Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have renewed their political and economic battle over fuel subsidy, with both sides trading sharp words over how best to address Nigeria’s rising cost of living.

Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has fired back at President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over the President’s criticism of his proposed intervention in Nigeria’s petroleum sector.

The latest exchange followed Atiku’s proposal for a new petroleum-sector intervention aimed at reducing the impact of high petrol prices on Nigerians. The proposal has reignited the long-running debate over the removal of fuel subsidy, one of the most consequential economic policies of the Tinubu administration.

Atiku, through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, rejected Tinubu’s description of the proposal as evidence of “serious ignorance on governance and economy.”

Instead, Atiku accused the President of presiding over an economy in which government revenues have increased while the purchasing power of ordinary Nigerians has declined.

He argued that the removal of the subsidy had triggered higher petrol, transportation and production costs, while the depreciation of the naira and rising food prices had further intensified the pressure on households and businesses.

Atiku insisted, however, that his proposal should not be interpreted as a return to the former open-ended petrol subsidy regime.

According to him, what he is proposing is a targeted, capped, budgeted and time-bound production-support mechanism tied to domestic refining and subject to independent auditing. He said the objective would be to support local production and protect consumers from severe price shocks while reducing dependence on subsidy over time.

The former vice president also questioned the government’s claim that petrol subsidy had been completely eliminated.

He cited what he described as approximately ₦17.5 trillion in petroleum-related under-recoveries and energy-security costs reportedly contained in the accounts of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, asking why such costs still existed if subsidy had truly disappeared.

Atiku further challenged the administration to explain about ₦30 trillion in Federation Account revenues, deductions, savings and transfers, as well as other fiscal figures he said deserved greater transparency.

He maintained that economic reforms should ultimately be judged by their impact on citizens rather than simply by the amount of money accruing to government.

“Economic reform is not measured by how fat government accounts become while citizens grow poorer,” Atiku said.

Tinubu’s position

President Tinubu and the Presidency have defended the removal of fuel subsidy, arguing that the old system had become financially unsustainable and was draining public resources.

The Presidency has also challenged Atiku to explain how his proposed subsidy intervention would be funded without imposing another burden on Nigeria’s finances.

The administration maintains that subsidy removal was necessary to free government resources, improve fiscal sustainability and strengthen the capacity of the Federal Government and states to fund development.

Tinubu had criticised Atiku’s proposal, describing it as evidence of what he regarded as a lack of understanding of governance and economics. The Presidency subsequently accused Atiku of attempting to revive a policy that the current administration believes had become unsustainable.

Atiku, however, dismissed that argument, maintaining that changing economic circumstances could justify a different policy approach.

He argued that supporting domestic refining and introducing a controlled intervention would be fundamentally different from the former subsidy system, particularly if every barrel and government expenditure were independently tracked and audited.

2027 political battle enters economic territory

The dispute comes as Nigeria’s political atmosphere intensifies ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with Tinubu seeking another term and Atiku emerging as the ADC presidential candidate.

The renewed subsidy controversy has therefore become more than an economic argument, with both camps using the debate to present contrasting visions of how Nigeria’s economy should be managed.

While the Tinubu administration points to increased government revenues and the need to maintain its reforms, Atiku is focusing on the effect of those policies on household purchasing power, fuel prices and the broader cost-of-living crisis.

The latest exchange has effectively reopened one of Nigeria’s most contentious economic debates: whether the removal of petrol subsidy should be maintained as a permanent reform or whether government should introduce a carefully controlled intervention to cushion consumers and support domestic petroleum production.

With both men already positioned on opposite sides of the 2027 political contest, the subsidy debate is likely to remain a major issue as the election approaches.