The Chairman of the Planning Committee of the 2027 APC Presidential and Governorship Campaign Committee in Ogun State, Kayode Oladele, has criticised the fuel subsidy proposal unveiled by the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, describing it as an attempt to repackage an old policy under a new name.

Oladele, a former federal lawmaker, said in a statement on Sunday that Atiku’s proposal for a “capped, budgeted production subsidy” on petrol refined in Nigeria raised fundamental questions that could not be answered merely by changing the terminology from consumption subsidy to production subsidy.

The former Vice President and the 2027 presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress had said that only petrol refined domestically, including products from modular refineries, would qualify for the proposed intervention, while imported petrol would be excluded. He also promised that the costs and payments would be published and independently audited.

Oladele, however, said the important question was not what Atiku chose to call the programme, but who would ultimately pay for it and how much it would cost the Nigerian taxpayer.

“A subsidy remains a subsidy. You may call it production subsidy, targeted subsidy, capped subsidy or give it any sophisticated economic description you like. Once the government is required to absorb part of the cost of petrol so that it can be sold below what the market would otherwise determine, public resources are being committed to make up the difference.

“The critical questions therefore remain unanswered: What is the subsidy rate? What quantity of petrol will qualify? What is the annual expenditure ceiling? Where will the money come from? And what mechanism will guarantee that whatever benefit government gives to refiners will actually reach ordinary Nigerians at the filling stations?”

The one-time acting Chairman of the Federal Character Commission noted that similar questions had been raised by the APC Presidential Campaign Council, which asked Atiku to disclose the proposed subsidy rate, spending ceiling, eligible volumes, funding source and safeguards against diversion and fraudulent claims.

He said that the campaign council had also questioned how such an intervention would operate within Section 205(1) of the Petroleum Industry Act, which establishes market-based pricing for petroleum products.

Oladele explained that “The fundamental difference between President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s approach and Atiku’s proposal is that the President is attempting to restructure the energy and transportation economy rather than return government to permanently underwriting fuel consumption.

“President Tinubu took the difficult decision to confront a subsidy system that had become enormously burdensome to the public treasury. Such structural reforms inevitably come with adjustment pressures and nobody should pretend otherwise.

“What Nigerians should therefore ask Atiku is simple: after all our experience with subsidy, is the solution really to create another subsidy programme?”

Oladele also faulted Atiku’s criticism of the Federal Government’s transportation initiatives, saying the opposition candidate was ignoring the administration’s attempt to diversify Nigeria’s transportation energy base through Compressed Natural Gas and other alternatives to petrol.

“Atiku wants Nigerians to believe that the only meaningful way of reducing transportation costs is to return the government to subsidising fuel.

“President Tinubu is pursuing a different structural approach: broaden the country’s transportation energy options, expand CNG infrastructure and progressively reduce the dependence of commercial transportation on petrol.

“That is an important distinction. One approach asks the government to continue absorbing part of the price of a commodity. The other seeks to change the underlying cost structure by creating alternatives.”

Oladele said Atiku was entitled to propose a different economic programme, but Nigerians were equally entitled to demand its full arithmetic.

“It is very easy during an election season to promise cheaper petrol, cheaper food, cheaper electricity and cheaper transportation. The harder question is how these promises will be financed without recreating the very fiscal problems Nigeria has spent years trying to escape.

He said the Tinubu administration should continue to be judged on measurable results, including whether its transportation initiatives reach more Nigerians and produce genuine reductions in commuting costs.

“That is the proper democratic standard. The government must show results and the opposition must show credible alternatives. However, simply repackaging subsidy and presenting it as a new economic philosophy does not answer the difficult questions Nigeria faces.

“President Tinubu chose reform over postponement. Atiku is proposing that government should once again intervene in the price of petrol through subsidy. Nigerians deserve to examine the consequences of those fundamentally different approaches carefully.

“The country has travelled the subsidy road before. Before anybody asks Nigerians to travel that road again, even under a different name, he owes them something more substantial than campaign promises. He owes them the numbers,,” Oladele said.