Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has accused President Bola Tinubu of using the removal of petrol subsidy to impose hardship on Nigerians while granting tax credits, concessions and other fiscal incentives to major players in the petroleum industry.

Atiku, in a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, described Tinubu’s celebration of subsidy removal as “one of the biggest economic frauds” being sold to Nigerians.
He argued that the administration could not claim to have abolished subsidy while continuing to provide fiscal incentives to petroleum investors.

Atiku also accused the Tinubu administration of becoming increasingly defensive following the unveiling of his Economic Recovery Plan, which proposes targeted intervention to cushion the impact of rising living costs.
According to him, the government’s position on subsidy is contradicted by its own policies, particularly the incentives granted to major petroleum investors.

“Tinubu stood at Eagle Square and declared that subsidy was gone. Petrol prices exploded, transportation costs soared, food prices followed, businesses buckled and household purchasing power collapsed. Nigerians were told there was no alternative and that enduring this pain was the necessary price of economic reform.

“But when major oil investors knock on Tinubu’s door, the sermon changes. Suddenly, government intervention is good economics; tax credits are necessary; fiscal concessions are strategic; and private investment must be ‘de-risked’. Apparently, subsidy is only evil when poor Nigerians benefit from it,” he said.

Atiku cited the government’s Deep Offshore Oil and Gas Projects Incentives framework, under which qualifying petroleum developments can receive production tax credits, arguing that such measures amounted to government intervention in favour of investors.

“So, what exactly is Tinubu’s objection: government intervention itself, or government intervention for Nigerians?” he asked.

The former vice president also questioned the government’s explanation of energy-security expenses recorded in the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited’s accounts.

He cited approximately N4.84 trillion recorded as energy-security expenses and related shortfalls in NNPC’s 2023 accounts and about N7.13 trillion in its 2024 audited financial statements.

Atiku said NNPC had explained that the expenses partly arose from the difference between the exchange rate used to determine the regulated PMS ex-coastal price and the prevailing exchange rate when import obligations were settled.
“In plain English, government was still absorbing a price differential after Tinubu had triumphantly announced that subsidy was gone,” he said.

He questioned why government intervention could be considered legitimate when it benefited the petroleum sector but was condemned when proposed as a temporary relief measure for Nigerians.

“If Nigerians were paying market prices because ‘subsidy is gone’, why was the Federation still carrying trillions of naira in under-recovery and energy-security costs?” Atiku asked.

He argued that whether the intervention was described as subsidy, under-recovery, shortfall or energy security, public resources were still being used to bridge the gap between economic cost and the price of petrol.

“You cannot abolish subsidy at the podium and resurrect it in the accounts under an alias,” he said.

Atiku further accused the administration of practising what he described as “selective economics”, alleging that major investors were being protected from risk while households were left to absorb the full impact of rising fuel and living costs.

He said his proposed Economic Recovery Plan was not a return to the previous subsidy regime, which he described as unlimited, opaque and vulnerable to abuse.

Instead, he said the plan would introduce a targeted, capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited intervention with a clearly defined exit mechanism.

The plan, he added, would be complemented by accelerated domestic refining, increased competition, mass transportation and measures aimed at restoring household purchasing power.

“If government can legitimately de-risk investment, why is it economic heresy to de-risk survival?” he asked.
Atiku said he supported investment, including foreign investment, and recognised the role of transparent and performance-based incentives in attracting capital.

“What we reject is the intellectual dishonesty of pretending that government intervention becomes sound economics when corporations benefit and economic ignorance when Nigerian citizens benefit,” he said.