•Tinubu and Atiku
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has challenged the federal government to investigate and prosecute him if it has evidence linking him to the alleged $16 billion power expenditure while in office.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African DemocraticCongress, accused the President Bola Tinubu-led government of recycling old allegations to divert attention from questions over the use of revenues saved from petrol subsidy removal, reports The PUNCH.
Atiku, in a statement yesterday, issued by his SeniorSpecial Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, said the resurfacing of allegations surrounding power-sector projects, privatisation and public assets was an attempt to shift public attention from the economic hardship confronting Nigerians.
The Olusegun Obasanjo administration’s power sector spending and commitments, commonly cited at about $16bn, became the subject of a House of Representatives probe after his exit from office in 2007.
In 2008, the Umaru Yar’Adua administration raised questions about expenditure on the power sector, with the allegation initially reported as about $11bn, before the figure became commonly cited as $16bn.
In his defence, Obasanjo cited an EFCC investigation and a presidential review process, arguing that these had undermined the allegation that $16bn had simply been squandered.
A report claimed only about $3.7bn of the $10bn budgeted amount had actually been disbursed, with the balance retained in an account at the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Also, an EFCC report published in 2018 reportedly revealed that about N1.2tn had been allocated to NIPP, but only approximately N360.7bn was paid to contractors by the time Obasanjo left office in 2007.
It also reported about N273.65bn spent on PHCN between 1999 and 2007.
Atiku challenged the Tinubu government to account for the resources it had gained since the removal of petrol subsidy, asking, “Where is the people’s money?”
He said the allegations against him had been repeatedly raised over the years without resulting in any prosecution, despite successive governments having access to the investigative machinery of the state.
“The National Assembly investigated the power projects. I was never invited to answer any allegation of wrongdoing.
“Yes, I chaired the National Council on Privatisation as Vice President. But on the power project, I disagreed with its concept and did not preside over its implementation. The responsible minister did. The same applies to the Aluminium Smelter matter.
“I have repeatedly asked to be investigated. I left office in 2007 and have spent much of the period since then opposing governments in power. If there is evidence that I stole public money, why has no government produced it before a court?
“It is still not too late. Investigate me. Invite me. Produce the evidence. Prosecute me if you have a case. But propaganda cannot substitute for evidence,” the statement read in part.
The ADC chieftain’s latest challenge comes amid an intensifying political confrontation between the opposition and the Federal Government over the state of the economy and the impact of the government’s reforms.
Atiku has made the economic consequences of subsidy removal a central part of his criticism of the administration, arguing that Nigerians have endured substantial increases in the cost of petrol, transportation, food and other basic necessities without seeing commensurate benefits from the additional government revenues.
He noted that the controversy over the power projects was being revived because his demand for greater transparency over the proceeds of subsidy removal had become politically uncomfortable for the administration.
“They removed subsidy from the poor and promised that the sacrifice would free resources for development. Nigerians accepted extraordinary pain on that promise.
“Today, petrol is more expensive, transportation is more expensive, food is more expensive, and the purchasing power of the Nigerian worker has been devastated,” he added.
He further questioned the government’s fiscal priorities, alleging that while ordinary Nigerians were being asked to endure the consequences of subsidy removal, powerful economic interests continued to benefit from fiscal incentives, waivers and concessions.
“Meanwhile, government revenues have increased, while fiscal incentives, waivers, tax credits and concessions continue to be available to powerful economic interests. So, our question remains brutally simple: where is the people’s money?”
Atiku argued that the government could not justify removing a major form of relief from Nigerians because the resulting savings would be redirected to development while simultaneously describing economic interventions targeted at powerful interests as incentives.
“You cannot take relief away from the poor, celebrate the resulting revenue and then tell the same impoverished citizens that government intervention on their behalf is economically irresponsible while interventions benefiting powerful interests are called incentives. That hypocrisy is precisely what we are challenging,” he stressed.
Tinubu announced the removal of fuel subsidy shortly after his inauguration in May 2023, ending a long-standing system under which the federal government subsidised the cost of the product.
The government defended the decision as necessary to reduce pressure on public finances and redirect resources towards infrastructure and social programmes.
The policy, however, triggered a sharp increase in petrol prices and contributed to higher transportation and living costs, making subsidy removal one of the most politically contentious issues of the Tinubu presidency.
The government has since introduced various measures to cushion the effects of the reforms, while maintaining that the previous subsidy regime was financially unsustainable.
However, Atiku proposed alternative economic measures and has increasingly positioned accountability, cost-of-living pressures and the management of public resources at the centre of his campaign.
His latest statement also comes against the backdrop of growing political activities ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with the ADC and other opposition forces mounting increasingly direct attacks on the Tinubu administration.
Atiku dismissed what he described as “sponsored social-media mud slinging”, insisting that such attacks would not deter him from demanding accountability.
“The people who removed subsidy from the poor cannot frighten us into silence by resurrecting allegations that governments with all the investigative machinery of the Nigerian state have had nearly two decades to establish,” he said.
“If you have evidence against Atiku, bring it. If you have a case, prosecute it. But if you have neither, stop manufacturing distractions and answer Nigerians. You removed the subsidy. You collected the savings. Where is the money?”
Presidency slams Atiku
However, the presidency criticised Atiku over what it described as conflicting positions on petrol subsidy, saying the different explanations coming from him and his aides within one week showed a lack of clarity in his policy proposal.
The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, stated this in a statement released yesterday titled, ‘Atiku confused on petrol subsidy; third U-turn in one week shows he is simply playing politics.’
Onanuga said Atiku’s position had changed or been explained differently three times within a week, beginning with a statement by his spokesperson, Paul Ibe, that the former Vice President would restore petrol subsidy if elected and later phase it out.
He said another aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described Ibe’s position as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s stance, arguing that the subsidy would instead remain until domestic refining increased, supply stabilised and market competition deepened.
According to Onanuga, Atiku later intervened and reaffirmed that his position had not changed, saying he would restore what he described as a targeted subsidy.
He quoted Atiku as saying, “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”
The presidency questioned the different explanations, asking why an aide would describe the subsidy as temporary and subject to a phase-out while another disowned that position before Atiku himself reaffirmed the original proposal.
Onanuga said, “This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction.”
He also challenged Atiku to explain how his proposed subsidy would work, including its cost, beneficiaries, funding mechanism and conditions for its eventual removal.
“We therefore urge Atiku to stop shifting positions and explain precisely what he means by ‘targeted subsidy’: how much will it cost, who will benefit, how will beneficiaries be identified, how will it be funded and what objective economic conditions will determine its eventual termination?” he asked.
The presidential aide also rejected what he described as an over simplification of the relationship between petrol prices and cost of living, arguing that several other factors, including insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding and agricultural input costs influenced food inflation.
He further questioned the ADC candidate’s proposal to link subsidy to the price of crude oil, noting that refining crude produces several other petroleum products apart from petrol.
Onanuga cited diesel, aviation fuel and kerosene among the products derived from crude oil, and asked whether Atiku’s proposed subsidy would extend to those products as well.
“Jet fuel and kerosene make up about nine per cent of the barrel. Kerosene and jet fuel were deregulated in 2009, and subsidies removed in 2016,” Onanuga stated.
On the other petroleum by-products, he added, “About 10 to 15 per cent of the barrel creates base ingredients for synthetic rubber, nylon, polyester, and plastics used in everyday goods like toothbrushes, cups, and packaging.
“Asphalt makes up about two to four per cent of the barrel. Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids, like propane and butane, make up about four per cent.
“Lubricants and waxes constitute about one to two per cent. Petroleum coke and sulfur form the solid residue left from refining.”
He specifically recalled that diesel was deregulated in 2004 under the administration in which Atiku served as Vice-President, while kerosene and aviation fuel were deregulated at different times.
The statement also accused Atiku of focusing excessively on petrol while overlooking other products obtained from crude oil.
The presidency maintained that a comprehensive economic policy should address the wider factors driving inflation and the cost of living rather than focus solely on petrol prices.
Onanuga concluded that the economy was too important to be subjected to what he described as “policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks.”
He questioned the consistency of subsidising only petrol while ignoring other by-products used by equally vulnerable Nigerians.
“Will Atiku subsidise all these by-products of the barrel as well, since kerosene is used by the underprivileged to cook, and many homes and factories use diesel to power generators and delivery trucks?
“And will he allow the refineries to supply discounted crude oil to profit from 55 per cent of the by-products, while focusing subsidy only on petrol, his obsession?”
The presidency further argued that the former vice president was “definitely suffering from a lack of basic understanding of his newfound policy prescription.”
‘Go to court’
In a related development, the All Progressives Congress challenged Atiku to go to court and provide evidence to substantiate his claim that “thieves” were responsible for the country’s political and economic problems ahead of the2027 general elections.
The ruling party’s reaction followed remarks attributed to the ADC presidential candidate in which he said the 2027 presidential contest was a race against individuals whom he described as thieves.
Daily Trust, citing a video posted on Atiku’s social media handles on Tuesday night, reported that the former vice president made the remarks while addressing supporters at his residence in Abuja.
“We are competing with thieves. They stole the election. Now, they have stolen the economy. They have stolen everything,” Atiku was quoted as saying.
Responding to the development, the APC Director of Publicity, Bala Ibrahim, urged Atiku to seek legal redress if he had evidence to support his allegations.
Speaking with our correspondent, Ibrahim questioned whether Atiku had lost confidence in the judiciary.
“As a former vice president of the country and as someone who has contested elections and lost before, I don’t know if Atiku is passing a vote of no confidence on the judiciary. If he is, then he has no business contesting again.
‘’But if he has confidence in the judiciary and he is making these allegations, I think he knows the right place to go, to prove his point. He should go to court, present facts to support his claims that he is competing against thieves. It is for the court to take a decision and those thieves will certainly be made to have their day in court,” he said.
NANS tackles Atiku
Meanwhile, the National Association of Nigerian Students criticised the former VP’s proposal to restore fuel subsidy if elected President in 2027, describing the promise as a political response to economic hardship rather than a sustainable solution to Nigeria’s fiscal challenges.
NANS president, Akinteye Babatunde, stated this in a statement on Wednesday, arguing that returning to the old subsidy system without a clear structural framework would recreate the problems that made the policy unsustainable.
“Every sane and patriotic citizen who is conversant with our nation’s economy will agree with me that the removal of the fuel subsidy was a difficult but necessary economic reform aimed at ending an increasingly unsustainable system that consumed trillions of naira, benefited higher fuel consumers disproportionately, encouraged smuggling, and constrained the government’s ability to invest in critical sectors.”
The student leader stressed that the real test of the reform was not simply the amount of money saved but how the government deployed the resources.
“However, the real measure of the reform should not be the savings alone, but what the government does with those savings,” he said.
“Clearly, we have seen the government increase state subventions and redirect resources into education, healthcare, infrastructure and agriculture.
Realistically, the Nigerian people have made a productive sacrifice that must ultimately translate into a stronger and more sustainable economy,” he said.
The NANS president argued that an outright return to subsidy without addressing the structural weaknesses of the previous arrangement would only recreate the problems that necessitated its removal.
“This is why calls or promises for the outright return ofsubsidy, without a clear structural framework for addressing the fundamental weaknesses that made the policy unsustainable in the first place, amount to little more than a political response to a genuine economic challenge.”
