By Cross Udo, Abuja
The Presidency has accused former Vice-President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, of sending conflicting signals over his proposed return of petrol subsidy, describing his position as a policy contradiction that could expose Nigerians to another costly subsidy regime.
The Presidency’s reaction followed Atiku’s declaration that his position on a proposed “targeted subsidy” had not changed, despite conflicting statements from members of his political team over whether the policy would be temporary or eventually phased out.
In a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Mr Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency questioned the economic basis of Atiku’s proposal and challenged him to explain how the subsidy would be funded, targeted and eventually withdrawn.
According to the Presidency, Atiku’s position has generated confusion after different members of his team offered varying explanations within the same week.
Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, had earlier said an Atiku administration would restore the petrol subsidy as a temporary intervention before phasing it out.
Another aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described that explanation as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position.
Atiku later reaffirmed that his position had not changed, saying he would restore a “targeted subsidy” if elected.
“I will restore a targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians,” Atiku was quoted as saying.
The Presidency argued that the conflicting explanations raised fundamental questions about the former vice-president’s proposed petroleum policy.
It said Nigerians deserved clarity on whether the proposed subsidy would be temporary, how beneficiaries would be identified and how much public funds would be required.
Onanuga said Atiku’s proposal also appeared to oversimplify the relationship between petrol prices and the broader cost-of-living crisis.
The Presidency argued that petrol prices were influenced by several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses.
“Petrol does not become cheap simply because government orders a subsidy,” the Presidency said, arguing that competition alone could not shield Nigeria from international crude prices and other input costs.
It also rejected the argument that petrol prices were the sole driver of food inflation, noting that agricultural productivity, insecurity, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, exchange rates and supply constraints also influence food prices.
The Presidency said any serious economic programme must therefore address those structural factors rather than reduce the cost-of-living crisis to petrol prices.
