Atiku Fires Back at Presidency Over ‘Bola’ Reference to Tinubu

Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar has responded to criticism from the Presidency over his decision to address President Bola Ahmed Tinubu by his first name, “Bola,” turning a dispute over presidential courtesy into a broader argument about accountability and the right of opposition figures to scrutinise government.

The exchange followed comments by Atiku during a press conference in Abuja in which he urged the Tinubu administration to take steps to reduce the cost of petrol and electricity for households, businesses and workers.

Atiku had referred to the President as “Bola Tinubu” while making the appeal. Presidential spokesman Sunday Dare subsequently criticised the manner of address, describing it as “the height of insolence” and accusing the former vice-president of political hubris.

How the dispute started

The controversy emerged from a wider disagreement over economic policy rather than from the use of Tinubu’s first name alone.

Atiku had argued that the Federal Government should consider measures capable of reducing the cost of petrol and electricity, pointing to the effect of energy costs on transportation, food prices, businesses and household expenses.

According to reports of Dare’s response, the presidential aide argued that Atiku, as an opposition politician and presidential candidate, should present his own programmes to Nigerians rather than attempt to dictate how the incumbent administration should govern.

Dare also defended the government’s economic reforms, arguing that the administration was undertaking structural changes intended to address longstanding problems in the Nigerian economy.

The criticism was followed by a response from Atiku’s media team, which rejected the focus on the form of address and redirected attention to economic hardship and government accountability.

Atiku: Presidency is an office, not a personal institution

In a statement issued through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku argued that referring to Tinubu by his first name did not remove the President’s constitutional status or the authority of his office.

The statement maintained that Nigerians elected a president rather than an emperor and argued that public office should remain subject to scrutiny.

Atiku’s camp further said the Presidential Villa should not be treated as a royal court and described the presidency as an office held in trust for Nigerians.

The statement also used the phrase that the presidency was not Tinubu’s “ancestral stool” or a shrine, framing the disagreement as a question of the relationship between public office holders and citizens rather than simply a matter of etiquette.

The former vice-president’s camp said the administration should respond to questions surrounding the cost of living rather than concentrate on how an opposition politician addresses the President.

Economic policy remains at the centre of the argument

Behind the exchange over the President’s name is a continuing disagreement over the economic direction of the Tinubu administration.

Atiku and the ADC have repeatedly criticised the impact of the removal of petrol subsidy and the government’s currency reforms, arguing that the policies have increased pressure on households and businesses.

In recent comments, Atiku has also called for interventions aimed at reducing petrol costs while maintaining domestic production and refining. His camp has described the proposal as targeted support rather than a return to the previous broad import-subsidy arrangement.

The Presidency, meanwhile, has maintained that the government’s reforms are intended to address structural weaknesses in the economy and that the administration should be assessed on the results of those reforms.

Dare has previously argued that Atiku should provide detailed alternative policies rather than simply criticise the government’s approach. The Presidency has also said that political competition should be based on facts and credible policy alternatives.

A dispute unfolding ahead of 2027

The latest exchange comes as the political environment ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 general elections becomes increasingly active.

Atiku is the ADC’s presidential candidate, while Tinubu is the incumbent president and is associated with the All Progressives Congress (APC). The two political camps have increasingly engaged one another over economic policy, governance and the performance of the current administration.

The disagreement over the word “Bola” therefore sits within a much larger political contest involving competing assessments of economic reforms and competing proposals for addressing the country’s cost-of-living pressures.

The Presidency has argued that opposition politicians should take their policy proposals to voters, while Atiku’s camp maintains that scrutiny of an incumbent government is a legitimate part of democratic politics.

Why the exchange matters

The immediate dispute may appear to be about presidential etiquette, but its wider significance lies in what both sides are choosing to emphasise.

For the Presidency, the issue concerns the dignity attached to the office of the President and the manner in which political opponents address an incumbent head of state.

For Atiku’s camp, the central issue is accountability and whether criticism of government policy should be answered through substantive debate over economic conditions rather than arguments about language.

That distinction is important because the underlying issues raised by both sides — petrol prices, electricity costs, inflation, purchasing power, domestic production and the overall direction of economic reforms — have consequences beyond the political exchange.

What happens next?

The immediate question is whether the disagreement remains a political-media exchange or develops into a broader debate over the economic alternatives being proposed ahead of 2027.

Atiku is expected to continue presenting his policy positions as the ADC’s presidential candidate, while the Tinubu administration is expected to continue defending its economic reform programme.

For Nigerians, the more substantive part of the debate will likely be whether the competing political camps can provide measurable proposals for reducing living costs, supporting businesses, improving energy affordability and strengthening household purchasing power.

The dispute over whether the President should be addressed as “Bola” may generate political headlines, but the larger policy questions surrounding the cost of living remain at the heart of the disagreement.