The Presidency has renewed its criticism of the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, over his plan to reintroduce petrol subsidy if elected president, saying the policy could cost the country N19.1 trillion annually.
Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Digital and New Media, Otega Ogra, reignited the debate in an interview on TVC News, arguing that Atiku's proposal would put public funds in the hands of billionaires.
He challenged the former vice president to explain how he intended to fund the proposed subsidy and where the petrol to be subsidised would come from.
"So for Alhaji Atiku, my question to you here is, where are the barrels for your subsidy going to come from? Where is the money that you're going to give to your billionaire friends using your own plan?" Ogra said.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
"I have not even mentioned before: your plan for subsidies, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, will cost Nigeria N19.1 trillion, according to estimates.
"You failed to put the estimates in your plan; you failed to put the cap in your plan; you failed to put how many barrels of oil Nigeria is going to need in your plan."
The presidential aide said that at $80 per barrel of crude oil, Nigeria would need to subsidise it by about $40.
"So calculate that. It comes to about N19.1 trillion per year, N52.3 billion daily, N1.5 trillion monthly. And for every time you breathe or before you even complete a breath, it's going to cost you N605,000 per Nigerian," he said.
"The amount of money, N19.1 trillion, at the amount that was shared in FAAC for July, that would pay the entire N70,000 minimum wage for a year for 22 million Nigerians."
Your figure is propaganda, Atiku fires back
But Atiku's media office dismissed the figure as "a propaganda number desperately searching for an economic argument".
Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication to Atiku, Phrank Shaibu, told Daily Trust, following enquiries, that the Presidency had misrepresented the former vice-president's proposal and was pretending not to understand it.
Shaibu said the Presidency had inadvertently helped the debate by "attaching numbers to a policy it previously mocked".
"Having failed to defeat Atiku's proposal on its merits, Otega has apparently resorted to the oldest propaganda trick in the book: throw a gigantic figure into the public space and hope its size will frighten Nigerians into abandoning the conversation," he said.
He accused the Presidency of hypocrisy, arguing that when the government reduced costs for powerful multinational oil companies, it described the measures as investment incentives, but when Atiku proposed reducing the cost of fuel, transportation and food for Nigerian families, it raised concerns about fiscal responsibility.
"When Atiku proposes reducing the cost of fuel, transportation and food for Nigerian families, the same people suddenly discover fiscal responsibility. What an extraordinary economic religion: relief for foreign capital is reform; relief for Nigerians is populism," Shaibu said.
He said Ogra should "spare Nigerians the theatrical arithmetic", arguing that the Presidency needed to understand Atiku's proposal before attaching a cost to it.
"Before manufacturing gigantic figures around a policy, first understand the policy.
"Until then, his N19.1 trillion claim remains what it sounds like: a propaganda number desperately searching for an economic argument."
Shaibu said the disagreement was not about mathematics but about the interpretation of Atiku's proposal.
"Atiku is not proposing the resurrection of the old, corrupt, open-ended import subsidy racket. He is proposing a targeted, capped and production-linked intervention tied to domestic refining and measurable consumer relief. To confuse the two is what happens when partisan bitterness outruns intellectual patience," he said.
He added that broad consumption assumptions and a price gap could not be used to arrive at a figure and present it as the cost of Atiku's proposal.
"Therefore, taking broad consumption assumptions, attaching a price gap and screaming 'N19.1 trillion!' does not suddenly make a caricature of Atiku's proposal. That is not economic modelling; it is arithmetic vandalism wearing an Aso Rock ID card," he said.
Shaibu said the phrase "subsidy follows the barrel" meant that the intervention would follow a verified barrel through the domestic refining chain, with qualifying petrol output reconciled against the benefit delivered to consumers.
"It does not mean the government writes a blank cheque for every litre consumed in Nigeria, nor does it mean every refinery by-product suddenly becomes subsidised," he said.
Subsidy savings
The Federal Government has said Nigeria recorded estimated savings of N15.8 trillion from the removal of fuel subsidy and liberalisation of the foreign exchange market.
Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, disclosed the figure last week at a press briefing in Abuja, where he outlined the fiscal impact of reforms introduced by the Tinubu administration.
The Federal Government said it spent N9.39 trillion of the N15.8 trillion on wage adjustments, minimum wage increases and allowances for public servants between June 2023 and December 2025.
Oyedele said the increase followed the administration's approval in June 2024 to raise the national minimum wage from N30,000 to N70,000 after Parliament passed the new minimum wage law, which provides for statutory reviews every three years.
"Between June 2023 and December 2025, the federal government spent N9.39 trillion on wage adjustments, minimum wage increases and allowances," the minister said.
He added that the incremental wage bill alone exceeded the federal government's entire share of resources realised from the removal of the petrol subsidy.
According to Oyedele, reforms that included subsidy removal and foreign exchange adjustments mobilised N15.8 trillion for the federation during the period. The federal government received N5.4 trillion, while N10.4 trillion was shared with state and local governments.
Oyedele said the federal government's total incremental resources during the period, including reform proceeds, additional revenue and new borrowing, amounted to N20.4 trillion, while incremental expenditure reached N30.64 trillion.
He linked the increase in wage spending to post-reform adjustments, noting that the June 2023 subsidy removal had pushed up petrol prices and increased costs for households and businesses.
Oyedele acknowledged the burden of the reforms on Nigerians but said the administration had taken measures to cushion their impact.
"These were decisions that came at a real cost, and we are not here to pretend otherwise," he said.
Presidency questions cost, clarity of Atiku's plan
The Presidency, however, renewed its criticism of Atiku over the subsidy issue, accusing the former vice-president of playing politics with his plan to reverse the removal of fuel subsidy if elected in 2027.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said Nigerians had heard three different explanations within a week about what an Atiku administration would do about petrol subsidy.
"Nigerians have heard three different explanations of what an Atiku administration would do about petrol subsidy. The confusion has now become impossible to ignore," Onanuga said.
He said Atiku's latest comments raised a fundamental question over whether he was proposing an economic policy or "simply playing politics with the temporary discomfort Nigerians face".
According to the Presidency, Atiku's spokesperson, Paul Ibe, first said Atiku would restore petrol subsidy if elected president and later phase it out. Ibe described it as a temporary intervention intended to give Nigerians and businesses room to recover.
It said another senior aide, Shaibu, subsequently described Ibe's statement as an "unauthorised and misleading characterisation" of Atiku's position.
According to Shaibu, Atiku would not set a predetermined date for ending the subsidy. Instead, it would remain until domestic refining expands, supply stabilises, competition deepens and the market can deliver affordable prices without government support.
But hours later, Atiku himself intervened and reaffirmed that his position "has not changed", saying he would restore what he called a "targeted subsidy" if elected.
"I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians," Atiku said.
The Presidency said the different positions were not merely "a matter of semantics" but amounted to "a serious policy contradiction and confusion".
Onanuga asked why, if Atiku's position had not changed, one of his principal aides had described the subsidy as temporary and subject to phase-out.
He also questioned why another senior aide had publicly disowned that explanation and introduced a different framework based on market conditions, before Atiku himself stepped in to reaffirm the original position.
"Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error," he said.
The Presidency also argued that Atiku's position appeared to misunderstand the dynamics of the petroleum market.
"Petrol does not become cheap simply because the government orders a subsidy or because competition is expected to emerge. Several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation, distribution, and other market costs, influence pump prices," it said.
"Competition can improve efficiency and margins, but it cannot magically insulate Nigeria from global crude oil prices or other input costs."
The Presidency also faulted Atiku's argument that "when fuel rises, transport rises. When transport rises, food rises. When food rises, families suffer".
It said while energy and transportation costs affect food prices, petrol prices alone had never caused food inflation, pointing out that Nigerians experienced rising food prices even during years when petrol subsidy was in place.
The Presidency challenged Atiku to explain precisely what he meant by "targeted subsidy", including how much it would cost, who would benefit, how beneficiaries would be identified, how it would be funded and what economic conditions would determine its eventual termination.
"Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in a new language," it said.
'Subsidy debate must go beyond politics'
Speaking to Daily Trust, an oil and gas industry analyst, Prof. Wumi Iledare, said Nigeria's subsidy debate should be treated as an economic, rather than merely political, issue.
He said the key questions should be: who pays, who benefits, what the policy costs, and what measurable public value it creates?
Prof Iledare said if the government removed the subsidy, Nigerians should be able to see how the savings improve economic and social welfare.
"If it restores the subsidy, it must explain the cost, funding source, beneficiaries and governance framework. Nigeria needs neither cheap petrol at any cost nor expensive petrol in the name of reform. We need competitive petroleum markets, reliable energy supply, sound fiscal management and targeted support for vulnerable citizens," he said.
He added that the conversation must move beyond slogans towards evidence-based policy.
An economist with Al-Hikmah University, Ilorin, Dr Muhammad-Bashir Yusuf, however, said Atiku's proposal to restore fuel subsidy was not a sincere solution to the country's economic challenges.
Yusuf said reinstating the subsidy would not automatically bring down the prices of goods and services, arguing that Nigerians had experienced similar situations in the past.
He explained that increases in transport fares during periods of fuel scarcity often remained even after fuel availability improved, with transport operators citing other rising costs as justification.
"Even restoring the subsidy does not translate automatically to a reduction in prices of goods and services as we can attest to what happened earlier," he said.
According to him, whenever fuel became scarce, transporters would increase fares but often refused to return to previous rates after the scarcity ended.
"They will refuse to return the transportation cost to what it used to be. Then it means the price will not come down," he said.
He said increased transportation costs subsequently affected the prices of other goods and services because traders and businesses had to factor higher logistics expenses into their operations.
Yusuf cautioned against assuming that restoring the subsidy would provide immediate relief to ordinary Nigerians.
He also faulted the argument that subsidy could be restored temporarily and removed again later, saying such an arrangement could create another opportunity for increases in transport fares and other prices.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"If he restores it, it gives people another opportunity to increase the prices of goods and services, which will still be to the detriment of the masses," he said.
The economist said the country should instead consolidate the removal of the fuel subsidy and channel the resources saved into productive areas of the economy.
"To me, I think we can deal with the subsidy. Remove the subsidy and let's use it to develop our economy, which will eventually translate to welfare of the masses," he said.
On the estimated financial implication of reinstating the subsidy, Yusuf said the figures being projected could be understood when the volume of fuel consumed and the amount of subsidy per litre were taken into account.
He said if the government were to reduce the pump price significantly from the current level, the cost of subsidising fuel across the country would quickly become enormous.
Yusuf also pointed to the geographical implications of a uniform subsidised pump price, noting that consumers in distant locations could indirectly receive a much larger subsidy because of the additional cost of moving petroleum products to such areas.
He argued that the resources required to sustain such a policy could instead be deployed to investments capable of expanding the productive capacity of the economy.
The economist, however, acknowledged that some advanced countries provide subsidies or targeted support for essential goods and services, saying Nigeria could consider similar interventions in the future.
He said such support could take the form of direct subsidies or vouchers targeted at poor and vulnerable Nigerians.
The major challenge, he noted, would be identifying genuine beneficiaries.
"Then do we have a poor register? Do we know who is supposed to get this? Because eventually, those who are not even supposed to get this will be the ones that will eventually benefit," he said.
Yusuf said developing an effective system for identifying beneficiaries would take time and could not be treated as an immediate solution.
He also observed that existing government welfare interventions had often attracted criticism because of the small amounts involved and concerns over their effectiveness.
The economist called for a change in the attitude of Nigerians towards government programmes.
He said citizens should be willing to commend the government when it takes positive steps and criticise it constructively when it fails.
"We also need to change our mentality as a people who are being governed so that when the government is doing things that are good, we commend them and when otherwise, we call them to order," he said.
According to him, failure to acknowledge positive government actions could create an unhealthy relationship between the government and the people, with authorities becoming less responsive to public criticism.
"If we don't appreciate them, they think of us as ingrates and turn a blind ear to whatever we say, and they will not be good to us," he said.
By Baba Martins, Faruk Shuaibu, Philip Shimnom Clement (Abuja), Abdullateef Aliyu (Lagos) & Mumini Abdulkareem (Ilorin)
