NG🏛️ PoliticsProgressiveOverlooked by conservatives8/23/2026
Targeted Subsidy: 100 million Tinubus can’t stop me — Atiku
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar claims that despite President Bola Tinubu's assertion of abolishing fuel subsidies, the Nigerian government continues to provide fiscal support to oil companies through tax credits and other incentives. Using data from the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC), Atiku argues that the government is still effectively subsidizing fuel prices by covering price differentials due to exchange rate fluctuations. He criticizes the administration for using alternative terms like 'energy security' and 'under-recovery' to mask ongoing subsidies, asserting that Nigerians are not concerned with terminology but with the reality of affordability. Atiku contrasts the government's support for corporate investments with its refusal to ease the burden on ordinary citizens, calling it inconsistent and economically unjust.
Dr. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim, a presidential candidate of the Accord Party, has labeled former Vice President Atiku Abubakar as the “father of subsidy removal” in Nigeria, accusing him of dishonesty for reversing his position on fuel subsidy removal without acknowledgment or apology. Hashim criticized Atiku's shift in stance, claiming it reflects a lack of sincerity and integrity, and called for the restoration of the subsidy regime with a more strategic approach. During an interview on Trust TV, Hashim reiterated his longstanding opposition to the removal of petroleum product subsidies, advocating instead for a targeted subsidy system aimed at protecting citizens and key economic sectors from undue shocks. He pointed out that several politicians, including Atiku, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and Peter Obi, had campaigned on subsidy removal during the 2023 elections, while he and others such as Omoyele Sowore and Prince Adewole Adebayo opposed the policy. Hashim emphasized that Atiku’s advocacy for subsidy removal predated the Tinubu administration, noting that he was among the earliest prominent supporters of subsidy removal and wholesale privatization during Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. He recounted that during the Obasanjo administration, when Atiku served as Vice President and led the economic team, the government increased petroleum product prices and removed subsidies. Hashim and other PDP officials publicly opposed the decision, holding a joint press conference to condemn the policy changes. The National Assembly also passed resolutions against the subsidy removal policy, leading the executive to reverse its decision. Hashim stressed that their opposition was not driven by electoral strategies but by genuine concern for the welfare of Nigerians, even when it was politically inconvenient. He highlighted that they had consistently opposed subsidy removal despite the challenges it posed. Hashim proposed a targeted subsidy system, arguing that the debate should move beyond the simplistic view that all subsidies are wasteful. Instead, he suggested focusing on creating a transparent and sustainable system that supports both citizens and productive economic activities. He contended that subsidies could be strategically deployed to lower production costs, protect purchasing power, and prevent abrupt economic shocks. Meanwhile, Atiku has defended his position, asserting that no amount of resistance from President Tinubu or his allies can deter him from reinstating a targeted fuel subsidy. In a statement released by his senior special assistant, Atiku challenged the administration’s claim that subsidy had been fully removed, citing the Nigerian National Petroleum Company’s (NNPC) audited accounts. According to these records, substantial sums were still allocated to address price differentials, effectively functioning as subsidies under different labels. Atiku criticized the government for selectively applying economic policies, arguing that while it extends fiscal incentives to oil investors, it denies similar relief to ordinary citizens. He pointed to the Deep Offshore Oil and Gas Projects Incentives framework, which allows qualified projects to receive production tax credits, as evidence of the government’s willingness to intervene in favor of corporate interests. He contrasted this with the administration’s stance on household relief, accusing it of treating corporations and citizens differently. Atiku described his proposed economic plan as a transparent and accountable alternative to the previous subsidy regime, emphasizing clear limits, oversight, and an exit mechanism. He also demanded transparency regarding existing petroleum tax concessions, including beneficiaries and lost revenues. Political analysts and commentators have weighed in on the controversy, with some criticizing Atiku’s reversal as emblematic of a broader pattern of political opportunism. Critics argue that his shift undermines long-term economic stability and risks plunging the country back into financial turmoil. Others see it as a strategic move to regain public support ahead of potential future elections. As the debate continues, the implications for Nigeria’s economic policy remain uncertain.
Go to the primary sources (1)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
Dr. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim, a presidential candidate for the Accord Party, accuses former Vice President Atiku Abubakar of being the 'father of subsidy removal' in Nigeria. He criticizes Atiku for reversing his stance on removing fuel subsidies without accountability or apology, arguing that such changes should be explained to the public. Hashim claims that Atiku, along with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Peter Obi, supported subsidy removal during the 2023 election, while he and others opposed the policy. He asserts that Atiku's advocacy for subsidy removal dates back to the Fourth Republic and was part of his push for privatization, which he and other officials opposed during the Obasanjo administration. Hashim emphasizes the need for transparency and honesty in political decisions affecting citizens.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames Atiku's shift in position as dishonest and lacking accountability, using strong language like 'dishonesty' and 'pretending that you never held the position.' It highlights opposition to subsidy removal as a moral stance, aligning with progressive economic policies. The emphasis on
Why factuality (85): The article presents a political critique of Atiku Abubakar's change of stance on fuel subsidies, citing his past advocacy for subsidy removal and current reversal. It references specific individuals and parties involved, aligning with the cross-source consensus that several candidates supported sub
Why objectivity (70): The tone is critical of Atiku and others who reversed their positions, using emotionally charged language such as 'dishonesty' and 'ignorance.' The article frames the issue as a matter of integrity and public responsibility, suggesting a partisan perspective rather than presenting multiple viewpoint
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar claims that despite President Bola Tinubu's assertion of abolishing fuel subsidies, the Nigerian government continues to provide fiscal support to oil companies through tax credits and other incentives. Using data from the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC), Atiku argues that the government is still effectively subsidizing fuel prices by covering price differentials due to exchange rate fluctuations. He criticizes the administration for using alternative terms like 'energy security' and 'under-recovery' to mask ongoing subsidies, asserting that Nigerians are not concerned with terminology but with the reality of affordability. Atiku contrasts the government's support for corporate investments with its refusal to ease the burden on ordinary citizens, calling it inconsistent and economically unjust.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue as a conflict between corporate interests and citizen welfare, emphasizing the disparity in how the government treats oil companies versus households. The language suggests criticism of the current administration's economic policies and advocacy for more equitable fiscal
Why factuality (75): The article discusses Atiku Abubakar's stance on reinstating fuel subsidies but does not mention Sunday Akin Dare directly. It references the Nigerian National Petroleum Company's finances, which aligns with publicly known facts. However, it lacks specific details about Dare's role or actions relate
Why objectivity (30): The article uses strong, emotionally charged language such as 'national economic suicide' and 'political apostasy,' clearly favoring Tinubu's position and criticizing Atiku's stance. This indicates a clear bias and lack of neutrality.
The article critiques former Vice President Atiku Abubakar's reversal on fuel subsidies, accusing him of hypocrisy and political opportunism. It argues that reinstating subsidies would harm economic progress, undermine private sector confidence, and exacerbate foreign exchange issues. The piece highlights Atiku's previous advocacy for removing subsidies as part of his economic reform agenda during the 2023 election campaign, contrasting this with his recent shift towards populist policies. The author portrays Atiku's change as a strategic move to regain public favor despite contradicting his earlier stance on fiscal responsibility.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames Atiku's policy reversal as politically motivated and hypocritical, using strong language such as 'desperate ambition,' 'economic suicide,' and 'populist pandering.' It emphasizes the negative consequences of reinstating subsidies while criticizing Atiku's lack of consistency and '
Why factuality (60): The article focuses on Atiku Abubakar's policy shift regarding fuel subsidies and criticizes his approach. While it provides some background on the subsidy issue, it doesn't reference Sunday Akin Dare's role or any of his accomplishments listed in the primary source document. The content is relevant
Why objectivity (20): The article is highly biased against Atiku Abubakar, using terms like 'political apostasy' and 'economic suicide.' It presents a one-sided view without acknowledging alternative perspectives or providing balanced analysis.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
NG
