*L-R: President Bola Tinubu and Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.
A war of words has erupted between the media advisers of President Bola Tinubu and former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar over the Federal Government’s petrol pricing intervention, with both sides trading accusations over economic policies, the cost of temporary fuel discounts and the appropriate way to address rising living costs.
The exchange began with a statement by Sunday Dare, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, who criticised Atiku’s opposition to the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited’s decision to extend a 30-day petrol discount.
Atiku’s media adviser, Paul Ibe, subsequently responded, accusing Dare of focusing on personal attacks rather than addressing questions about the coverage, cost and sustainability of the intervention.
The disagreement has also extended to the use of names and titles, with Ibe faulting Dare for referring to Atiku as “Kachalla” while the Presidency had earlier taken exception to the former vice-president’s reference to the President as “Bola”.
The Presidency said it was of Atiku to address the the President by his first as he had done in various criticism of administration’s economic policies.
Ibe, responding however said:
First, let us address his hypocrisy. Atiku Abubakar calls President Bola Ahmed Tinubu by his actual name, Bola, and the Presidency takes offence. Yet Sunday Dare, a presidential adviser, addresses Atiku as “Kachalla,” a designation that is neither his name nor the traditional title by which he is widely known, Waziri Adamawa. The double standard is breathtaking.
In his statement titled “Atiku’s Demagoguery in the Face of Tinubu’s Logical Policies,” Dare defended the administration’s economic reforms, arguing that Atiku’s criticism of the petrol intervention overlooked the realities of the international oil market and Nigeria’s crude oil production arrangements.
He described the former vice-president’s proposal for a production-based subsidy as economically unsustainable, insisting that Nigeria lacked sufficient unencumbered crude oil volumes to support such an arrangement without placing additional pressure on government revenue.
Dare said Nigeria produces approximately 1.8 million barrels of crude oil daily but has fewer than 700,000 barrels available to the government after accounting for contractual obligations, production costs, royalties and profit-sharing arrangements.
He argued that the government could not simply allocate the country’s entire crude oil output to domestic refiners at discounted rates, as much of the production was subject to existing contractual commitments.
According to him, a blanket production subsidy would risk reviving the opacity, fraudulent practices and financial losses associated with the country’s former petrol subsidy regime.
The presidential aide also rejected Atiku’s description of the NNPC Retail intervention as a return to fuel subsidy, explaining that the national oil company had initially introduced the discount to mark Nigeria’s 66th Independence anniversary before agreeing to extend it for another 30 days.
Dare described the arrangement as a temporary price-smoothing measure through which NNPC Retail would forgo its profit margin rather than receive direct payments from the Federal Government to subsidise fuel consumption.
He also cited an interim N1,350-per-litre ceiling on ex-gantry costs, arguing that the arrangement was designed to moderate sudden price increases and protect consumers from the knock-on effects of fuel price volatility.
Under the framework as described by Dare, refiners and importers would absorb costs above the ceiling in the short term and recover them later when international crude prices or domestic exchange-rate conditions improved.
He maintained that moderating abrupt petrol price increases could help prevent commercial transport operators from raising fares in response to sudden fuel price shocks.
Dare further defended the administration’s broader economic programme, citing the removal of petrol subsidy, foreign exchange market reforms, increased allocations to states and local governments, direct support for vulnerable households and the expansion of domestic refining capacity.
He also listed investments in compressed natural gas infrastructure, strategic energy reserves and major road and rail projects as part of the government’s efforts to stabilise the economy and reduce the cost of doing business.
The presidential aide accused Atiku of promoting an alternative that could revive the fiscal difficulties associated with the former subsidy system.
He argued that the administration had chosen to combine market-based pricing with temporary interventions aimed at moderating the effects of international energy market disruptions.
However, Ibe, in his response, challenged Dare’s presentation of the issues, insisting that the government had yet to answer fundamental questions about the reach and financial implications of the petrol discount.
In his statement, Ibe said the disagreement should not be reduced to a contest over academic qualifications, arguing that Nigerians were more concerned about the impact of economic policies on household incomes and business operations.
He defended Atiku’s educational background and questioned the relevance of Dare’s comparison between the former vice-president’s schooling and Tinubu’s accounting qualification.
Ibe argued that academic credentials alone could not establish the effectiveness of an economic policy, adding that the central issue was whether the government’s decisions were delivering meaningful relief to Nigerians.
He also disputed Dare’s characterisation of Atiku’s production-based subsidy proposal, saying it was intended to provide targeted and transparent support for domestic refining rather than distribute Nigeria’s entire crude oil production free of charge.
According to Ibe, questions about crude oil availability, the cost of the proposed intervention and the legal framework were legitimate issues requiring detailed explanations rather than personal attacks.
He challenged the Presidency to publish the calculations behind its claim that fewer than 700,000 barrels of crude oil were available for government allocation and explain how existing contractual obligations affected possible alternatives.
The Atiku media adviser also questioned the geographical reach of the NNPC Retail discount, arguing that the national oil company’s retail outlets represented only a small proportion of Nigeria’s filling station network.
Citing figures of slightly more than 900 NNPC Retail outlets against an estimated 22,681 filling stations nationwide, Ibe said the arrangement covered only about four per cent of the country’s retail network.
He asked how motorists and commercial transport operators in communities without NNPC outlets would benefit from the discount and what assurances existed that the intervention would translate into lower transport fares, food prices and operating costs.
Ibe further questioned the argument that the intervention carried no cost to the government.
He maintained that NNPC Limited’s government ownership meant that the company’s earnings and assets had implications for the Federation, including potential dividends payable to its public shareholders.
According to him, the decision to forgo profit margins could carry an economic opportunity cost even if it did not involve a direct payment from the Federal Government’s budget.
He called for the publication of figures showing the volume of fuel sold under the arrangement, the margins surrendered, the benefits to consumers and the overall effect on the company’s earnings.
On the international comparisons raised by Dare, Ibe argued that the examples cited by the presidential aide demonstrated that governments could intervene when energy costs placed excessive pressure on households and businesses.
He pointed to the emergency diesel-tax relief attributed to United States President Donald Trump, asking why government intervention to cushion energy costs could be considered reasonable in another country but dismissed as economically unsound when proposed by Atiku.
Ibe also questioned Dare’s explanation of the proposed N1,350-per-litre ex-gantry ceiling, particularly the mechanism through which refiners and importers would recover costs absorbed during the intervention.
He asked who would ultimately bear the burden, the period over which the costs would be recovered and what would happen if international oil prices remained elevated.
The Atiku aide also accused Dare of presenting some proposed government measures as policies already being implemented.
He specifically questioned the presidential aide’s reference to windfall taxes on energy operators, arguing that there was a distinction between a measure being considered and one that had formally been introduced.
Beyond the immediate dispute, Ibe challenged the government to clarify what would happen when the 30-day discount period expired.
He asked whether the intervention would be extended, whether petrol prices would rise again and what sustainable measures the administration intended to put in place to protect consumers.
Ibe maintained that Nigerians should judge economic policies by their impact on the cost of food, transportation, electricity and the survival of small businesses, rather than by official statements about economic stabilisation.
He argued that higher allocations to states and improvements in economic indicators would not, on their own, resolve the immediate financial difficulties confronting households.
The exchange highlights the continuing disagreement between the Tinubu administration and Atiku over how the government should respond to petrol price volatility while pursuing economic reforms.
While Dare maintains that temporary price moderation can be achieved without restoring the former subsidy regime, Ibe insists that the government must provide verifiable figures on the intervention’s cost, coverage and long-term sustainability.
Both sides have made competing claims about the feasibility and effectiveness of their preferred approaches, leaving questions about the precise financial implications of the discount and the future of the proposed price-smoothing framework at the centre of the debate.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the temporary intervention can deliver sufficiently broad relief to Nigerians without creating new fiscal or commercial liabilities, and what measures will replace it when the discount expires.
For now, the two camps remain divided over the economics of petrol pricing, the interpretation of international precedents and the extent to which the government’s reforms are improving the living conditions of Nigerians.