsequently remove it.
That formulation suggested a conventional temporary subsidy arrangement.
Shaibu’s response, however, effectively distanced Atiku from that description.
He said policy belongs to the candidate and not his spokespersons, adding that communicators should explain an already articulated policy rather than create formulations capable of confusing Nigerians.
The contradiction has therefore shifted attention from the merits of Atiku’s economic proposal to the question of what exactly the ADC candidate is promising Nigerians
The debate also featured prominently at the Nigerian Bar Association’s 66th Annual General Conference in Port Harcourt on Monday, where Atiku’s running mate, former Rivers State governor Rotimi Amaechi, represented him at a political session.
Amaechi’s intervention was broader than simply defending the proposed subsidy.
He argued that the discussion around fuel costs should also take into account transportation infrastructure and the performance of previous administrations.
During a heated exchange with African Action Congress presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore, Amaechi said Nigerians should scrutinise the records of politicians who had previously held public office rather than be deceived by campaign promises.
He linked transportation policy to the subsidy debate, pointing to railway infrastructure and arguing that a functioning transportation system could have helped cushion the effect of fuel costs.
Amaechi defended his record as transport minister, saying the Lagos-Ajaokuta and Abuja-Kaduna rail lines were operational during his tenure and questioned why they were no longer functioning in the same manner under the current administration.
He also criticised former Anambra State governor Peter Obi over his record in education, saying lecturers and doctors had embarked on prolonged strikes during Obi’s tenure.
At one point during the heated exchange, Amaechi told Sowore: “When politicians are talking, Sowore, close your mouth.
Sowore, in turn, accused Amaechi and other politicians of changing their positions on subsidy and argued that the real question was who benefited from subsidy and who had borne the consequences of its removal.
Amaechi separately urged Nigerians to judge the ADC by its performance, saying: “If we can’t perform, don’t vote for us.” He also said the opposition coalition remained difficult because politicians were unwilling to sacrifice their ambitions.
While Atiku’s camp has sought to distinguish its proposal from the old subsidy regime, the Presidency has continued to frame it as a return to the policy that Tinubu abolished in 2023.
The administration’s argument is that the old arrangement created a significant fiscal burden, encouraged import dependence and exposed government finances to huge and difficult-to-track liabilities.
The Presidency has therefore challenged Atiku to explain the annual cost of his proposed intervention, its source of funding and its compatibility with the current petroleum-sector framework.
Tinubu has also defended the subsidy removal as part of his broader economic reforms, arguing that the policy had contributed to the financial difficulties experienced by states before his administration.
The President’s position is that reversing the policy would amount to returning Nigeria to an old economic model rather than addressing the structural problems responsible for high energy and transportation costs.
