The political confrontation between former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and President Bola Tinubu’s administration has intensified, with the opposition figure challenging the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute him if it has evidence linking him to alleged $16 billion power-sector spending.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, accused the Tinubu administration of reviving old allegations to divert attention from questions over how revenues generated from the removal of petrol subsidy are being used.
In a statement issued on Wednesday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said renewed scrutiny of power projects, privatisation and public assets was an attempt to shift attention from the economic hardship facing Nigerians.
The power-sector spending and commitments under the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, commonly cited at about $16 billion, became the subject of a House of Representatives probe after Obasanjo left office in 2007.
The Umaru Yar’Adua administration subsequently raised questions about the expenditure in 2008. The figure was initially reported at about $11 billion before $16 billion became the amount commonly associated with the controversy.
Obasanjo, in his defence, pointed to an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission investigation and a presidential review process, arguing that both had undermined claims that $16 billion had simply been squandered.
One report found that only about $3.7 billion of the $10 billion budgeted for the projects had been disbursed, with the balance reportedly retained in an account at the Central Bank of Nigeria.
An EFCC report published in 2018 also reportedly found that about N1.2 trillion had been allocated to the National Integrated Power Projects, although approximately N360.7 billion had been paid to contractors by the time Obasanjo left office in 2007.
The report also put expenditure on the Power Holding Company of Nigeria between 1999 and 2007 at about N273.65 billion.
Atiku said successive governments had had access to the investigative machinery of the state 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,” the statement read in part.
Atiku Demands Accountability Over Subsidy Savings
Atiku also challenged the Tinubu administration to account for the additional revenues generated since the removal of petrol subsidy.
He argued that Nigerians had endured higher petrol, transport and food prices while seeing little evidence of corresponding benefits from the increased government revenues.
“Where is the people’s money?” Atiku asked.
He said the subsidy removal was presented to Nigerians as a painful sacrifice that would free funds for 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.
Atiku also criticised the government for what he described as continued fiscal incentives, waivers, tax credits and concessions for powerful economic interests.
“Meanwhile, government revenues have increased, while fiscal incentives, waivers, tax credits and concessions continue to be available to powerful economic interests. So, our question remains brutally simple: where is the people’s money?”
He argued that the government could not remove a major form of relief from ordinary Nigerians on the grounds that the savings would finance development while describing interventions benefiting powerful interests as incentives.
“You cannot take relief away from the poor, celebrate the resulting revenue and then tell the same impoverished citizens that government intervention on their behalf is economically irresponsible while interventions benefiting powerful interests are called incentives. That hypocrisy is precisely what we are challenging,” he stressed.
President Tinubu announced the removal of petrol subsidy shortly after his inauguration in May 2023. The Federal Government defended the decision as necessary to ease pressure on public finances and redirect resources towards infrastructure and social programmes.
The policy triggered a sharp increase in petrol prices and contributed to rising transportation and living costs, making subsidy removal one of the most contentious issues of the Tinubu presidency.
The administration has since introduced measures intended to cushion the impact while maintaining that the previous subsidy regime was financially unsustainable.
Atiku has increasingly made accountability, cost-of-living pressures and the management of public resources central to his political message ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
He dismissed what he described as “sponsored social-media mud slinging”, saying such attacks would not stop him from demanding accountability.
“The people who removed subsidy from the poor cannot frighten us into silence by resurrecting allegations that governments with all the investigative machinery of the Nigerian state have had nearly two decades to establish,” he said.
“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?”
Presidency Accuses Atiku of Policy Contradictions
The Presidency, however, criticised Atiku over his position on petrol subsidy, accusing him of changing or presenting conflicting explanations about what he would do if elected in 2027.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the accusation in a statement 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 Onanuga, another aide, Phrank Shaibu, subsequently described Ibe’s statement as an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position, saying subsidy would instead remain until domestic refining increased, supply stabilised and market competition deepened.
Onanuga said Atiku later intervened and reaffirmed that his position had not changed, saying he would restore what he called a targeted subsidy.
“I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians,” Atiku was quoted as saying.
Onanuga questioned the differing explanations and demanded details of how the proposed subsidy would operate.
“This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction,” he said.
“We therefore urge Atiku to stop shifting positions and explain precisely what he means by ‘targeted subsidy’: how much will it cost, who will benefit, how will beneficiaries be identified, how will it be funded and what objective economic conditions will determine its eventual termination?” he asked.
The presidential aide also rejected what he described as an oversimplification of the relationship between petrol prices and the cost of living.
He said factors including insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding and agricultural input costs also contribute to food inflation.
Onanuga questioned Atiku’s proposal to link subsidy to crude oil prices, noting that crude refining produces several petroleum products apart from petrol.
He cited diesel, aviation fuel and kerosene among the products derived from crude oil and questioned whether Atiku’s proposed subsidy would cover them as well.
“Jet fuel and kerosene make up about nine per cent of the barrel. Kerosene and jet fuel were deregulated in 2009, and subsidies removed in 2016,” Onanuga stated.
On other petroleum by-products, he added, “About 10 to 15 per cent of the barrel creates base ingredients for synthetic rubber, nylon, polyester, and plastics used in everyday goods like toothbrushes, cups, and packaging.
“Asphalt makes up about two to four per cent of the barrel. Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids, like propane and butane, make up about four per cent.
“Lubricants and waxes constitute about one to two per cent. Petroleum coke and sulfur form the solid residue left from refining.”
He also 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 maintained that a credible economic policy should address the broader factors driving inflation and living costs rather than focus solely on petrol prices.
Onanuga concluded that Nigeria’s economy was too important to be subjected to what he described as “policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks.”
He also questioned the rationale for subsidising petrol while leaving other petroleum products used by vulnerable households and businesses outside the proposed arrangement.
“Will Atiku subsidise all these by-products of the barrel as well, since kerosene is used by the underprivileged to cook, and many homes and factories use diesel to power generators and delivery trucks?
“And will he allow the refineries to supply discounted crude oil to profit from 55 per cent of the by-products, while focusing subsidy only on petrol, his obsession?”
The Presidency further accused Atiku of “definitely suffering from a lack of basic understanding of his newfound policy prescription.”
APC Tells Atiku to Go to Court
The All Progressives Congress also challenged Atiku to provide evidence in court for his claim that “thieves” were responsible for Nigeria’s political and economic problems.
The party’s reaction followed remarks attributed to Atiku in a video posted on his social media accounts on Tuesday night.
“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 at his residence in Abuja.
APC Director of Publicity, Bala Ibrahim, urged the former Vice President to seek legal redress if he had evidence to support his allegations.
Speaking with The PUNCH, Ibrahim questioned whether Atiku had lost confidence in the judiciary.
“As a former Vice President of the country and as someone who has contested elections and lost before, I don’t know if Atiku is passing a vote of no confidence on the judiciary. If he is, then he has no business contesting again.
“But 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 should go to court, present facts to support his claims that he is competing against thieves. It is for the court to take a decision and those thieves will certainly be made to have their day in court,” he said.
NANS Rejects Subsidy Restoration Plan
The National Association of Nigerian Students also criticised Atiku’s proposal to restore petrol subsidy if elected in 2027.
NANS President, Akinteye Babatunde, described the proposal as a political response to economic hardship rather than a sustainable solution to Nigeria’s fiscal challenges.
He argued that restoring the previous subsidy regime without addressing its structural weaknesses would recreate the problems that led to its removal.
“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.”
Babatunde said the success of the reform should ultimately be measured by how the savings are deployed rather than simply by the amount generated.
“However, the real measure of the reform should not be the savings alone, but what the government does with those savings,” he said.
“Clearly, we have seen the government increase state subventions and redirect resources into education, healthcare, infrastructure and agriculture.
“Realistically, the Nigerian people have made a productive sacrifice that must ultimately translate into a stronger and more sustainable economy,” he said.
He added that an outright return to subsidy without a structural framework would only reproduce the weaknesses of the former system.
“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.”
Author
