By Eshioromeh Sebastian
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has declared that neither President Bola Tinubu nor “millions of his gang of economic jesters” can prevent him from restoring a targeted fuel subsidy if elected in 2027.
The presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) issued the defiant statement through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, accusing the Tinubu administration of dressing up subsidy removal as reform while quietly extending fiscal concessions to oil investors.
Atiku anchored his argument in the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited’s audited accounts, which he said contradict the government’s insistence that subsidy had ended.
“In 2023, NNPC’s accounts recorded approximately ₦4.84 trillion as energy-security expenses and related shortfalls, while its 2024 audited financial statements subsequently recorded about ₦7.13 trillion under energy-security expenses,” the statement read.
He noted that NNPC itself explained this expense arises from the difference between the exchange rate used to determine the regulated PMS ex-coastal price and the prevailing exchange rate when import obligations are settled.
“In plain English, government was still absorbing a price differential after Tinubu had triumphantly announced that subsidy was gone.”
Atiku insisted that renaming the expense as a “shortfall” rather than subsidy does not change its substance.
“Nigerians do not eat semantics. Whether government calls it subsidy, under-recovery, shortfall or energy security, public resources were being used to bridge a gap between economic cost and the price at which petrol was sold. You cannot abolish subsidy at the podium and resurrect it in the accounts under an alias.”
The former Vice President emphasised that his proposal — the Atiku Economic Recovery Plan (AERP) 2027 — is not a return to the old subsidy regime.
“My proposal is not to resurrect the old subsidy regime. We will move subsidy from importation to production, from middlemen to Nigerian refineries, and from unverifiable claims to verifiable barrels. The principle is simple: the subsidy will follow the barrel.”
Under the AERP, qualifying public and private Nigerian refineries would receive domestic crude at a preferential price, subject to strict production, efficiency, transparency and domestic-supply conditions.
Fiscal Discipline: The subsidy would operate within a predetermined annual fiscal ceiling approved through the federal budget, eliminating “open-ended subsidy liabilities.”
Transparency: Every subsidised barrel would be tracked from allocation through refining to the Nigerian consumer. “No phantom cargoes. No fictitious imports. No unverifiable under-recoveries. No retrospective claims.”
Domestic Focus: Refineries receiving subsidised crude must refine it in Nigeria and supply agreed products to Nigerians. “If you receive subsidised Nigerian crude, you must refine it in Nigeria, supply the agreed products to Nigerians and pass the benefit to Nigerians. Otherwise, you do not qualify.”
Sunset Provisions: The subsidy would progressively reduce as domestic refining capacity expands, refinery utilisation improves, competition increases, and production costs decline.
“Our objective is not permanent subsidy. It is to use temporary and disciplined support to build a refining industry strong enough eventually not to need subsidy.”
Atiku accused the administration of applying one economic standard to corporations and another to citizens.
“The government can protect a multibillion-dollar oil investment from risk, yet it says protecting the Nigerian worker from crushing hardship is bad economics. It can bend policy to make every barrel of crude more profitable, but tells a struggling mother that making the litre of petrol she needs to take her children to school more affordable is irresponsible.”
He cited the Deep Offshore Oil and Gas Projects Incentives framework, under which qualifying petroleum developments can access production tax credits beginning at $3 and $4.50 per barrel.
“Under Tinubu’s own Deep Offshore Oil and Gas Projects Incentives framework, qualifying petroleum developments can receive production tax credits beginning at $3 and $4.50 per barrel, with supplementary credits capable, in qualifying circumstances, of taking the combined benefit to as much as $11.50 per barrel.”
“So, what exactly is Tinubu’s objection: government intervention itself, or government intervention for Nigerians?” he asked.
Atiku described this as “the fraud at the heart of Tinubunomics” — Nigerian families subjected to the harshest interpretation of market economics while major petroleum investors receive incentives to improve the commercial viability of their investments.
“Tinubu cannot operate two economies in one country — brutally savage capitalism for poor Nigerian families and compassionate capitalism for big oil money operators. In fact, it is one rule for them and another rule for the rest of us.”
Atiku also mounted a vigorous defence of his proposal against Tinubu’s dismissal, accusing the President of economic arson.
“If economic ignorance had a presidential seal, Tinubu and his family would be its official logo. Here is an administration that detonated simultaneous fuel-price, exchange-rate and cost-of-living shocks across a fragile economy, watched millions become poorer, and now struts around Abuja demanding applause for the wreckage.”
“That is not reform. It is economic arson followed by propaganda about the ashes.”
He rejected the argument that increased Federation Account allocations represent a benefit of subsidy removal.
“You do not build a federation by impoverishing citizens so that Abuja can send bigger cheques to governors. That is robbing households to subsidise governments.”
The Presidency has responded sharply, with Special Adviser Bayo Onanuga describing Atiku’s proposal as evidence of a man “desperate for power” who makes promises that “does not make fiscal sense, is retrogressive, and is against the genuine interest of the people.”
Onanuga challenged Atiku to state the annual cost of his proposed subsidy, its source of funding, and the legal framework under which it would operate.
The Presidency also rejected Atiku’s claim regarding a N30 trillion subsidy-removal windfall. “Contrary to Atiku’s claim in his interview, no N30 trillion subsidy windfall or savings exists anywhere except in his imagination.”
The Federal Ministry of Finance puts estimated subsidy savings across the Federation at N15.8 trillion, with N5.43 trillion attributed to the Federal Government, N6.52 trillion to states, and N3.88 trillion to local governments.
Discussion about this post