The Presidency has accused former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of repeatedly changing his position on petrol subsidy, demanding that he provide Nigerians with clear details of the cost, funding and beneficiaries of his proposed policy.

Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, made the demand in a statement on Wednesday, describing the conflicting statements from Atiku and his aides as evidence of policy confusion.

According to Onanuga, Atiku’s latest intervention represents the third shift in position from his camp within one week.

The controversy followed Atiku’s proposal to restore what he described as a targeted petrol subsidy if elected president.

His spokesperson, Paul Ibe, initially said Atiku would restore the subsidy as a temporary measure before phasing it out after the economy and businesses had recovered from current hardships.

However, another aide, Phrank Shaibu, rejected the claim, describing it as an unauthorised and misleading interpretation of Atiku’s position.

Shaibu said Atiku would not commit to a fixed date for ending the subsidy, arguing that government support should continue until domestic refining expands, fuel supply stabilises and market competition delivers affordable prices.

Atiku later stepped into the controversy, insisting that his position had not changed.

“I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians,” he said.

But the Presidency said the differing explanations went beyond semantics.

“This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction and confusion,” Onanuga said, insisting that Nigerians deserved clarity rather than “policy by trial and error.”

The presidential aide also challenged Atiku’s argument that restoring subsidy and increasing competition would automatically bring down petrol prices.

He said pump prices were influenced by several factors, including global crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation and distribution expenses.

“Competition can improve efficiency and margins, but it cannot magically insulate Nigeria from global crude oil prices or other input costs,” he said.

Onanuga further rejected the suggestion that petrol prices alone were responsible for Nigeria’s food inflation, noting that insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, agricultural input costs and supply constraints also contributed to rising food prices.

He challenged Atiku to explain how his proposed subsidy would work in practice.

“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.

Onanuga warned that replacing the former subsidy regime with another poorly defined arrangement could recreate the same fiscal problems the government says it has worked to eliminate.

He also questioned Atiku’s proposal to link subsidy to crude oil, pointing out that a barrel of crude produces several refined products, including petrol, diesel, aviation fuel and kerosene.

“Will Atiku subsidise all these by-products of the barrel as well?” Onanuga asked, noting that diesel and kerosene remain important to households, businesses and transportation.

He further questioned whether refineries receiving discounted crude would be permitted to profit from other refined products while government support was concentrated on petrol.

The Presidency concluded that any proposal to restore subsidy must be backed by a transparent financial plan and clear exit conditions.

“The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks,” Onanuga said.