Presidency Challenges Atiku Over Petrol Subsidy Plan, Demands Cost and Funding Details

Reported By Facthabournews

The Presidency has challenged former Vice-President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, to provide clear details of his proposal to restore a “targeted subsidy” on petrol if elected president in 2027.

The Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, accused Atiku of giving conflicting explanations about the proposed policy and described the development as a serious policy contradiction.

Presidency Questions Atiku’s Position

According to Onanuga, Nigerians received three different explanations from Atiku’s camp within one week.

Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially said an Atiku administration would restore petrol subsidy and later phase it out as a temporary measure to help Nigerians and businesses recover from economic hardship.

Another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described that explanation as unauthorised and misleading. He said the subsidy would instead remain until domestic refining capacity expands, supply stabilises, competition increases and market forces can deliver affordable petrol without government support.

Atiku later intervened and said his position had not changed, reaffirming his intention to introduce what he called a targeted subsidy.

‘How Much Will It Cost?’

The Presidency is demanding that Atiku explain the practical details of the proposal.

Onanuga asked:

• How much would the subsidy cost annually?
• Who would benefit?
• How would beneficiaries be identified?
• How would the programme be funded?
• What conditions would determine when it would end?

The Presidency argued that Nigerians should not be asked to support another subsidy regime without knowing its financial implications and funding structure.

A separate estimate from Presidential aide Otega Ogra put the potential cost of Atiku’s proposed subsidy at ₦19.1 trillion annually, although that figure is a government estimate rather than an independently established cost of Atiku’s proposal.

Presidency Rejects Fuel-Price Argument

Onanuga also challenged the argument that restoring petrol subsidy would automatically make fuel and food cheaper.

He said petrol prices are affected by several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses.

The Presidency also argued that food inflation cannot be attributed solely to petrol prices, pointing to agricultural productivity, insecurity, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and wider supply constraints as other factors affecting food prices.

Questions Over Domestic Refining

The Presidency also questioned Atiku’s proposal to link the subsidy to crude oil prices.

Onanuga noted that crude oil refining produces several products besides petrol, including diesel, aviation fuel and kerosene.

He therefore questioned whether government support would be restricted to petrol or extended to other refined products as well.

The Presidency further asked how refineries receiving discounted crude under the proposed arrangement would treat revenues from other petroleum products.

Atiku Defends Proposal

Atiku has maintained that his position is aimed at easing the economic pressure Nigerians are experiencing following the removal of petrol subsidy.

His supporters argue that higher fuel prices have contributed to increases in transportation and food costs and have weakened household purchasing power.

Former ADC National Chairman Ralph Nwosu said Atiku was prepared to make a clear commitment to Nigerians on the proposed policy, including details of the expected petrol price, when the campaign formally begins.

Atiku’s camp has also described the proposed intervention as targeted, capped and designed to support domestic refining and restore purchasing power rather than simply recreate the previous subsidy system.

Major 2027 Campaign Issue

The dispute has turned petrol subsidy into another major economic issue ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

The Tinubu administration maintains that removing subsidy has strengthened government finances and helped improve the country’s fiscal position, while Atiku argues that the policy has placed excessive pressure on households and businesses.

The disagreement highlights a broader question Nigerians are likely to confront during the 2027 campaign: whether the country should maintain the current market-based petrol pricing system or introduce a targeted government intervention to reduce the burden on consumers.

For voters, the key issue may ultimately be the details—how much any subsidy would cost, who would receive it, how it would be financed and whether it could be sustained without creating another major burden on public finances.

As the political debate intensifies, the Presidency is demanding a fully costed proposal from Atiku, while the former vice-president’s camp insists that its planned intervention would provide relief to Nigerians and support domestic production.

This report distinguishes between political claims and independently established facts. The ₦19.1 trillion figure is an estimate presented by a presidential aide and should not be treated as the confirmed cost of Atiku’s proposed policy.