Former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, has clarified his position on fuel subsidy, saying his proposal for a subsidy under his administration would be targeted, limited and tied to the growth of local refining.
Atiku said his proposal was aimed at reducing the burden of high living costs on ordinary Nigerians and should not be interpreted as a plan to return to the fuel subsidy system that existed before President Bola Tinubu removed it in 2023.
The clarification followed a statement attributed to one of Atiku’s media aides, Paul Ibe, suggesting that an Atiku administration, if elected in 2027, would “restore fuel subsidy and remove it later.”
Atiku’s media team, in a statement issued on Tuesday, rejected the description, saying Ibe’s comment was an “unauthorised, imprecise and materially misleading characterisation” of the presidential candidate’s position.
The team stressed that policy decisions belonged to the candidate and that media aides were only expected to explain such policies accurately.
“For the avoidance of doubt, policy belongs to the candidate, not the spokesperson,” the statement said.
It added that communicators were expected to explain Atiku’s position rather than create new descriptions that could confuse Nigerians or give political opponents an opportunity to attack the proposal.
The former Vice President had earlier hinted in an interview that he would consider restoring fuel subsidy if elected President in the 2027 general elections.
The proposal immediately attracted criticism from the ruling All Progressives Congress and officials of the Tinubu administration, who described it as a political strategy designed to attract voters ahead of the election.
Other presidential aspirants have also disagreed with Atiku’s position.
The clarification from Atiku’s camp was therefore aimed at explaining what his proposed subsidy would look like and how it would differ from the system that was removed by the Tinubu administration.
According to the statement, Atiku was not proposing a return to the former import-based subsidy arrangement, where the government spent large amounts of public funds to keep the pump price of petrol below the cost of supply.
“Atiku has never proposed restoring the import-subsidy regime and subsequently removing it on some predetermined date. That is not his policy and should not be attributed to him,” the statement said.
Instead, the ADC presidential candidate is proposing what his team described as a targeted and capped intervention.
“What Atiku proposes is a targeted, capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited subsidy that supports domestic refining and production, with measurable exit conditions built in from day one,” the statement said.
The policy, according to the former Vice President’s team, would not have a fixed date for termination.
Rather, government support would gradually reduce as local refineries increase production, fuel supply becomes more stable and competition improves.
“There is no arbitrary withdrawal date. As domestic refining expands, supply stabilises, competition deepens, and the market becomes capable of delivering affordable prices without government support, the intervention progressively becomes unnecessary,” the statement said.
The team used the example of scaffolding used in construction to explain the proposal.
“You do not remove scaffolding because the calendar says so. You remove it when the building can stand securely on its own,” it said.
The fuel subsidy debate has remained one of the most controversial economic issues in Nigeria since Tinubu assumed office in May 2023.
In his inaugural address on May 29, 2023, Tinubu announced that “subsidy is gone”, signalling the immediate end of the petrol subsidy regime.
The decision was followed by a sharp increase in petrol prices, with the higher cost of fuel affecting transportation, food prices and the general cost of living.
For many Nigerians, petrol prices have become one of the most important measures of economic hardship because changes in the cost of fuel affect nearly every part of the economy.
Transport operators usually pass higher fuel costs to passengers, while businesses also face increased expenses for transportation, electricity generation and distribution of goods.
The government has maintained that the subsidy removal was necessary because the old system was too costly and vulnerable to abuse. Officials have argued that the money previously spent on subsidising petrol could instead be directed towards infrastructure, education, healthcare and other public needs.
The Tinubu administration has also introduced various measures to cushion the impact of the reforms, although opposition parties and sections of the public have continued to complain about the high cost of living.
The Federal Government has continued to defend the decision, arguing that the long-term benefits of reforming the petroleum sector will outweigh the immediate difficulties.
In a recent breakdown of the savings from the subsidy removal, the Minister of Finance said the country had mobilised about N15.8 trillion from the policy decision.
The figure has become an important part of the government’s argument that the removal of the subsidy has freed substantial resources for government use.
Atiku’s proposal, however, reflects the argument that government intervention may still be necessary to protect Nigerians while domestic refining capacity develops.
Nigeria has historically relied heavily on imported refined petroleum products despite being a major crude oil producer. This dependence exposed the country to international oil prices, foreign exchange pressures and supply disruptions.
The development of domestic refining capacity has therefore become a major part of the country’s efforts to reduce dependence on imported petrol.
The Dangote Petroleum Refinery, as well as the revival of some government-owned refineries, has raised hopes that Nigeria could eventually meet a large part of its domestic fuel demand locally.
Atiku’s team says its proposed intervention would support this transition rather than permanently subsidise imported fuel.
The former Vice President’s position has nevertheless drawn opposition from political rivals.
The ruling APC and officials of the Tinubu administration have dismissed the proposal as a political gimmick aimed at winning support ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
The presidential candidates of the Nigeria Democratic Congress and the Social Democratic Party, Peter Obi and Prince Adewole Adebayo, have also disagreed with Atiku over the proposal.
The disagreement reflects a wider debate among political parties over how best to address the economic difficulties facing Nigerians while maintaining fiscal stability.
Atiku’s latest clarification is also significant because the 2027 presidential election is expected to be heavily contested, with the economy likely to be one of the central issues in the campaigns.
Political parties are expected to present different solutions to problems including inflation, unemployment, high energy costs, food prices and weak purchasing power.
For Atiku and the ADC, the argument is that government must provide temporary protection for consumers while building an energy market capable of operating without permanent subsidies.
His media team maintained that the proposal should therefore not be understood as a promise to return to the old subsidy regime.
Instead, it said the plan would involve clear limits on government spending, public budgeting, independent auditing and conditions that would determine when the intervention should gradually end.
The clarification is likely to keep the fuel subsidy debate at the centre of political discussions as parties prepare for the 2027 elections.
While the Tinubu administration continues to defend the removal of the subsidy as a necessary economic reform, Atiku is positioning his proposal as an alternative approach aimed at reducing the immediate hardship faced by Nigerians.