The camp of the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has hit back at former Ekiti State Governor, Kayode Fayem, over his dismissal of Atiku’s promise to return fuel subsidy if elected president in 2027.
Atiku’s media aide, Paul Ibe, described Fayemi’s attempt to liken the former vice president’s fuel subsidy proposal to the All Progressives Congress (APC) Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket in the 2023 election as a flawed argument that avoids the substance of the economic debate.
Ibe made the position known in a statement shared on his social media handles on Tuesday.
Fayemi, who spoke on Arise Television’s Prime Time on Monday, had described Atiku’s subsidy proposal as a political strategy rather than an economic policy.
“My take on that is that Atiku’s proposal of subsidy is politically equivalent to our own Muslim-Muslim ticket in 2023. It’s a political strategy. It’s not an economic construct,” Fayemi said.
But Ibe rejected the comparison, arguing that the critical issue was not whether Atiku’s proposal had political implications but whether the policy was economically viable.
He maintained that Atiku was not advocating a return to the former subsidy regime, which he said was characterised by opacity, questionable import claims and alleged corruption.
According to him, Atiku’s proposal is based on a production-anchored subsidy model designed around domestic production and refining.
He said the proposed framework would seek to reduce the cost of locally produced petroleum products, stimulate domestic refining, expand productive capacity, create jobs and reduce transportation and logistics costs.
Ibe argued that dismissing the proposal as a political strategy did not address its economic substance.
He challenged Fayemi to demonstrate the projected fiscal cost of the proposal, explain why a production-linked subsidy would fail or identify potential inflationary and market distortions if he believed the policy was economically unsound.
“Every major economic policy has political consequences, particularly when it directly affects the welfare of millions of Nigerians. The real question is whether the proposal makes economic sense,” Ibe said.
The Atiku camp further argued that subsidy removal should not be treated as an economic policy in itself, particularly where the underlying cost structure of petroleum products, domestic refining capacity, energy costs and transportation remained unresolved.
Ibe said the consequences of subsidy removal had already been felt by Nigerians, insisting that simply transferring the burden from government to consumers could not constitute a comprehensive economic strategy.
He maintained that the debate should instead focus on what is being subsidised, who benefits, the cost to government, how the intervention is administered and the economic objective it is designed to achieve.
According to him, Atiku’s proposal seeks to shift Nigeria from a subsidy system dependent on imported refined products towards one centred on domestic production.
He said the approach would promote transparency, reduce rent-seeking, strengthen domestic refining and establish a more targeted intervention.
Ibe therefore urged Fayemi to engage Atiku’s proposal on its economic merits rather than dismissing it through a political analogy.
“If it is bad economics, show Nigerians the numbers. If it is fiscally unsustainable, demonstrate why. If there is a better way to reduce the cost of petrol and diesel while protecting consumers and encouraging domestic production, put it on the table,” he said.