The Presidency has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of repeatedly changing his position on petrol subsidy, describing the differing explanations from the former vice-president and his aides as evidence of policy confusion ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
The latest confrontation followed renewed controversy over Atiku’s pledge to restore petrol subsidy if elected president. The former vice-president has maintained that Nigerians should benefit from government intervention to cushion the impact of rising fuel prices and the wider economic hardship associated with subsidy removal.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, the Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, alleged that Atiku’s position had been presented differently on three occasions within one week.
Onanuga said the controversy began after Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, stated that the former vice-president would restore petrol subsidy if elected in 2027, before gradually phasing it out after economic conditions improved.
Atiku subsequently reaffirmed that he would restore the subsidy, effectively rejecting any suggestion that his position was merely temporary or that he had abandoned the proposal.
The Presidency seized on the conflicting statements to question the former vice-president’s consistency on economic policy.
Onanuga characterised the latest development as a political manoeuvre, arguing that Atiku was attempting to exploit public frustration over the economic consequences of the subsidy removal.
The dispute has reopened one of Nigeria’s most contentious economic debates. President Tinubu removed the petrol subsidy shortly after assuming office in May 2023, arguing that the policy had become financially unsustainable and was draining government resources.
The decision was followed by a sharp increase in petrol prices, with knock-on effects on transportation, food prices, household expenses and business operations. The subsidy issue has remained politically sensitive because of its direct impact on the daily lives of millions of Nigerians.
Atiku has argued that the government failed to adequately protect citizens from the consequences of the reform and that Nigerians have not sufficiently benefited from the resources supposedly saved through subsidy removal. He has also defended his proposed intervention as different from the previous subsidy arrangement.
The former vice-president’s position has, however, attracted criticism from members of the governing APC. Critics have pointed to Atiku’s previous statements on subsidy reform and questioned whether his current position represents a genuine change in economic thinking or a strategy designed to appeal to voters ahead of 2027.
The controversy also comes amid a broader political battle between Atiku and the Tinubu administration over Nigeria’s economic direction. Atiku has repeatedly criticised the government’s management of the economy, while the Presidency has defended its reforms as necessary measures to stabilise public finances and create a foundation for long-term growth.
For Atiku, the subsidy debate provides an opportunity to distinguish his proposed economic programme from the Tinubu administration’s approach and address widespread concerns about the cost of living.
For the Presidency, however, his changing explanations provide an opening to question his credibility and policy consistency.
With the 2027 presidential contest already taking shape, the renewed subsidy debate is likely to remain a major campaign issue. Beyond the political accusations, the central question for Nigerian voters may ultimately be whether subsidy restoration can be sustainably financed and whether it would provide meaningful relief without recreating the fiscal and governance problems associated with the previous system.
The latest exchange therefore signals that petrol pricing, economic hardship and the future of subsidy policy are likely to occupy a prominent place in the political contest leading up to the 2027 elections.
