The Chairman of the Planning Committee of the 2027 APC Presidential and Governorship Campaign Committee in Ogun State, Kayode Oladele, has criticised the African Democratic Congress presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, over his proposal to introduce a capped subsidy for petrol produced in Nigeria.
Oladele, a former federal lawmaker, described the proposal as a repackaging of the fuel subsidy system, arguing that changing its description from consumption subsidy to production subsidy would not alter its implications for public finances.
Atiku had proposed that only petrol refined domestically, including products from modular refineries, should benefit from the intervention, while imported petrol would be excluded.
He also said the cost and payments under the scheme would be made public and subjected to independent auditing.
Reacting to the proposal in a statement on Sunday, Oladele said the major issue was not the terminology used by Atiku but the financial burden the policy would ultimately place on the government and taxpayers.
“A subsidy remains a subsidy. You may call it production subsidy, targeted subsidy, capped subsidy or give it any sophisticated economic description you like. Once the government is required to absorb part of the cost of petrol so that it can be sold below what the market would otherwise determine, public resources are being committed to make up the difference.
“The critical questions therefore remain unanswered: What is the subsidy rate? What quantity of petrol will qualify? What is the annual expenditure ceiling? Where will the money come from? And what mechanism will guarantee that whatever benefit government gives to refiners will actually reach ordinary Nigerians at the filling stations?”
The former acting Chairman of the Federal Character Commission said similar concerns had been raised by the APC Presidential Campaign Council, which demanded clarification on the proposed subsidy rate, spending limit, eligible petrol volumes, funding source and measures to prevent diversion and fraudulent claims.
Oladele also questioned how the proposed scheme would comply with Section 205(1) of the Petroleum Industry Act, which provides for market-based pricing of petroleum products.
“The fundamental difference between President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s approach and Atiku’s proposal is that the President is attempting to restructure the energy and transportation economy rather than return government to permanently underwriting fuel consumption.
“President Tinubu took the difficult decision to confront a subsidy system that had become enormously burdensome to the public treasury. Such structural reforms inevitably come with adjustment pressures and nobody should pretend otherwise.
“What Nigerians should therefore ask Atiku is simple: after all our experience with subsidy, is the solution really to create another subsidy programme?”
Oladele further criticised Atiku’s position on the Federal Government’s transportation policies, saying the opposition candidate was overlooking efforts by the Tinubu administration to reduce the country’s dependence on petrol through Compressed Natural Gas and other alternatives.
“Atiku wants Nigerians to believe that the only meaningful way of reducing transportation costs is to return the government to subsidising fuel.
“President Tinubu is pursuing a different structural approach: broaden the country’s transportation energy options, expand CNG infrastructure and progressively reduce the dependence of commercial transportation on petrol.
“That is an important distinction. One approach asks the government to continue absorbing part of the price of a commodity. The other seeks to change the underlying cost structure by creating alternatives.”
The APC chieftain said Atiku had the right to present an alternative economic programme but should provide Nigerians with details of how his proposals would be financed.
“It is very easy during an election season to promise cheaper petrol, cheaper food, cheaper electricity and cheaper transportation.The harder question is how these promises will be financed without recreating the very fiscal problems Nigeria has spent years trying to escape.
He added that the Tinubu administration should also be assessed based on measurable outcomes, particularly the extent to which its transportation policies benefit Nigerians and reduce commuting costs.
“That is the proper democratic standard. The government must show results and the opposition must show credible alternatives. However, simply repackaging subsidy and presenting it as a new economic philosophy does not answer the difficult questions Nigeria faces.
“President Tinubu chose reform over postponement. Atiku is proposing that government should once again intervene in the price of petrol through subsidy. Nigerians deserve to examine the consequences of those fundamentally different approaches carefully.
“The country has travelled the subsidy road before. Before anybody asks Nigerians to travel that road again, even under a different name, he owes them something more substantial than campaign promises. He owes them the numbers,” Oladele said.
