By Eshioromeh Sebastian
The subsidy debate has once again taken a new turn as former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has shifted his position on the contentious issue, marking yet another reversal in his policy stance ahead of the 2027 elections.
Speaking in a BBC interview, Atiku clarified that reinstating fuel subsidy would not be automatic but would depend on the situation on ground when he becomes President, saying a 100 per cent “sudden withdrawal” of fuel subsidy was not right .
He argued that any such move must be carefully weighed against the realities on the ground at the time, insisting that a wholesale reinstatement without proper assessment would be unwise.
“We shall meet with the people and examine the situation together. It shall be gradual. Certainly not 100 per cent as done by the current administration,” Atiku stated.
He further explained that a sudden reversal of the current policy would be akin to venturing into unknown territory, adding that leaders must base their decisions on verified facts rather than emotions or political expediency.
He described the current administration’s approach as too abrupt and maintained that a phased strategy would have been more beneficial for ordinary Nigerians.
The ADC flagbearer pushed back against accusations that his shifting rhetoric was a ploy to woo voters by capitalising on the prevailing economic hardship. He insisted that his concern was genuine and rooted in a desire to alleviate the suffering of citizens, not a desperate bid for political favour.
“It is not just about seeking votes. Talking about reviewing the subsidy removal is not a desperate search for votes. I am concerned and actually out to reduce Nigerians’ sufferings to the barest minimum,” he said.
Atiku also criticised the Federal Government for failing to channel the savings from subsidy removal into tangible improvements in the lives of the people.
He pointed to the persistent challenges of unemployment, poverty, and insecurity as evidence that the funds had not been deployed effectively, and he questioned the transparency surrounding the use of the proceeds.
“I did not oppose the removal of the oil subsidy, but where is the money? Where did it go?” he asked, adding later, “They talk about 30 trillion, where is the money, what was done with it?”
The former Vice President further linked the subsidy question to broader national security concerns, arguing that the same resources should have been invested in strengthening the country’s military and police forces.
He described Nigeria’s current security architecture as grossly inadequate, noting that Egypt, with a significantly smaller population, maintains over one million security personnel compared to Nigeria’s roughly 200,000.
On the political front, Atiku also hinted at ongoing consultations among opposition parties, suggesting that a consensus candidate could still emerge ahead of the 2027 polls, though he stopped short of providing specific details.
A History of Reversals
This latest clarification is far from the first time Atiku or his camp have oscillated on the subsidy matter, and the public record shows a pattern of repeated shifts that have left many observers puzzled.
During his 2022 presidential campaign under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku famously described fuel subsidy as fraudulent and repeatedly vowed to phase it out entirely within his first 100 days in office.
He made those declarations on several platforms, including a well-documented economic forum in Lagos where he laid out his vision for fiscal discipline.
Fast forward to August 2026, and the narrative had changed dramatically. In a live session on Facebook, Atiku made a surprising U-turn, pledging to restore subsidy if elected and vowing to recover any funds that had been misappropriated from the subsidy regime. That declaration sent shockwaves through political circles, given how starkly it contrasted with his earlier position.
The confusion only deepened in the days that followed. On Tuesday, August 25, his spokesman, Paul Ibe, offered an interpretation that suggested Atiku would restore subsidy only temporarily before phasing it out again. Within hours, however, another close aide, Phrank Shaibu, publicly contradicted that account, insisting that Atiku had set no timeline for removal and would maintain subsidy until domestic refining capacity and market conditions improved significantly.
Atiku himself was forced to intervene, overruling both aides and attempting to clarify that his position remained unchanged — a statement that only added to the growing perception of inconsistency. He introduced the concept of a “targeted subsidy,” leaving many to wonder exactly what that entailed.
The Presidency was quick to seize on the apparent disarray. Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, accused Atiku of performing a third U-turn within a single week and questioned his readiness to govern if his own team could not agree on a fundamental policy issue.
Onanuga suggested that Nigerians were being offered a confusing menu of explanations, none of which inspired confidence in the ADC candidate’s economic competence.
Also weighing in was FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, who did not hold back in his assessment. Wike labelled Atiku a “voodoo economist” and accused him of being thoroughly confused on the issue, pointing out that the same man who once called subsidy a fraud was now championing its return.
Wike asked pointedly whether Atiku was now embracing the very system he had previously condemned as corrupt and unsustainable.
The Coalition for Tinubu-Okpebholo-Nigeria also added its voice, describing the situation as an “Atiku versus Atiku” contest and reminding the public that the former Vice President’s past statements remain on record. The group demanded that Nigerians be given a clear and consistent position, rather than a moving target that shifted based on political convenience.
In response to the growing chorus of criticism, Atiku has continued to defend his approach, insisting that his position is not contradictory but rather reflective of a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances. He has repeatedly stressed that his ultimate goal remains the welfare of Nigerians and that any policy decisions would be guided by that principle.
Still, for many observers, the repeated reversals raise legitimate questions about what an Atiku presidency would actually look like on the subsidy question. With less than a year to go before the 2027 elections, voters may demand clearer answers before making their choice at the ballot box.
Discussion about this post