Atiku hit back by saying Tinubu had worsened Nigeria’s economic situation

The verbal spat between the presidency and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar continues, with the former number two saying that the economic policies of President Bola Tinubu’s administration have worsened the cost of living crisis for citizens despite increasing government revenues.

He rejected President Tinubu’s description of his proposed intervention in the oil sector as economically foolish, and that the President was not in a position to lecture Nigerians on economic management following the removal of petrol subsidies, liberalization of the foreign exchange market and rise in inflation, transport costs and household expenditure.

Atiku spoke in a statement issued on his behalf by Senior Special Assistant for Public Communications, Phrank Shaibu, on Friday.

Presidential candidate ADC on Wednesday said he would restore fuel subsidies.

“If elected, I will restore oil subsidies, and whoever stole the money must return it,” he said.

However, Tinubu rejected Atiku’s proposal, saying the former vice president was indifferent to economic management.

This is a “serious demonstration of ignorance regarding governance and the economy,” Tinubu said while speaking with Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke at Aso Rock Villa on Thursday.

But defending his proposal, Atiku said, “The real ignorance is to believe that suffering is an economic policy. Tinubu is removing subsidies from the pockets of Nigerians, but he has not removed these questions from his book.”

The former deputy president said his proposal was not a return to the subsidy system of the Tinubu administration, but a targeted and temporary production support mechanism designed to boost domestic refining and protect consumers from excessive price shocks.

He said the economic conditions facing Nigerians had changed substantially since Tinubu announced the removal of fuel subsidies in May 2023, making it necessary to reassess existing policies.

“Economic prescriptions respond to existing conditions. But things are no longer the same in Tinubu’s Nigeria,” Atiku said.

According to him, the removal of subsidies without adequate measures to mitigate their impact will trigger a chain reaction across the economy, with petrol prices, transport costs and food prices rising sharply while the naira also depreciates significantly.

“Atiku is not proposing the revival of corrupt and open subsidy bazaars. He is proposing a targeted, restricted, budgeted, time-bound and independently audited production support mechanism that is linked to domestic production and protected from arbitration,” the statement read in part.

Atiku accused the Tinubu administration of adopting what he called a rigid approach to subsidy removal despite the dire economic consequences it would have.

“Tinubu announced first and looked for a plan after. Atiku studied the consequences and came up with a solution,” the statement further read.

The ADC presidential candidate also challenged the Federal Government to explain the shortfall in petroleum recovery and energy security costs recorded in the accounts of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.

He quoted a figure that he said amounted to about ₦17.5tn, including about ₦7.13tn classified as energy security costs and ₦8.67tn.

“If subsidies no longer exist, why are the less well-off groups still able to survive?” Atiku asked. “If corruption is eradicated, why does ambiguity persist?”

He argued that Nigerians are bearing the brunt of the reforms through higher fuel prices and living costs, while questions remain about the financial obligations associated with the oil sector.

“Tinubu has had the worst impact on the Nigerian people: he removed aid but continued to incur unknown costs. Nigerians are suffering; the government is still footing the bill,” he said.

The Federal Government has consistently stated that fuel subsidies have become financially unsustainable and that their elimination is necessary to free up resources for development, strengthen public revenues and reduce distortions in the petroleum market.

The government also cited higher allocation from the Federation Account as one of the benefits of the reforms, especially for state governments that were previously struggling with salary obligations and other routine expenditure.

Atiku dismissed the argument and said that increasing allocations to the government should not be taken as evidence of economic success if Nigerians are at the same time losing purchasing power.

“You don’t build a federation by impoverishing citizens so that Abuja can send bigger checks to the governor,” he argued.

According to him, increased disbursement of the Federation Account Allocation Committee funds could encourage states to rely more on federal transfers rather than expanding the productive economy and internally generated revenues.

“Why undertake difficult reforms, industrialize or expand productive capacity when Abuja provides a growing monthly check?” he asked.

“That’s not fiscal federalism. This is fiscal appeasement and mischief.”

He also renewed his request for an explanation of the approximately ₦30tn of income, deductions, savings and Federation Account transfers that he previously asked the Federal Government to reconcile.

He further questioned the N12.8 trillion All-Services Vote contained in the 2026 budget, arguing that the government must show the same urgency it has shown in responding to political criticism when answering questions about public finances.

“If Tinubu can deploy a propaganda army to attack Atiku within a few hours, surely he can find one accountant to explain his books,” he said.

Atiku believes that the success of economic reform should ultimately be measured by its impact on society, not by the size of government revenues.

“Economic reform is not measured by how fat the government’s accounts are while society gets poorer,” he said, stressing that “The economy exists to serve humanity, not family and friends.”

He described the government’s economic policy as an experiment that has inflicted enormous hardship on Nigerians and accused the president of confusing societal resilience with evidence of the policy’s success.