ADC defends Atiku’s ₦600 petrol plan, saying it would support local refineries, reduce fuel costs and avoid a return to the old subsidy regime
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) on Monday, August 31, 2026, defended former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s proposal to reduce petrol prices to about ₦600 per litre, rejecting the Presidency’s claim that the plan amounts to a return to fuel subsidy.
Also read:INEC Warns Nigerians Over Fake 2027 Recruitment Portal
The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said Atiku’s proposal was designed as a controlled production incentive for domestic refineries aimed at lowering petrol prices while strengthening Nigeria’s refining capacity.
Abdullahi made the clarification while responding to criticism from the Presidency, which had questioned the financial implications of the proposal.
According to the ADC spokesman, the Presidency’s argument was based largely on a projected ₦19.1 trillion cost without sufficiently considering how the proposed mechanism would operate or the potential economic benefits of cheaper locally refined petrol.
“The Presidency has based its argument on a projected N19.1 trillion cost without properly considering how Atiku’s proposal is structured or the wider economic benefits of cheaper fuel produced locally,” Abdullahi said.
He also rejected the figure cited by the Presidency, saying the party did not understand how the estimate was reached.
“We are at a loss how the presidency conjured up this phantom figure. But we do not agree with it,” he added.
The ADC explained that Atiku’s plan would have a fiscal limit and include monitoring mechanisms designed to track crude oil from refinery intake through to the production of finished petroleum products.
The party argued that the proposed arrangement should not be compared directly with the previous fuel subsidy system, which involved government intervention in petrol pricing and had long been criticised over its cost and implementation.
Instead, the ADC described Atiku’s proposal as a targeted and controlled incentive intended to support domestic refining while reducing the price Nigerians pay at the pump.
The party also questioned what it described as an apparent inconsistency in the government’s approach to incentives in the oil sector.
Abdullahi pointed to incentives available for offshore oil production, arguing that similar support could be deployed in a controlled manner to encourage domestic refining.
“If Nigeria can provide a production-linked fiscal incentive of up to $11.50 per barrel to stimulate offshore oil production, why is a carefully controlled crude-input incentive for domestic refineries dismissed as economic madness when its objective is to make fuel cheaper for Nigerians and build domestic refining capacity?” he asked.
The ADC maintained that the proposal should also be assessed against the wider economic consequences of expensive petrol.
The party argued that high fuel prices have contributed to rising transport costs, increased food prices and higher production expenses, placing additional pressure on households and businesses.
It said reducing petrol costs could therefore have effects beyond the filling station, potentially easing some of the pressure on the broader cost of living.
The opposition party further argued that a structured incentive for domestic refineries could help reduce Nigeria’s dependence on imported petroleum products and conserve foreign exchange.
According to the ADC, Atiku’s proposal would be capped, audited and traceable to minimise the risks associated with the previous subsidy arrangement.
The dispute comes amid an increasingly heated debate over fuel pricing and economic policy ahead of the 2027 general elections, with the ADC positioning Atiku’s proposal as an alternative approach to managing the impact of petrol prices on Nigerians.
Also read:INEC Warns Nigerians Over Fake 2027 Recruitment Portal
While the Presidency has raised concerns over the potential fiscal burden of the plan, the ADC insists that the proposal should be judged on its structure, safeguards and broader economic impact rather than being dismissed as a return to the old subsidy regime.
