Bayo Onanuga questions Atiku Abubakar’s conflicting subsidy explanations and demands details on the cost, funding and beneficiaries of his proposal

The Presidency has launched a fresh attack on former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar over his position on petrol subsidy, accusing the African Democratic Congress presidential candidate of repeatedly changing or clarifying his proposal within a single week.

Also read: Atiku reaffirms subsidy plan, disowns aide

The Special Adviser to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the criticism in a statement issued on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, titled, “Atiku confused on petrol subsidy; third U-turn in one week shows he is simply playing politics.”

The controversy followed a series of statements from Atiku and his aides over whether an Atiku administration would restore petrol subsidy and, if so, how long the intervention would last.

Onanuga said the first position came from Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, who stated that Atiku would restore petrol subsidy if elected president before eventually phasing it out.

According to the presidential aide, that position was subsequently rejected by another Atiku aide, Phrank Shaibu, who described Ibe’s comments as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation”.

Shaibu instead said the proposed intervention would remain until domestic refining capacity increased, fuel supply stabilised and competition deepened in the downstream petroleum sector.

Atiku then intervened personally and reaffirmed that his position had not changed, saying he would restore what he described as a targeted subsidy.

“I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians,” Atiku said.

For Onanuga, the differing explanations amount to more than a disagreement over wording.

“This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction,” he said.

The presidential aide questioned why one aide would describe the proposed subsidy as temporary and subject to a phase-out, while another disowned that position before Atiku himself reaffirmed the restoration of a targeted subsidy.

Onanuga challenged the former vice-president to provide specific details about how the policy would operate if he eventually won the 2027 presidential election.

“We therefore urge Atiku to stop shifting positions and explain precisely what he means by ‘targeted subsidy’: 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?” he asked.

The dispute comes against the backdrop of the removal of petrol subsidy by President Tinubu shortly after his inauguration in May 2023.

The policy triggered a sharp rise in petrol prices and contributed to wider increases in transportation and household costs, although the Federal Government has consistently argued that ending the subsidy was necessary to protect public finances and redirect resources towards development.

Atiku has since positioned himself as a critic of the policy, arguing that Nigerians need immediate relief from high living costs.

Onanuga, however, said it would be misleading to attribute food inflation solely to petrol prices.

He pointed to insecurity, exchange-rate movements, logistics, storage costs, flooding and agricultural inputs as some of the factors affecting food prices.

The presidential aide also questioned Atiku’s proposal to link subsidy intervention to crude oil prices.

He noted that crude oil is refined into several products, including diesel, aviation fuel and kerosene, and asked whether the proposed subsidy would apply to those products as well.

Onanuga specifically recalled that diesel was deregulated in 2004 during the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo, when Atiku served as vice-president.

He also noted that kerosene and aviation fuel were deregulated at different periods, arguing that focusing primarily on petrol without addressing the broader petroleum market presented an incomplete economic argument.

The Presidency’s criticism adds another layer to the increasingly prominent economic debate ahead of the 2027 elections, with political parties expected to offer competing positions on fuel pricing, household purchasing power and energy policy.

For the Tinubu administration, the removal of subsidy remains a central element of its economic reform programme. Critics, including Atiku, have continued to argue that the immediate burden placed on households requires stronger intervention.

The latest exchange also highlights a potentially important challenge for Atiku’s campaign: translating the broad promise of a “targeted subsidy” into a clearly defined policy with transparent funding, eligibility criteria and an exit mechanism.

Onanuga concluded that Nigerians deserved a more detailed economic programme rather than what he described as “policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks.”

Also read: ADC chieftain Fabiyi defends Atiku over fuel subsidy reversal

The dispute is likely to persist as the 2027 presidential contest gathers momentum, with fuel pricing and the broader cost-of-living crisis expected to remain among the most politically sensitive issues facing voters.