The Presidency has criticised former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar over his position on petrol subsidy, accusing him of sending conflicting signals on a policy with major implications for the Nigerian economy.

In a statement on Wednesday, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said Atiku and members of his team had presented three different explanations of the former Vice-President’s proposed petrol subsidy policy within one week.

Onanuga questioned whether Atiku had a clearly defined economic policy or was responding politically to the economic hardship currently facing Nigerians.

According to the presidential aide, Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially said the former Vice-President would restore petrol subsidy if elected but would later phase it out after Nigerians and businesses had recovered from the effects of subsidy removal.

Onanuga said another aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described Ibe’s statement as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position.

Shaibu, he said, maintained that subsidy would remain until domestic refining capacity expanded, fuel supply stabilised and competition increased.

“Just hours later, Atiku himself intervened and effectively overruled that clarification. He insisted that his position ‘has not changed’ and that he would restore what he called a ‘targeted subsidy’ if elected president,” Onanuga said.

He quoted Atiku as saying: “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”

Onanuga described the differing explanations as a serious contradiction, arguing that Nigerians deserved a clear and consistent policy rather than what he called “policy by trial and error.”

He also challenged Atiku’s suggestion that restoring petrol subsidy would automatically reduce the cost of living.

According to Onanuga, petrol prices are only one factor affecting food prices, with other variables including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses also playing significant roles.

“Agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints also matter,” he said.

The presidential aide said the Bola Tinubu administration was addressing these structural challenges rather than reducing Nigeria’s cost-of-living crisis solely to the price of petrol.

Onanuga further challenged Atiku to provide details of his proposed “targeted subsidy”, including its estimated cost, intended beneficiaries, funding mechanism and the economic conditions that would determine when the programme would be terminated.

“Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language,” he said.

He also questioned Atiku’s proposal to tie the subsidy to crude oil prices, arguing that a barrel of crude produces several petroleum products in addition to petrol.

Onanuga said petrol accounts for about 45 per cent of the products obtained from a refined barrel, while diesel, aviation fuel, kerosene and other products make up the remainder.

He noted that diesel was deregulated in 2004 under the administration in which Atiku served as Vice-President, while kerosene and aviation fuel were deregulated subsequently.

Other products derived from crude oil refining, he said, include petrochemical feedstocks, asphalt, hydrocarbon gas liquids, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke and sulphur.

Onanuga therefore asked whether Atiku’s proposed subsidy arrangement would also cover those products.

“Will Atiku subsidise all these by-products of the barrel as well, since kerosene is used by the underprivileged to cook, and many homes and factories use diesel to power generators and delivery trucks?” he asked.

The presidential aide also questioned whether refineries that received discounted crude under Atiku’s proposed arrangement would be allowed to retain profits from the other products produced from the same barrel.

Onanuga concluded by accusing the former Vice-President of lacking clarity over the economic implications of his subsidy proposal.

“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” he said.