Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The war of words between President Bola Tinubu and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar escalated dramatically on Thursday, August 20, 2026, as the two political heavyweights exchanged blistering accusations over the contentious issue of fuel subsidy removal, setting the stage for a fierce political battle ahead of the 2027 presidential election. The clash began when Tinubu, while receiving Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke at the Presidential Villa in Abuja on Thursday, took a veiled but sharp swipe at Atiku over his recent pledge to restore fuel subsidy if elected president in 2027. Addressing the governor, Tinubu declared: "I saw one of my opponents now say he will go back to subsidy. I read it. That is a demonstration of a serious ignorance on governance and economy". The President defended his administration's decision to remove the subsidy in May 2023, recalling that before the removal, 27 states were unable to pay salaries and pensions. He argued that the removal had placed more money in the hands of state governors, enabling them to embark on infrastructure projects, road networks, housing, school rehabilitation and healthcare improvements.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, had earlier on Thursday declared during a Facebook Live session that he would restore fuel subsidy if elected, questioning how the savings from the subsidy removal had been utilised. "I initially did not oppose the removal of the fuel subsidy. But now that it has been removed, where is the money? Where has the subsidy money gone? Has it been used to improve healthcare, education or security?" Atiku asked. He further demanded that anyone who stole Nigeria's subsidy funds must return the money.
In a scathing response on Friday, August 21, Atiku fired back at Tinubu through a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, describing the President's attack as the "insolent sermon of a failed economic experimenter who mistakes Nigerians' capacity to endure suffering for evidence that his policies are working". Atiku said there was an "almost comical audacity" in Tinubu calling anyone economically ignorant after presiding over an economy where government revenues have ballooned while citizens' purchasing power has collapsed. Shaibu quoted Atiku as saying: "If economic ignorance had a presidential seal, Tinubu and his family would be its official logo. Here is an administration that detonated simultaneous fuel-price, exchange-rate and cost-of-living shocks across a fragile economy, watched millions become poorer, and now struts around Abuja demanding applause for the wreckage". He accused the President of "economic arson followed by propaganda about the ashes". Atiku's statement took direct aim at Tinubu's handling of the subsidy removal, arguing that the President had acted without a credible transition plan or adequate protection against inflationary consequences. "Apparently fresh from a bowl of amala, Tinubu mounted the podium at Eagle Square and casually declared that 'subsidy is gone' without a credible transition plan or adequate protection against the inflationary consequences. Those three words were not economic policy. They were economic vandalism by presidential fiat," Atiku said. He added that petrol prices exploded, transportation and production costs followed, the naira depreciated sharply, food prices soared, businesses buckled and household purchasing power was decimated.
Atiku clarified that his proposal was not a call for the return of the old, corrupt, open-ended subsidy regime, but rather a targeted, capped, budgeted, time-bound and independently audited production-support mechanism tied to domestic production and protected against arbitrage. "The difference is simple: Tinubu pronounced first and searched for a plan afterwards. Atiku studied the consequences and produced a solution," the statement read. Atiku also questioned the President's claim that subsidy had been completely eliminated, citing what he described as approximately N17.5 trillion in energy-security costs and petroleum under-recoveries in NNPC's audited accounts. "So what exactly did Tinubu remove? If subsidy is dead, why are under-recoveries alive? If corruption was eliminated, why has opacity survived? Tinubu has given Nigerians the worst of both worlds: he removed the relief but retained the opaque costs. Nigerians got the pain; government kept the bill," Atiku said.
The Presidency, through Special Adviser on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga, had earlier on Thursday dismissed Atiku's proposal as a desperate and regressive volte-face driven by political desperation ahead of the 2027 election. Onanuga accused Atiku, who once advocated for subsidy removal, of opportunistically recanting his position and behaving "like a man from an archaic past who least comprehends the present economic dynamics". The Presidency argued that restoring the subsidy would require major legal, fiscal and administrative changes and a credible funding source, warning that the old subsidy regime was wasteful, corruption-ridden and had been made illegal by the Petroleum Industry Act from the end of June 2023. The Presidency also rejected Atiku's claim of a N30 trillion subsidy windfall or savings, describing it as imaginary.
The clash comes amid broader political realignments ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with Atiku, Obi, Tinubu and other candidates positioning themselves for the contest. The exchange between Tinubu and Atiku underscores the centrality of economic policy, particularly fuel subsidy, in the 2027 campaign. Atiku has also renewed his call for clarification of approximately N30 trillion in Federation Account revenues, deductions, savings and transfers, as well as the N12.8 trillion Service-Wide Vote in the 2026 budget. He challenged the Presidency to provide explanations on the figures, arguing that questions about fiscal transparency should receive the same attention as political criticism.
The war of words has generated reactions across the political spectrum, with FCT Minister Nyesom Wike also wading into the debate, describing Atiku as confused and backing Tinubu's re-election bid. Wike recalled that Atiku had pledged in 2022 to remove fuel subsidy within his first 100 days in office if elected president, but was now advocating a return to subsidy. As the 2027 elections draw closer, the fuel subsidy debate is likely to remain a defining issue, with candidates increasingly forced to articulate clear positions on how they would address Nigeria's economic challenges. For now, the exchanges between Tinubu and Atiku have set a combative tone for what promises to be a fiercely contested electoral battle, with the two political heavyweights trading barbs over who truly understands the economy and who is merely playing politics with the welfare of Nigerians.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments