The Presidency has maintained that the Tinubu-led administration’s economic reforms have improved the fiscal position of the three tiers of government and helped stabilise Nigeria’s macroeconomic environment.
It said the gains recorded under the reforms should not be undermined by what it described as an unclear and potentially costly subsidy regime, challenging former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar to provide details of his proposed “targeted subsidy”, including its cost, beneficiaries, funding mechanism and conditions for its eventual termination.
In a statement signed by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, on Wednesday, the Presidency accused the former Vice-President of shifting positions on petrol subsidy, insisting that Nigerians deserve clarity on his petroleum policy.
“The former vice-president should be honest with Nigerians: either he has a coherent, costed, and workable petroleum policy, or he is simply playing politics with a policy that has significantly restored fiscal health to the three tiers of government and stabilised the macroeconomic environment,” Onanuga said.
The Presidential aide cited what he described as three different explanations of Atiku’s subsidy proposal within one week. He recalled that Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially said an Atiku administration would restore petrol subsidy temporarily and later phase it out.
He noted that another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described the position as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation”, explaining instead that the subsidy would remain until domestic refining expands, supply stabilises, competition deepens and the market can deliver affordable prices without government support.
Mr Onanuga emphasised that Atiku later maintained that his position had not changed, insisting that he would restore a “targeted subsidy” and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.
“This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction and confusion,” he said.
The Presidency, however, challenged Atiku to explain the structure and sustainability of the proposal.
“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?”
Onanuga further highlighted that petrol prices are influenced by international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining, transportation, distribution and other market costs, stressing that increased competition alone cannot insulate Nigeria from global crude prices and other input costs.
He also rejected what the Presidency described as an oversimplification of the relationship between petrol prices and food inflation, noting that Nigerians experienced rising food prices even when petrol subsidy was in place.
The Presidential aide further stated that agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints also contribute to food prices and the cost of living.
Mr Onanuga also questioned Atiku’s proposal that subsidy should follow the price of a barrel of crude, noting that petrol constitutes only part of the products derived from refining crude oil, alongside diesel, aviation fuel, kerosene and other by-products.
“Will Atiku subsidise all these by-products of the barrel as well, since kerosene is used by the underprivileged to cook, and many homes and factories use diesel to power generators and delivery trucks?” Onanuga queried.
The Presidency therefore called on the former Vice-President to present what it described as a coherent, costed and workable petroleum policy, insisting that Nigeria’s economy was too important for policy uncertainty and conflicting positions.
