Since his defeat in the last election, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has shown more interest in undermining President Bola Ahmed Tinubu than in addressing his party’s implosion. We suspect he is envious of Tinubu’s position—an office he has unsuccessfully sought six times.
It is perplexing that he would elevate his untested, hypothetical proposal, which Nigerians soundly rejected during the 2023 Presidential Election, and seek to present it as a superior alternative to the multi-faceted reform programmes implemented by the Tinubu administration. If his plan lacked popular appeal, he must acknowledge that merely repackaging it will not resolve the social and economic challenges his People’s Democratic Party (PDP) bequeathed after 16 years in power.
Atiku’s economic analysis demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of Nigeria’s realities. His narrative, “What We Would Have Done Differently,” indicates an inability to engage with the pressing economic realities being revitalised multidimensionally under President Tinubu’s leadership.
What reforms would Atiku propose at the onset of his hypothetical and fabled presidency? While he suggests a consultation period upon assuming office, the reality is that the Nigerian economy requires immediate and decisive action. A leader must be prepared to tackle challenges from Day One, as President Tinubu has done.
Atiku, going further to accuse President Tinubu of “stealing his presidency,” exposed his sense of entitlement and his disconnect from the electorate. The truth is that Tinubu rightfully won the presidency, a position Atiku was simply unqualified for due to his arrogance, insensitivity to Nigeria’s diversity, and the decision to disregard his party’s power rotation arrangement between the North and the South after eight years of President Muhammadu Buhari.
Atiku’s idea of a consultation period upon entering office shows a troubling lack of awareness regarding the state of the economy, which was in dire need of urgent action. The Tinubu administration came prepared with a firm action plan to address the shortcomings that persisted during President Olusegun Obasanjo’s time when Atiku was vice president.
We can only speculate what detrimental impact Atiku’s proposed lengthy town hall and Village Square meetings would have had on Nigeria’s economy if he had been elected president and taken such an approach. The country needed a proactive leader such as Tinubu, who immediately set to work on addressing economic challenges rather than one who would have squandered precious time on consultations and a questionable privatisation agenda.
Atiku’s critiques of Tinubu’s presidency are mere harebrained propositions devoid of realistic alternatives. He must reckon with the decades of mismanaged economy inherited by the current administration, including exorbitant subsidy expenditures far exceeding government earnings from crude oil. As of mid-2023, the landing cost of fuel was between N500 and N600, while it was sold nationwide at an average of N200. The 2023 budget allocated N3.36 trillion for fuel subsidies until June 2023 against a projected N2.23 trillion in oil revenue for the year. The Nigerian state was on life support.
Instead of conjuring imaginary scenarios, we expect the former vice president to engage with these urgent realities.
The estimated N5.4 trillion savings from subsidy removal in 2024 are being actively directed toward infrastructure development and social intervention programmes, initiatives that will benefit all tiers of government and enhance Nigerians’ quality of life.
We expect Atiku to commend what the Tinubu administration has done concerning revenue generation for the Federation. Without factoring in oil sales, revenue proceeds generated by the Federal Inland Revenue Service almost doubled in the first half of 2024, compared with the level Tinubu met in 2023. The states and councils are more prosperous because of it, as many states have increased the minimum wage for their workers to between N70,000 and N85,000.
Atiku’s proposal to privatise the four government-owned refineries, which collectively can only meet a fraction of the nation’s daily fuel consumption when activated, lacks originality.
In 2007, investors were only willing to offer $160 million for 51% equity in the Port Harcourt Refinery, while the Kaduna Refinery had an offer of $102 million. According to industry experts and the late President Umar Musa Yar’Adua, Nigeria’s Head of State at the time, who cancelled the sale of the refineries by the Obasanjo-Atiku government, the offered bids were considered scrap value.
As vice president, Atiku oversaw the sale of the nation’s assets to private individuals and cronies at low prices. Today, most public enterprises Atiku sold have been stripped and become dead assets.
The model of farming the completely rehabilitated refineries to private sector managers at an agreed-upon rate of return to the government, as adopted by Tinubu’s government, is more practical and value-laden than selling our national patrimony to some private interests that are not technically capable of operating the refineries. The Tinubu administration focuses on revitalising these refineries while supporting modular refineries and the Dangote Refinery, which has greater capacity.
This approach will guarantee domestic production and stabilise retail prices by reducing foreign exchange challenges. It includes selling crude oil to the refineries in Naira, enabling potential cost reductions that could reflect in retail prices.
Regarding Atiku’s allegations of corruption within the NNPC, the fuel subsidy has historically been the leading corruption enabler in the state-owned oil company. President Tinubu’s removal of this subsidy eliminated the most significant incentive for corruption within the NNPC. During his eight-year tenure as Vice President, Atiku and his boss had an opportunity to address this issue but failed to make any significant reforms in the oil sector.
In any case, is it not ironic that an Atiku, who was entangled in corruption allegations, including one in which his wife was indicted and his business associate, former US Congressman William Jefferson, was jailed for 13 years, is now talking about corruption matters?
The suggestion of phased-out subsidy removal is an outdated approach that has historically led to fiscal challenges for countries like Indonesia, which Atiku references. Nigeria has gradually phased out subsidies since 1978, with numerous adjustments made. Fuel prices were adjusted 22 times between 1978 and 2020. Rather than pushing for unrealistic timelines, Atiku should recognise the necessity of President Tinubu’s bold reforms.
Notably, while Atiku peddles his economic fantasies, he has yet to denounce President Tinubu’s removal of the fuel subsidy because he knows that the reform was necessary and correct. We can only urge him to purge himself of the petty, derisive politics of a sore loser.
To alleviate the effect of the fuel subsidy removal on the very poor and vulnerable, the Tinubu administration has embarked on an active social intervention campaign involving cash transfers and the distribution of palliatives. So far, 20 million Nigerians are being targeted for direct cash transfers, an established social protection mechanism described as economically transformative by the World Bank and many development partners. The Tinubu administration has designed well-targeted social inclusion programmes, including student loans, consumer credits, and the Presidential CNG Initiative, all initiated within the first 12 months.
In his foreign exchange management proposal, Atiku declared that a fixed exchange rate system was out of the question. Yet his managed float proposal, another gradualist approach, is still the same as the old fixed exchange rate system, which stagnated the national economy by subsidising forex up to $1.5 billion monthly to a privileged few.
Atiku should remember that a managed float is also known as a dirty float because of its inherent flaws. The system combines elements of fixed and floating exchange rates. The CBN will still have to set the exchange rate and make it available to people and businesses. Access is not guaranteed to all, as it is now.
In conclusion, Atiku’s economic proposals fail to present a viable alternative to Tinubu’s decisive reforms. We encourage him to reassess his approach and repair his reputation as a statesman. The rejection of his proposals in the 2023 election indicates that Nigerians will be reluctant to entertain his future political ambitions.
President Tinubu remains focused on leading Nigeria toward a prosperous future and addressing our nation’s real challenges. Atiku Abubakar should abandon his politics of distraction and fantasies and focus on constructive discourse.
*Bayo Onanuga is Special Adviser to the President (Information & Strategy)
