Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has criticised President Bola Tinubu’s dismissal of his proposed intervention in the petroleum sector, arguing that the President’s economic policies have intensified Nigerians’ hardship despite increased government revenues.
In a statement released on Friday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said Tinubu lacked the moral ground to lecture Nigerians on economic management following the removal of the petrol subsidy, the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market and the resulting increases in inflation, transportation fares and household expenses.
The African Democratic Congress presidential candidate had on Wednesday announced that he would restore the fuel subsidy if elected.
“If elected, I will bring back the oil subsidy, and whoever stole the money must refund it,” he said.
Tinubu subsequently rejected the proposal, describing Atiku as ignorant of economic management. Speaking to Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke at the Aso Rock Villa on Thursday, the President called the proposal a “demonstration of serious ignorance on governance and economy.”
Responding, Atiku defended his position, saying, “The real ignorance is believing suffering is economic policy. Tinubu removed the subsidy from Nigerians’ pockets, but he is yet to remove the questions from his books.”
The former vice president clarified that his proposal was not intended to revive the previous subsidy system but to introduce a temporary and targeted production-support programme aimed at expanding local refining capacity and shielding consumers from severe price increases.
He argued that Nigeria’s economic conditions had changed considerably since Tinubu announced the removal of the petrol subsidy in May 2023, making a review of existing economic policies necessary.
“Economic prescriptions respond to prevailing conditions. But other things are no longer equal in Tinubu’s Nigeria,” Atiku said.
According to him, removing the subsidy without sufficient measures to protect Nigerians triggered widespread economic consequences. Petrol prices, transport fares and food costs rose sharply, while the naira experienced significant depreciation.
“Atiku is not proposing the resurrection of the corrupt, open-ended subsidy bazaar. He proposes a targeted, capped, budgeted, time-bound and independently audited production-support mechanism tied to domestic production and protected against arbitrage,” the statement read in part.
Atiku accused the Tinubu administration of adopting an inflexible approach to subsidy removal despite the hardship that followed.
“Tinubu pronounced first and searched for a plan afterwards. Atiku studied the consequences and produced a solution,” the statement further read.
The ADC candidate also demanded clarification from the Federal Government over petroleum under-recoveries and energy-security expenses reflected in the accounts of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.
He referenced figures he said totalled about ₦17.5tn, including approximately ₦7.13tn in energy-security costs and ₦8.67tn in other expenses.
“If subsidy is dead, why are under-recoveries alive?” Atiku asked. “If corruption was eliminated, why has opacity survived?”
He maintained that Nigerians were ultimately paying for the reforms through higher fuel prices and increased living costs, while questions about financial obligations within the petroleum sector remained unanswered.
“Tinubu has given Nigerians the worst of both worlds: he removed the relief but retained the opaque costs. Nigerians got the pain; government kept the bill,” he said.
The Federal Government has repeatedly defended the removal of the petrol subsidy, arguing that it was financially unsustainable and necessary to free funds for development, improve government revenues and eliminate distortions in the petroleum market.
The administration has also cited increased allocations from the Federation Account as one of the positive outcomes of the reform, particularly for state governments that previously faced difficulties meeting salary and other recurrent obligations.
Atiku, however, rejected the argument, saying higher government allocations should not be regarded as proof of economic progress when Nigerians were simultaneously losing purchasing power.
“You do not build a federation by impoverishing citizens so that Abuja can send bigger cheques to governors,” he argued.
He warned that larger Federation Account allocations could make states increasingly dependent on federal transfers rather than developing productive sectors and improving their internally generated revenues.
“Why undertake difficult reforms, industrialise or expand productive capacity when Abuja provides an ever-growing monthly cheque?” he asked.
“That is not fiscal federalism. It is fiscal sedation and rascality.”
Atiku also repeated his call for the Federal Government to account for about ₦30tn in Federation Account revenues, deductions, savings and transfers, which he said he had previously asked the government to reconcile.
He further questioned the ₦12.8tn Service-Wide Vote included in the 2026 budget, arguing that the administration should show the same urgency in addressing concerns about public finances as it does when responding to political criticism.
“If Tinubu can mobilise an army of propagandists to attack Atiku within hours, surely he can find one accountant to explain his books,” he said.
Atiku insisted that economic reforms should ultimately be judged by their effect on ordinary citizens rather than by the amount of money accumulated in government accounts.
“Economic reform is not measured by how fat government accounts become while citizens grow poorer,” he said, adding that “An economy exists to serve human beings, not family and friends.”
He described the administration’s economic policies as an experiment that had placed a heavy burden on Nigerians and accused the presidency of treating citizens’ ability to endure hardship as evidence that its policies were working.
The former vice president urged Nigerians to reject another four years of policies that, in his view, would worsen economic hardship. He maintained that his proposed intervention in the petroleum sector was designed to strengthen domestic production while progressively reducing reliance on subsidies.
“Nigerians have paid enough for Tinubunomics. They should not be sentenced to another four years of the bitter experiment,” he stated.