The 2027 fuel subsidy war has taken another dramatic turn, with African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, publicly distancing himself from his own aide’s explanation of how his proposed subsidy policy would work.
Atiku, on Tuesday, insisted that his position was clear: if elected president, he would restore fuel subsidy.
The former vice-president spoke in Abuja while receiving the Osun State leadership of the ADC, shortly after his media aide, Paul Ibe, suggested in an AIT interview that the subsidy would only be temporary and eventually phased out as the economy recovered.
Atiku appeared to draw a sharp line between his position and Ibe’s explanation, saying the aide had not been speaking with his authority.
“Earlier, one of my press aides contradicted me in a policy statement as far as subsidy is concerned.
“I want to repeat categorically that when I said I would return to subsidy, I will! Nigeria is rich enough to look after the welfare of its citizens. Let it be clearly stated that he was not speaking on my own authority,” Atiku said.
The development has added a fresh twist to what is fast becoming one of the biggest economic battle lines of the 2027 presidential election.
Ibe had told AIT that an Atiku government would restore petrol subsidy after taking office but gradually withdraw it once economic conditions improved.
He explained that the proposed intervention would be tied to crude oil and domestic refining rather than the old import-based subsidy system.
But Atiku’s latest intervention suggests he does not want his campaign message reduced to a promise to restore subsidy today and remove it tomorrow.
In a statement posted on X, the ADC candidate maintained that his position had not changed, arguing that government must focus on restoring Nigerians’ purchasing power and reducing the crushing cost of living.
He said the objective would be to make wages more valuable, reduce transportation costs, help farmers move their produce profitably and enable businesses to produce and employ more people.
Atiku said his proposed intervention would therefore be targeted at domestic production and would not be a return to the controversial import-subsidy arrangement of the past.
His Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently sought to clear up the confusion, saying policy decisions belonged to Atiku and not his spokespeople.
According to Shaibu, the proposed arrangement would be capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited, with government support directed towards domestic refining and production.
The aide said there would be no arbitrary date for terminating the intervention. Rather, government support would gradually become unnecessary as domestic refining capacity increased, fuel supply stabilised and competition improved.
The argument represents a significant shift in the political framing of the subsidy debate: instead of promising to permanently keep petrol prices artificially low, Atiku’s camp is presenting the intervention as a bridge towards cheaper domestic fuel production.
Ibe’s earlier explanation was broadly along the same lines.
He said an Atiku administration would use Nigeria’s crude oil resources to support local refiners by supplying crude at discounted rates, thereby lowering their production costs and, ultimately, pump prices.
He also argued that government could monitor prices even under a deregulated downstream market to ensure the policy achieved its intended objectives.
The subsidy controversy comes after President Bola Tinubu announced the removal of petrol subsidy during his inauguration on May 29, 2023.
The decision immediately sent petrol prices soaring and contributed to increases in transport fares, food prices, logistics and production costs. The government has since defended the reform as necessary to save public funds, stabilise the economy and attract investment.
But for millions of Nigerians still battling high living costs, the political argument is much simpler: whoever can make fuel cheaper could gain a powerful weapon in the 2027 election.
That explains why Atiku’s subsidy promise has already attracted a strong response from the Tinubu administration.
The Presidency has argued that reviving subsidy could put fresh pressure on government finances and undermine investment in domestic refining. It has also demanded clarity on how a new subsidy arrangement would be funded and what exactly would be subsidised in an increasingly domestically refined fuel market.
The Tinubu administration’s reforms have won support from investors and international lenders, but they have also intensified short-term economic pain for households and businesses, making the cost of living a central political issue.
Atiku is now attempting to turn that pain into a campaign advantage.
His message is that Nigerians should not be forced to bear the entire cost of economic reforms while the country, despite being a major oil producer, struggles to provide affordable energy.
His camp insists the choice ahead is not simply between subsidy removal and subsidy restoration, but between what it describes as an “Expensive Nigeria” and an “Affordable Nigeria.”
The bigger question, however, is whether Atiku can convince voters that his proposed intervention would avoid the leakages, opacity and corruption that became synonymous with Nigeria’s former petrol subsidy regime while still delivering significantly cheaper fuel.
With the 2027 presidential race gathering momentum, the petrol pump is increasingly becoming a political battleground — and Atiku has made it clear that subsidy will be one of his biggest weapons.
