Atiku Abubakar has launched a blistering economic offensive against President Bola Tinubu’s fuel subsidy policy, and in doing so, he has demonstrated that the opposition is finally learning to play the game that the APC mastered years ago. At a world press conference in Abuja, the former Vice President and ADC presidential candidate did not merely criticise the government—he eviscerated its economic philosophy, questioned its competence, and offered to solve its problems for it.
The timing could not be more politically charged. With the 2027 election approaching and the Tinubu administration entering its final months before the campaign season begins in earnest, Atiku has positioned himself as the voice of Nigerians who are struggling to breathe under the weight of economic hardship. It is a calculated strategy, and it may be working.
The Atiku Tinubu Fuel Subsidy Debate: A Question of Rationale
Atiku’s central argument is deceptively simple: the removal of fuel subsidy was necessary, but its implementation has been catastrophic for ordinary Nigerians. He does not dispute the fiscal logic that made subsidy removal inevitable. What he disputes is the absence of a cushion.
“When petrol becomes expensive, transportation becomes expensive. When transportation becomes expensive, food becomes expensive,” Atiku said, tracing the chain of consequences that has travelled “from the petrol station to the bus stop, from the bus stop to the market, and from the market to the family dining table” .
He pointed to the lived reality of Nigerians: farmers paying more to move produce, traders spending more to stock their shops, workers paying more to commute, and businesses bearing higher logistics and energy costs. “In the end,” he said, “the Nigerian family receives the bill” .
This is not abstract economic theory. It is the daily experience of millions of Nigerians, and Atiku knows it.
The former Vice President also challenged the government’s metrics of success. “Government celebrates GDP growth, higher revenues and bigger allocations. But Nigerians judge the economy by what their money can buy,” he said . He argued that economic growth must “enter the home” and “show up in the purchasing power of the worker” .
Atiku’s critique extends beyond fuel. He warned against the planned phase-out of electricity subsidies from 2027, listing the categories of Nigerians who depend on steady power: the barber, the tailor, the frozen-food seller, the welder, the manufacturer. “The lesson of petrol must not be repeated with electricity,” he cautioned. “Do not remove first and think later. Do not impose the pain first and search for palliatives afterwards” .
He also questioned the reliance on palliatives as a substitute for sound policy. “Do not make life unbearable and then distribute bags of rice as evidence of compassion,” he said. “Palliatives manage pain. Good policy addresses the source of the pain” .
And in a direct challenge to the President, Atiku said: “Bola Tinubu should not be ashamed to do what is necessary to lower the price of petrol simply because Atiku Abubakar proposed a government intervention. He should just take the idea. Rename it if he wishes. And even take the credit. What matters to me is that Nigerians pay less” .
The Validity of Atiku’s Argument
Atiku is right. The fuel subsidy had to be removed. It was gnawing at the economy, draining resources that could have been invested in infrastructure, education, and healthcare. The subsidy regime was riddled with corruption, benefiting a cabal of marketers and importers while ordinary Nigerians saw little of its promised benefits. The Tinubu administration inherited a fiscal crisis, and subsidy removal was an economic necessity, not a political choice.
The problem is not the policy. The problem is the cushion.
The government’s interventions—NELFUND, cash transfers, wage adjustments—have not worked at the scale required. The savings from subsidy removal, estimated at N15.8 trillion between June 2023 and December 2025, have not translated into meaningful relief for households . Petrol prices have risen from roughly N185 per litre to between N1,100 and N1,400 . The naira has depreciated. Inflation has eroded purchasing power. And the families that were promised relief are still waiting.
Atiku’s proposal for a production subsidy—targeted at petroleum products refined in Nigeria and sold to Nigerians—deserves serious consideration. It is not a return to the old import subsidy, which enriched a few at the expense of the many. It is a mechanism to support domestic refining, lower production costs, and ensure that the benefits reach the consumer . Whether it would work in practice is a matter for economists to debate. But the principle—that government intervention should reduce prices for Nigerians—is sound.
The Foolhardy Response on Subsidy Argument
What is not sound is the response from some of the President’s associates. Festus Keyamo, the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, chose to focus on Atiku’s use of the President’s first name rather than the substance of his critique. “The continuous reference to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu by His Excellency, ex-Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, in his press conference earlier today as ‘Bola’ is very disrespectful and discourteous,” Keyamo said .
This is precisely the kind of response that undermines the government’s credibility. Atiku and Tinubu are contemporaries. They have been political adversaries for decades. They have shared the same political turf, and their relationship predates the current contest. For Keyamo to reduce a substantive economic critique to a question of etiquette is not just petty—it is a distraction from the real issues.
If the Tinubu administration wants to respond to Atiku, it should do so with economics. It should deploy the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning, or the economic advisers who understand the data. They should explain why the subsidy had to be removed, what the counterfactual would have been, and how the government is working to cushion the impact. They should address the losses, the corruption, and the fiscal reality that made the policy inevitable.
But they should not engage in passionate clapbacks that make the government look defensive and out of touch. The Special Advisers to the President must resist the temptation to engage in Twitter spats. They must respond with facts, figures, and a coherent economic narrative—not with accusations of disrespect.
Subsidy Removal: Is Atiku Rousing Nigerians or Playing a Gimmick?
There is a strategic dimension to Atiku’s offensive that cannot be ignored. He has alleged that Lagos transporters are planning a protest that would provide Tinubu with an excuse to temporarily reintroduce fuel subsidy before the 2027 election, only to remove it again after securing re-election .
“I’m aware that Lagos transporters are planning a protest,” Atiku said. “That protest will provide Bola Tinubu the excuse to temporarily bring back fuel subsidy and, after being re-elected, go back to remove it. So, Nigerians, be guided” .
If this is true, it is a remarkable insight into the government’s electoral strategy. It suggests that the Tinubu administration recognises the political cost of the subsidy removal and is prepared to make a tactical retreat to secure re-election. It also suggests that Atiku has spied on the playbook of the President—the same playbook the APC used to great effect in 2015, when it promised change and then implemented policies that many of its supporters found difficult to accept.
But there is another possibility: Atiku’s claim may be a political gimmick designed to preempt any subsidy restoration and frame it as electoral manipulation. By revealing the alleged plan, Atiku may have made it politically costly for the government to implement. If the government does restore subsidy before the election, it will be seen as confirmation of Atiku’s claim. If it does not, the protest may not happen, and the government will have missed an opportunity to provide relief.
What is clear is that Atiku is playing the opposition with his full chest. He is using the same cards the APC used when it was in opposition: economic hardship, government insensitivity, and the promise of relief. It is a strategy that has worked before, and it could work again.
The Implication for 2027
Atiku’s economic offensive has several implications for the 2027 election.
First, it positions him as the champion of the struggling Nigerian family. While Peter Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso focus on competence and structural reform, Atiku is focusing on immediate relief. He is speaking to the pain that Nigerians feel every day—the pain of high transport costs, expensive food, and shrinking purchasing power. This is a potent political message, particularly in the North, where poverty is most acute.
Second, it forces the Tinubu administration to defend its economic record. The government cannot simply ignore Atiku’s critique, nor can it dismiss it as the ranting of a sore loser. It must respond with evidence that its policies are working, that the cushion is being strengthened, and that relief is coming. If it cannot, it will be vulnerable on the economy—the issue that matters most to voters.
Third, it complicates the opposition landscape. Atiku is not the only opposition candidate. Peter Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso are also in the race, and their coalition—the OK Alliance—represents a formidable threat. If Atiku’s economic message resonates more strongly than Obi’s competence message, he could split the opposition vote in ways that benefit the ruling party. But if he can unite the opposition around a shared economic agenda, he could pose a serious challenge to Tinubu’s re-election.
2027:The Battle for the Nigerian Family
Atiku’s world press conference was more than a policy speech. It was a declaration of political war. He has taken the fight to the Tinubu administration on the terrain that matters most: the economy.
His argument is valid. The subsidy had to be removed, but the cushion has not worked. The government needs to strengthen its interventions and stretch them. The President’s associates must respond with economics, not etiquette. And Atiku, whatever his motives, has articulated the frustrations of millions of Nigerians who feel abandoned by their government.
The battle for 2027 will be fought in the homes and markets of Nigeria, in the bus stops and petrol stations, in the daily struggles of ordinary people trying to survive. Atiku has positioned himself as their champion. Whether they will follow him is the question that will define the election.
Leave a comment