…Provide evidence we’re thieves, APC challenges Atiku
By Our Reporters
The political temperature ahead of the 2027 presidential election rose further on Wednesday as former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the Bola Tinubu-led Presidency engaged in a war of words over the contentious fuel subsidy removal and the long-standing $16 billion power sector privatisation expenditure allegations against the former vice president.
Atiku, who has double down oh his plan to return fuel subsidy, challenged the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute him if it has any evidence linking him to the alleged power sector spending during his time in office.
He accused the President Tinubu administration of recycling old allegations to divert attention from questions over the use of revenues saved from subsidy removal.
In a swift counter, the Presidency accused Atiku of policy confusion, pointing to what it described as conflicting statements from his camp on whether he would restore fuel subsidy if elected in 2027.
The ruling All Progressives Congress also weighed in, challenging the ADC presidential candidate to go to court with evidence to back his claim that he is competing against “thieves,” while the National Association of Nigerian Students criticised his subsidy promise as a political gimmick rather than a sustainable solution.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging the Bola Tinubu-led Federal Government to investigate and prosecute him if it has any evidence linking him to the alleged $16 billion power sector expenditure during his time in office.
The 2027 presidential hopeful, who is running on the platform of the African Democratic Congress, accused the administration of resurrecting old allegations to divert public attention from pressing questions over how revenues saved from the removal of petrol subsidy are being utilised.
Atiku, in a statement issued on Wednesday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, maintained that the recurring allegations surrounding power-sector projects, privatisation and public assets were nothing more than an attempt to shift focus from the economic hardship Nigerians are currently facing.
The controversy dates back to the Olusegun Obasanjo administration, whose power sector spending—commonly cited at about $16 billion—became the subject of a House of Representatives probe after Obasanjo left office in 2007.
The figure was initially reported as about $11 billion before evolving into the $16 billion figure now frequently referenced.
Obasanjo had earlier defended himself, citing an EFCC investigation and a presidential review process that he argued undermined claims that the $16 billion had been squandered.
A report had suggested that only about $3.7 billion of the $10 billion budgeted amount was actually disbursed, with the balance retained in an account at the Central Bank of Nigeria.
An EFCC report published in 2018 further indicated that about N1.2 trillion had been allocated to the National Integrated Power Projects, but only approximately N360.7 billion was paid to contractors by the time Obasanjo left office.
The report also noted that about N273.65 billion was spent on the defunct Power Holding Company of Nigeria between 1999 and 2007.
“The National Assembly investigated the power projects. I was never invited to answer any allegation of wrongdoing,” Atiku stated.
“Yes, I chaired the National Council on Privatisation as Vice President. But on the power project, I disagreed with its concept and did not preside over its implementation. The responsible minister did.”
He further challenged the government to come forward with evidence, stressing that he had spent most of his time since leaving office in 2007 opposing governments in power.
“I have repeatedly asked to be investigated. If there is evidence that I stole public money, why has no government produced it before a court? Investigate me. Invite me. Produce the evidence. Prosecute me if you have a case. But propaganda cannot substitute for evidence,” he declared.
Atiku has made the economic consequences of subsidy removal a central pillar of his criticism of the Tinubu administration, arguing that Nigerians have endured substantial increases in the cost of petrol, transportation, food and other basic necessities without seeing commensurate benefits from the additional government revenues.
“They removed subsidy from the poor and promised that the sacrifice would free resources for development. Nigerians accepted extraordinary pain on that promise,” he said.
“Today, petrol is more expensive, transportation is more expensive, food is more expensive, and the purchasing power of the Nigerian worker has been devastated.”
He questioned the government’s fiscal priorities, alleging that while ordinary Nigerians were being asked to endure the consequences of subsidy removal, powerful economic interests continued to benefit from fiscal incentives, waivers and concessions.
“Meanwhile, government revenues have increased, while fiscal incentives, waivers, tax credits and concessions continue to be available to powerful economic interests. So, our question remains brutally simple: where is the people’s money?” Atiku demanded.
In a swift response, the Presidency criticised Atiku over what it described as conflicting positions on petrol subsidy, accusing him of a lack of clarity in his policy proposals.
The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said in a statement titled ‘Atiku confused on petrol subsidy; third U-turn in one week shows he is simply playing politics’ that the former Vice President’s position had changed or been explained differently three times within a week.
Onanuga pointed to an initial statement by Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, that the ADC candidate would restore petrol subsidy if elected and later phase it out.
He noted that another aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described Ibe’s position as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s stance, arguing that the subsidy would instead remain until domestic refining increased, supply stabilised and market competition deepened.
Atiku later intervened and reaffirmed his position, saying he would restore what he described as a “targeted subsidy.”
“This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction,” Onanuga stated.
The presidential aide also questioned how Atiku’s proposed subsidy would work, asking: “How much will it cost, who will benefit, how will beneficiaries be identified, how will it be funded and what objective economic conditions will determine its eventual termination?”
APC challenges Atiku to go to court
Meanwhile, the All Progressives Congress has challenged Atiku to go to court and provide evidence to substantiate his claim that “thieves” were responsible for the country’s political and economic problems ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The ruling party’s Director of Publicity, Bala Ibrahim, urged Atiku to seek legal redress if he had evidence to support his allegations, questioning whether the former Vice President had lost confidence in the judiciary.
“If he has confidence in the judiciary and he is making these allegations, I think he knows the right place to go, to prove his point. He should go to court, present facts to support his claims that he is competing against thieves,” Ibrahim said.
NANS rejects subsidy promise
The National Association of Nigerian Students also weighed in, criticising Atiku’s proposal to restore fuel subsidy if elected President in 2027, describing the promise as a political response to economic hardship rather than a sustainable solution.
NANS President, Akinteye Babatunde, argued that returning to the old subsidy system without a clear structural framework would recreate the problems that made the policy unsustainable.
“Every sane and patriotic citizen who is conversant with our nation’s economy will agree with me that the removal of the fuel subsidy was a difficult but necessary economic reform aimed at ending an increasingly unsustainable system that consumed trillions of naira, benefited higher fuel consumers disproportionately, encouraged smuggling, and constrained the government’s ability to invest in critical sectors,” Babatunde said.
The student leader stressed that the real test of the reform was not simply the amount of money saved but how the government deployed the resources.
“This is why calls or promises for the outright return of subsidy, without a clear structural framework for addressing the fundamental weaknesses that made the policy unsustainable in the first place, amount to little more than a political response to a genuine economic challenge,” he added.
President Tinubu announced the removal of fuel subsidy shortly after his inauguration in May 2023, ending a long-standing system under which the Federal Government subsidised the cost of the product.
The policy triggered a sharp increase in petrol prices and contributed to higher transportation and living costs, making subsidy removal one of the most politically contentious issues of the Tinubu presidency.
Atiku’s latest move comes amid intensifying political activities ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with the ADC and other opposition forces mounting increasingly direct attacks on the Tinubu administration.
The former Vice President dismissed what he described as “sponsored social-media mud slinging,” insisting that such attacks would not deter him from demanding accountability.
“The people who removed subsidy from the poor cannot frighten us into silence by resurrecting allegations that governments with all the investigative machinery of the Nigerian state have had nearly two decades to establish,” he said.
“If you have evidence against Atiku, bring it. If you have a case, prosecute it. But if you have neither, stop manufacturing distractions and answer Nigerians. You removed the subsidy. You collected the savings. Where is the money?”
Spear News Nigeria
Discussion about this post