‘Subsidy is fraud’ — Eagle FM caller challenges Atiku’s plan to restore fuel support

Jeremiah Adeshina

The proposed restoration of fuel subsidy by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar came under intense scrutiny on Monday as callers to Eagle 102.5 FM’s Frontline programme demanded greater clarity from his campaign on the policy, its beneficiaries and the broader economic plan ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

The callers questioned Atiku’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, during an exclusive interview on the current affairs programme, which was broadcast from Ilese-Ijebu.

The discussion centred largely on Atiku’s proposed petroleum policy, which seeks to replace the former import-based subsidy arrangement with what the former Vice President describes as a production-based subsidy.

Under the proposal contained in the Atiku Economic Recovery Plan (AERP), qualifying public and private refineries would receive domestic crude at a preferential price, subject to conditions relating to production, efficiency and domestic supply.

Atiku has described the principle behind the proposal as simple: “The subsidy will follow the barrel.”

Under the proposed arrangement, refineries receiving preferentially priced crude would be expected to supply an independently verified quantity of petroleum products to the Nigerian market at prices reflecting the benefit of the cheaper crude.

However, several callers questioned whether the proposed arrangement could avoid the abuses associated with Nigeria’s previous subsidy regime.

A caller identified as AB from Epe asked whether restoring the subsidy could create another avenue for abuse, particularly by oil marketers who, he alleged, had previously benefited from the system without delivering commensurate value.

Shaibu responded that Atiku’s proposal would be fundamentally different from the previous arrangement because the benefit would be tied directly to crude supplied to qualifying domestic refineries.

“Under the article’s proposal, the subsidy follows the barrel, not the marketer,” Shaibu said.

“With every barrel tracked and the benefit required to reflect in the pump price,” he added.

Another caller, Omooba, strongly opposed the proposed return of the subsidy, describing the former subsidy regime as fraudulent.
He argued that rather than restoring subsidies, the government should concentrate on expanding domestic refining capacity and providing basic services such as healthcare and education.

“There’s nothing like a subsidy. It’s all fraud,” Omooba said.

He urged Atiku to focus on building refineries and improving living conditions instead of returning to a policy he considered problematic.

Another caller, Emmanuel from Epe, commended Shaibu but urged the Atiku campaign to devote more attention to explaining its own policies instead of concentrating primarily on criticisms of President Bola Tinubu’s administration.

“I want to commend Mr. Phrank. However, I want to tell them that their campaign media team should focus more on what they are going to do for Nigerians, clarity and so on, less attack,” Emmanuel said.

He also raised questions about possible opposition alliances involving the African Democratic Congress (ADC), particularly the implications for candidates seeking legislative seats if opposition parties reach agreements at the presidential level.

Emmanuel further advised political campaign spokespeople to maintain a less confrontational relationship with journalists during interviews.

A caller identified as Taiwo from Ijebu-Ife also questioned Atiku’s position on subsidies and asked the campaign to explain what Nigerians had gained from previous government support associated with the development of the Dangote Refinery.

“Atiku is promising to subsidize everything. Is Atiku aware that Buhari subsidized Dangote when he was building his refineries?” Taiwo asked.

He questioned whether Nigerians had received sufficient benefits from the earlier intervention and urged Atiku to address the issue before proposing another subsidy programme.

Responding, Shaibu said the intervention under the Muhammadu Buhari administration occurred when the subsidy regime was still in existence.

“First off, at the time the concession was given by President Muhammadu Buhahave a subsidy was in place. This man came to power, and he said in three words, subsidy is gone. He didn’t have a plan,” Shaibu said.

He also alleged that the Tinubu administration had frustrated the Dangote Refinery by limiting its access to crude, forcing it to import crude and, at some point, purchase crude in dollars.

Shaibu said Atiku’s proposed production-based subsidy would not be restricted to the Dangote Refinery.

“But what we are proposing is simple. It’s not just about Dangote. Dangote is not the only one who owns a refinery in Nigeria,” he said.

According to him, modular and other domestic refineries that meet the proposed requirements would also benefit from the policy.

Another caller, Ojikutu Hakim from Epe, raised questions concerning allegations surrounding President Tinubu and a purported drug-related investigation.

Hakim called for the release of relevant records by United States authorities, arguing that Nigerians should have access to information they consider relevant before the 2027 election.

“Does it even hover well for somebody who is the president of a particular country to even be alleged of something related to a drug baron?” he asked.

Hakim also urged the Atiku campaign to provide specific proposals addressing Nigerians’ basic needs in its manifesto.
The allegations raised by the caller were not independently established during the programme.

The debate comes amid continued disagreement between the opposition and the Federal Government over the consequences of petrol subsidy removal.

The Tinubu administration has consistently defended the decision to remove the subsidy, arguing that it has improved government finances and created resources for development.

Minister of Information and National Orientation Mohammed Idris has also rejected calls for subsidy restoration, warning that bringing back the policy could reverse economic gains and place additional pressure on public finances.

According to figures cited by Idris in an opinion article, subsidy removal freed N15.8 trillion for the Federation between June 2023 and December 2025, with the funds distributed among the Federal Government, states and local governments.

Defending Atiku’s proposal, Shaibu argued that subsidy removal, combined with the devaluation of the naira, had imposed severe economic pressure on Nigerians without sufficient measures to cushion the effects.

“You cannot say you have removed subsidy and devalued the Naira at the same time. There was nothing. It was just a shock therapy. Nothing to cushion that effect. So that’s why Atiku said no,” he said.

Shaibu explained that Atiku had subsequently revised his approach and developed a production-based model designed to support domestic refining while ensuring that government intervention benefits consumers.

“He had to recalibrate. And came up with this model,” he said.

Addressing callers who demanded more details about Atiku’s economic programme, Shaibu said the campaign’s proposals were contained in its policy blueprints and would be unveiled progressively.

“So, for Hakim, for everything you have said, all the requests you have made, are contained in our blueprints. And in the days ahead, we’ll be unveiling them one after the other,” he said.

He maintained that subsidy restoration remained a central component of Atiku’s economic programme.

“For now, we are staying on the subsidy conversation. Subsidy is at the head of our project. Restoration of the subsidy will trickle down to everything you have requested,” Shaibu said.

Shaibu concluded by expressing confidence that Atiku would implement the proposed policy if elected President in 2027.

“And by the grace of God, on May 29, 2027, when His Excellency, Atiku Abubakar, is sworn in, Nigerians can breathe again,” he said.