The Special Adviser to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of inconsistency over his position on petrol subsidy, describing his recent statements as political manoeuvring.
Onanuga, in a statement, said Nigerians had received three different explanations within one week regarding what Atiku would do about petrol subsidy if elected president.
He said the conflicting positions had raised questions about whether the former vice-president had a coherent economic policy or was merely attempting to exploit the hardship being experienced by Nigerians.
According to Onanuga, Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially said the former vice-president would restore petrol subsidy if elected and subsequently phase it out.
Ibe reportedly described the measure as a temporary intervention designed to provide relief to Nigerians and businesses and allow them to recover.
However, Onanuga said another senior aide to Atiku, Phrank Shaibu, later described Ibe’s statement as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position.
Shaibu, according to Onanuga, said Atiku would not set a predetermined date for ending the subsidy, but would retain it until domestic refining increased, supply stabilised and competition deepened enough for the market to provide affordable petrol without government support.
Onanuga said Atiku himself subsequently intervened and reaffirmed the initial position, insisting that his position “has not changed” and that he would restore what he described as a “targeted subsidy”.
Atiku was also quoted as saying: “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”
Onanuga described the sequence of statements as a serious policy contradiction rather than a mere difference in wording.
“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 and introduce a completely different framework based on market conditions? And why did Atiku then step in to reaffirm the original position?” he asked.
The presidential aide said Nigerians deserved clarity on economic policies rather than what he described as “policy by trial and error”.
Onanuga also challenged Atiku’s argument that petrol subsidy would make fuel cheaper, saying pump prices were influenced by several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses.
He argued that while competition could improve efficiency and margins, it could not shield Nigeria from global crude oil prices and other production costs.
Onanuga further rejected what he described as an oversimplification of the relationship between petrol prices and food inflation.
He acknowledged that energy and transportation costs affect food prices but said petrol prices were not the only drivers of food inflation.
According to him, agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints also contribute to rising food prices.
He said any serious economic programme should address those factors instead of reducing the cost-of-living crisis to petrol prices.
Onanuga challenged Atiku to explain the details of his proposed “targeted subsidy”, including its cost, beneficiaries, funding mechanism and the economic conditions that would determine when it would eventually be terminated.
“Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language,” he said.
The presidential aide also questioned Atiku’s assertion that his proposed subsidy would “follow the barrel of crude”, arguing that crude oil refining produces several other petroleum products apart from petrol.
Onanuga said petrol accounts for about 45 per cent of the products obtained from a refined barrel of crude, while diesel accounts for roughly 25 per cent. He added that aviation fuel and kerosene make up about nine per cent, while other products include petrochemical feedstocks, asphalt, hydrocarbon gas liquids, lubricants and waxes.
He therefore asked whether Atiku’s proposed subsidy would extend to other petroleum products, particularly kerosene, which he said was used by poorer households for cooking, and diesel, which is used by homes and businesses to power generators and by transport and delivery companies.
He also questioned whether refineries receiving discounted crude under such an arrangement would be allowed to profit from the other products derived from the crude while government subsidy focused only on petrol.
Onanuga recalled that the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, in which Atiku served as vice-president, deregulated diesel in 2004. He added that kerosene and jet fuel were deregulated in 2009, with subsidies on kerosene subsequently removed in 2016.
The presidential aide accused Atiku of lacking sufficient understanding of the petroleum economics underpinning his proposed policy.
He said the former vice-president should provide Nigerians with a “coherent, costed, and workable petroleum policy” rather than what he described as policy somersaults, incoherence, populism and election gimmicks.
“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” Onanuga said.
