Atiku Accuses Tinubu’s Aide Ogra of Distorting Refinery Subsidy Proposal

Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has rejected claims by President Bola Tinubu’s Senior Adviser on Digital/New Media, O’tega Ogra, that his proposed production subsidy for locally refined petroleum is a repeat of an earlier subsidy arrangement operated during the Olusegun Obasanjo administration.

The disagreement has opened a fresh political and economic debate over how Nigeria should support domestic refining, reduce fuel costs and prevent subsidies from becoming another avenue for financial leakage.

Atiku’s position is that government support should be tied directly to petroleum products actually refined in Nigeria, rather than subsidising imported fuel or providing an unrestricted financial commitment to refiners.

Atiku: Proposed subsidy is different from old crude allocation arrangement

Ogra had challenged Atiku over the proposal, arguing that a form of subsidy existed when Atiku served as vice president under former President Olusegun Obasanjo.

According to Ogra, the government increased the domestic crude allocation to the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) for local refineries, with crude supplied on preferential terms.

He cited figures which he said showed that domestic crude allocation reached 445,000 barrels per day by 2002. Ogra also referenced International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates of revenue forgone under the arrangement, putting the figure at 3.2 percent of Nigeria’s GDP in 2002 and 2.9 percent in 2003.

The presidential aide used those figures to argue that the previous administration’s arrangement amounted to a form of production subsidy and questioned whether Atiku’s current proposal could avoid similar problems.

Ogra also alleged that the earlier arrangement was eventually affected by diversion, corruption and other abuses.

Atiku disputes Ogra’s interpretation

Responding through his media aide, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku argued that Ogra was conflating two different policy mechanisms.

Atiku said supplying crude to refineries under a preferential or old pricing arrangement should not automatically be described as the same policy as his proposed production subsidy.

Under Atiku’s current proposal, government support would be connected to fuel actually refined within Nigeria. The former vice president said the proposed arrangement would be capped, budgeted and subject to appropriation, with monitoring mechanisms intended to prevent abuse.

The proposal, according to Atiku’s camp, would also exclude imported fuel from the subsidy.

His campaign said the objective is to lower production costs for domestic refiners and ultimately reduce the price Nigerians pay for petrol and other essential goods.

Atiku therefore rejected the claim that he had proposed an unlimited subsidy programme.

Dispute over ₦21.9 trillion projected cost

A major point of contention is the ₦21.9 trillion annual cost cited by Ogra in his criticism of the proposal.

Atiku’s camp said the figure did not originate from the former vice president’s proposal.

Instead, Shaibu accused Ogra of creating his own assumptions and calculations before presenting the resulting figure as though it were Atiku’s estimate.

The former vice president argued that opponents should engage with the actual design of the proposal rather than assign a projected financial cost to it based on assumptions Atiku did not make.

The disagreement over the figure is significant because the potential fiscal cost of any petroleum intervention would be central to determining whether such a policy could be sustained without creating another major burden on government finances.

Why the refinery subsidy debate matters

Nigeria’s petroleum policy has remained closely linked to the country’s wider cost-of-living crisis.

Fuel prices affect transportation, food distribution, electricity generation and the operating costs of businesses. As a result, any proposal designed to reduce the cost of locally refined petroleum has implications well beyond the downstream oil sector.

Atiku’s argument is built around increasing domestic refining and reducing reliance on imported petroleum products.

His position is that supporting production inside Nigeria could help keep more value within the domestic economy, create jobs and reduce pressure on consumers.

The counterargument raised by Ogra centres on the country’s previous experience with petroleum-related subsidies and preferential crude arrangements. The concern is that government support could become vulnerable to diversion, corruption, arbitrage or other forms of abuse if adequate controls are not established.

The central question, therefore, is not simply whether government should support domestic refining, but how such support would be structured, funded, monitored and withdrawn when it is no longer necessary.

Atiku challenges Tinubu administration over subsidy savings

Beyond the technical argument over refinery support, Atiku also turned his criticism toward the Tinubu administration’s handling of the savings associated with the removal of petrol subsidy.

He questioned what Nigerians have received in return for the government’s claim of savings from subsidy removal, pointing to continued pressure on fuel, food, transportation, electricity and other household and business expenses.

The criticism reflects the broader political disagreement over the consequences of President Tinubu’s fuel subsidy reforms.

The Tinubu administration has defended the removal of the petrol subsidy as a necessary measure to reduce government expenditure and redirect resources toward other areas of the economy.

Atiku, however, is arguing for a different approach in which targeted government support is used to make domestic refining economically viable while delivering lower energy costs to consumers.

Political row spills into personal exchange

The policy disagreement also became personal, with Atiku criticising Ogra’s political role and questioning his standing within the APC.

Atiku said Ogra had spent weeks attacking his position while attempting to demonstrate his relevance within the governing party.

He also referred to Ogra’s absence from the APC Presidential Campaign Council, presenting it as evidence that the presidential aide had not been given the political prominence he was seeking.

The remarks added a political dimension to what had initially been a debate over petroleum economics.

Ogra’s original intervention, however, was focused primarily on challenging Atiku’s proposal and drawing comparisons with the former vice president’s record in government.

What happens next?

The immediate disagreement is unlikely to settle the larger question of how Nigeria should support domestic refining.

The more important issue for policymakers and Nigerians will be whether any proposed intervention can meet three objectives simultaneously: increase domestic petroleum production, reduce consumer prices and protect public funds from abuse.

For Atiku’s proposal to gain wider policy credibility, its funding mechanism, eligibility requirements, subsidy ceiling, monitoring framework and expected impact on pump prices would need to be clearly defined.

For the Tinubu administration and its supporters, the challenge is equally substantial: demonstrating that the benefits expected from subsidy removal and ongoing downstream-sector reforms are translating into measurable improvements for households and businesses.

As Nigeria expands its domestic refining capacity, the debate over whether government should provide targeted production support—and how to prevent another cycle of subsidy-related leakages—is likely to remain a major issue in the country’s economic and political conversation.