By ABT News Desk
The Presidency has launched a scathing attack on former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, accusing him of playing politics and lacking a basic understanding of the petroleum sector over his recent comments regarding the petrol subsidy.
In a strongly worded statement issued by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, the Bola Tinubu administration criticized the “serious policy contradiction and confusion” emanating from the camp of the 2023 presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The Presidency pointed out that within a single week, Nigerians were fed three conflicting explanations regarding what an Atiku administration would do about the fuel subsidy:
- Statement 1: Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially announced that Atiku would restore the petrol subsidy as a temporary intervention to give businesses room to recover before eventually phasing it out.
- Statement 2: Shortly after, another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, walked back Ibe’s comments, calling them “unauthorised and misleading.” Shaibu claimed Atiku would not set a predetermined date to end the subsidy, stating it would remain in place until domestic refining expanded and supply stabilized.
- Statement 3: Hours later, Atiku himself overruled his aides, insisting his position had not changed and promising to restore a “targeted subsidy” to return purchasing power to Nigerians.
Reacting to the back-and-forth, the Presidency demanded transparency. “If Atiku’s position has not changed, why did one of his principal aides say the subsidy would be temporary and phased out? Why did another senior aide have to publicly disown that explanation?” the statement read, adding that “Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error.”
The Presidency further dismantled Atiku’s argument that petrol prices alone are responsible for the current cost-of-living crisis. While acknowledging that energy costs impact food prices, the administration noted that Nigerians still experienced rising food inflation even when the subsidy was active. They emphasized that agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, and logistics must all be addressed holistically—a strategy they maintain President Tinubu has actively pursued over the past three years.
Furthermore, Onanuga’s statement mocked Atiku’s claim that his proposed subsidy would “follow the barrel of crude.” The Presidency questioned if the former Vice President was aware that refined petrol constitutes only 45 percent of the by-products of a refined barrel of crude oil.
Noting that other by-products like diesel, kerosene, and jet fuel were deregulated years ago—some under the Obasanjo-Atiku administration—the Presidency asked if Atiku also plans to subsidize the remaining 55 percent of crude by-products, including materials used for plastics, nylon, and asphalt.
“The former Vice President is definitely suffering from a lack of basic understanding of his newfound policy prescription,” the Presidency declared.
Challenging Atiku to present a coherent and costed petroleum policy, the Tinubu administration warned that the Nigerian economy is “too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism, and election gimmicks,” defending their own removal of the subsidy as a necessary step that has restored fiscal health to all tiers of government.
By
