RismadarVoice Reporters, August 27, 2026
The political confrontation between former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and President Bola Tinubu has intensified, with both camps trading accusations over fuel subsidy, public finances and alleged mismanagement of funds from past power projects.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), challenged the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute him if it had evidence linking him to alleged misappropriation of funds allocated to power projects during the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
The former Vice President also accused the Tinubu administration of reviving old allegations to divert attention from questions surrounding the use of revenue generated following the removal of petrol subsidy.
In a statement issued on Wednesday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said the renewed focus on power-sector projects, privatisation and public assets was an attempt to shift attention away from the economic hardship facing Nigerians.
The controversy over power-sector spending during the Obasanjo administration dates back to the years following his departure from office in 2007. The expenditure and commitments, often cited at about $16bn, later became the subject of investigations and a probe by the House of Representatives.
Atiku maintained that successive governments had access to the country’s investigative institutions for nearly two decades but had failed to prosecute him over the allegations.
“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,” he said.
Atiku also demanded greater transparency over the revenues generated from the removal of petrol subsidy, asking, “Where is the people’s money?”
He argued that the policy had imposed significant economic hardship on Nigerians through higher petrol, transportation and food prices without corresponding benefits being felt by citizens.
The former Vice President said the government removed a major form of relief from poor Nigerians on the promise that the savings would be redirected towards development.
“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 criticised what he described as continued fiscal incentives, waivers, tax credits and concessions benefiting powerful economic interests while ordinary Nigerians bear the consequences of the reforms.
Atiku said the government could not justify removing subsidies from citizens on the grounds of fiscal responsibility while supporting interventions that benefit influential economic interests.
He also dismissed what he described as “sponsored social-media mud slinging”, insisting that such attacks would not stop him from demanding accountability.
“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?” he said.
The Presidency, however, criticised Atiku over what it described as conflicting positions on petrol subsidy, saying statements from the former Vice President and his aides had created confusion over his proposed policy.
The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the position known in a statement issued on Wednesday titled, “Atiku confused on petrol subsidy; third U-turn in one week shows he is simply playing politics.”
Onanuga said Atiku’s position had been presented differently three times within a week.
He said Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially stated that the former Vice President would restore petrol subsidy if elected and later phase it out.
According to him, another aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described Ibe’s statement as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position.
Shaibu reportedly explained that the subsidy would remain until domestic refining increased, supply stabilised, and market competition deepened.
Onanuga said Atiku later intervened and reaffirmed that 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 and demanded clarity on how the proposed subsidy would work, its cost, beneficiaries, funding mechanism and conditions for its eventual removal.
“This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction,” Onanuga said.
He also challenged Atiku to explain how beneficiaries of the proposed targeted subsidy would be identified and what economic conditions would determine when the programme would end.
The presidential aide argued that petrol prices were not the sole determinant of the cost of living, pointing to other factors such as insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding and agricultural input costs.
Onanuga also questioned Atiku’s proposal to link subsidy to crude oil prices, noting that crude oil is refined into several products, including diesel, aviation fuel, kerosene, lubricants and other petroleum derivatives.
He 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 Presidency argued that a comprehensive economic policy should address the broader factors driving inflation and the cost of living rather than focus primarily on petrol prices.
Onanuga described the economy as too important to be subjected to “policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks.”
The All Progressives Congress also challenged Atiku to go to court and substantiate his allegation that “thieves” were responsible for Nigeria’s political and economic problems.
The reaction followed remarks attributed to the ADC presidential candidate in which he described the 2027 presidential election as a contest against individuals he accused of stealing the election and the economy.
“We are competing with thieves. They stole the election. Now, they have stolen the economy. They have stolen everything,” Atiku was quoted as saying while addressing supporters in Abuja.
Responding, the APC Director of Publicity, Bala Ibrahim, urged Atiku to seek legal redress if he had evidence to support his allegations.
Ibrahim said that as a former Vice President and a presidential candidate who had previously contested elections, Atiku should have confidence in the judiciary.
He challenged the former Vice President to present his evidence before a court for determination.
Meanwhile, the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) criticised Atiku’s proposal to restore fuel subsidy if elected President in 2027.
NANS President, Akinteye Babatunde, described the proposal as a political response to genuine economic hardship rather than a sustainable solution to Nigeria’s fiscal challenges.
He argued that the removal of subsidy was a difficult but necessary reform aimed at ending a system that consumed significant public resources, encouraged smuggling and limited government investment in critical sectors.
“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,” he said.
However, Babatunde noted that the success of the reform should ultimately be measured by how the government uses the resources saved.
“The real measure of the reform should not be the savings alone, but what the government does with those savings,” he added.
He said resources should translate into improvements in education, healthcare, infrastructure, agriculture and other critical sectors.
The NANS president warned that an outright return to the old subsidy regime without addressing its structural weaknesses could recreate the problems that led to its removal.
“This is why calls or promises for the outright return of subsidy, 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,” he said.
