Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, has accused President Bola Tinubu of practising “Robin Hood economics in reverse” over the handling of Nigeria’s petrol subsidy regime.
The allegation came through Atiku’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, in a response posted on X to a column by @Waziriadio published in ThisDay. The column had questioned the viability of Atiku’s proposal to restore fuel subsidies, arguing the policy remains an unsettled issue.
Shaibu rejected the premise of the critique, stating that Atiku is not advocating a return to the previous open-ended subsidy on imported petrol. Instead, he described the proposal as a targeted, capped, budgeted, and independently audited production support mechanism. The plan would track barrels refined domestically, guarantee consumer price relief, and include a sunset clause.
“By the way, @officialABAT did not abolish subsidy; he merely changed its beneficiaries,” Shaibu wrote. “He took it from the petrol tanks of struggling Nigerians and repackaged it as waivers and incentives for his big oil friends. It is Robin Hood economics in reverse: robbing the poor to subsidise the rich and powerful.”
The exchange marks an escalation in the public disagreement between Atiku’s camp and the presidency over fuel subsidy policy. During his inauguration at Eagle Square in Abuja in 2023, Tinubu declared an end to the fuel subsidy regime. Atiku has since vowed to reinstate a subsidy framework if elected in 2027, a pledge that has drawn both support and criticism across the political spectrum.
Shaibu challenged the columnist to engage with the specifics of Atiku’s model rather than attacking a policy the former vice president did not propose. “Otherwise, we are conducting an elaborate funeral for a corpse nobody brought to the burial,” he added.
The debate underscores the continuing sensitivity of petrol pricing in Africa’s largest Economy, where subsidy removal has driven up transport and food costs, while the government maintains the reform is necessary for fiscal sustainability. Both sides agree the current arrangement is unsustainable, but diverge sharply on the structure of any replacement.
