The political contest between President Bola Tinubu and former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has taken a sharper economic turn as the two camps continue trade accusations over petrol subsidy, public finances, and the long-running controversy surrounding Nigeria’s power-sector spending.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has challenged the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute him if it possesses evidence linking him to alleged expenditure on the $16bn power projects undertaken during the Olusegun Obasanjo administration.
The former Vice-President, however, has placed the burden of the current economic debate elsewhere. He wants the Tinubu administration to explain how the revenues saved from the removal of petrol subsidy have been used amid persistent complaints over the cost of living.
Atiku made the demand in a statement issued on Wednesday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu.
READ RELATED NEWS UPDATES
Atiku turns spotlight to subsidy savings
Atiku said successive governments had had almost two decades to investigate the allegations surrounding the power projects but had failed to bring a case against him.
He said, “The National Assembly investigated the power projects. I was never invited to answer any allegation of wrongdoing.”
He acknowledged that he chaired the National Council on Privatisation while serving as Vice-President but said he did not supervise the implementation of the power projects.
He added, “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.”
Atiku also challenged the government to produce evidence if it believed he had misappropriated public funds.
Atiku said, “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?
“Investigate me. Invite me. Produce the evidence. Prosecute me if you have a case. But propaganda cannot substitute for evidence.”
The $16bn controversy dates back to the Obasanjo years, when substantial public funds were committed to power-sector projects. Subsequent administrations questioned aspects of the expenditure, while Obasanjo maintained that investigations did not support the suggestion that the entire amount had simply been squandered.
Atiku has now connected the old controversy to a much more immediate question: what Nigerians have gained from the removal of petrol subsidy.
He said the government had removed a major source of relief for citizens while promising that the savings would be redirected towards development.
He said, “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 then posed the question that has become central to his criticism of the administration: “Where is the people’s money?”
Presidency attacks Atiku’s subsidy prescription
The Presidency has responded by questioning Atiku’s own position on petrol subsidy.
Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, accused the former Vice-President of changing his position on subsidy several times within one week.
Onanuga said Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially indicated that an Atiku administration would restore subsidy and later phase it out. He said Phrank Shaibu subsequently described that explanation as unauthorised, before Atiku himself spoke of restoring a “targeted subsidy”.
Atiku was quoted as saying: “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”
From Onanuga’s standpoint, the conflicting explanations raise questions about the practical meaning of the proposal.
He said, “This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction.”
The presidential aide asked Atiku to disclose how much the proposed subsidy would cost, who would receive the benefit, how beneficiaries would be identified, and what economic conditions would determine its eventual withdrawal.
Onanuga also challenged the idea that reducing petrol prices alone would resolve Nigeria’s cost-of-living crisis. He pointed to insecurity, exchange rates, transport and logistics costs, storage, flooding, and agricultural inputs as other factors affecting food prices.
He further recalled that several petroleum products have historically been deregulated, including diesel, aviation fuel, and kerosene, while questioning whether Atiku’s proposed intervention would extend beyond petrol.
APC demands legal proof
The confrontation has also moved into the territory of criminal allegations.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) challenged Atiku to approach the courts with evidence after he accused those behind the country’s political and economic problems of stealing the election and the economy.
APC Director of Publicity Bala Ibrahim said Atiku, as a former Vice-President and repeated presidential candidate, should know the appropriate institution for testing such allegations.
Ibrahim told journalists, “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 said Atiku should present facts before a court and allow the judicial process to determine whether those accused had committed offences.
NANS backs subsidy removal, but demands results
The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) has also entered the debate, rejecting Atiku’s proposal to restore the subsidy in its previous form.
NANS President Akinteye Babatunde described subsidy removal as a difficult but necessary reform. He cited the cost of the old system to public finances, smuggling and its unequal benefits.
He nevertheless acknowledged that the government must demonstrate what has been achieved with the money saved.
Babatunde said, “The real measure of the reform should not be the savings alone, but what the government does with those savings.”
He maintained that returning to the old arrangement without fixing the weaknesses that made it unsustainable would simply recreate the problems that prompted its removal.
The competing positions expose the economic fault line likely to shape the 2027 presidential contest. Atiku is making the pain of subsidy removal and accountability for public revenue central to his challenge to Tinubu. The Presidency, APC, and NANS are instead pressing him to explain how his proposed subsidy would work and whether it can be sustained.
Meanwhile, the dispute is no longer simply about whether subsidy should return. It is now about who can convince Nigerians that public resources are being managed transparently and that economic hardship will eventually translate into tangible relief.
