The Presidency has launched a scathing attack on former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, accusing him of economic incoherence and political opportunism following contradictory statements from his media team and personal interventions regarding the petrol subsidy regime.
In a State House press statement issued on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the executive branch asserted that Atiku has made three distinct policy U-turns within a single week, exposing a fundamental lack of clarity on how to manage the nation’s energy sector.
The official reaction followed a series of conflicting public positions issued by Atiku’s camp. Initially, his spokesperson, Paul Ibe, announced that an Atiku-led administration would restore the petrol subsidy as a temporary measure to give citizens and businesses breathing room before phasing it out. Shortly afterward, another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, publicly countered that explanation, labeling Ibe’s statement an unauthorized and misleading characterization. Shaibu maintained that Atiku would not set a predetermined end date for the subsidy, stating instead that it would persist until domestic refining capacity expanded and market competition drove down prices naturally.
However, Atiku himself subsequently stepped in to overrule the clarification, insisting his position had never changed and reaffirming his commitment to reintroducing what he termed a targeted subsidy to restore purchasing power to Nigerians.
The Presidency argued that these shifting stances demonstrate that the former vice-president is attempting to exploit public sentiment surrounding temporary economic discomfort rather than offering a workable policy alternative. Onanuga noted that fuel prices are tied to global crude oil dynamics, refining costs, transportation logistics, and exchange rates, which cannot be simplified or controlled by political declarations.
Addressing Atiku’s argument connecting fuel costs directly to food inflation, the administration stated that the cost of living is driven by complex structural issues, including agricultural productivity, supply chain bottlenecks, flooding, regional security challenges, and currency fluctuations. The Presidency pointed out that food inflation surged even during past periods when fuel subsidies were fully active.
The statement further questioned the technical feasibility of Atiku’s proposed targeted subsidy model. The administration challenged the opposition leader to provide full transparency on the projected annual financial cost, the specific parameters for selecting beneficiaries, the funding mechanisms, and the precise economic conditions that would determine its termination.
Onanuga also criticized Atiku’s technical understanding of petroleum refining dynamics, pointing out that refined petrol constitutes only about 45 percent of the output from a barrel of crude oil. The Presidency questioned how an Atiku administration would handle other essential refined by-products, including diesel, aviation fuel, household kerosene, asphalt, and petrochemical raw materials, many of which were deregulated years ago under previous administrations.
The State House concluded by calling on the opposition leader to refrain from populism, warning that national economic management requires coherent and fully costed policies rather than contradictory pledges tailored for electioneering.
