The Two-faced Atiku, By Lawal Ogienagbon

Since he made a dramatic U-turn on his position on fuel subsidy removal seven days ago, Atiku Abubakar has been throwing all he has into the renewed debate on the vexed issue to justify his new position. His political somersault on subsidy did not come as a surprise to those who know him and his kind of politics.

Atiku, former vice president and serial presidential contender, was only living up to his reputation. He is a man who goes anywhere the wind blows. His fresh take on subsidy is a gimmick. It did not come from the heart. He merely spoke before thinking. If he had thought it through and taken time to ponder what the present administration has been doing since removing petrol subsidy on May 29, 2023, he would not have spoken amiss.

Atiku missed it when he said he would restore petrol subsidy, if elected in 2027. He never meant what he said when he spoke in Hausa with a select group of online publishers. He was testing the waters to see how Nigerians would receive his gambit, for that is what it is. What is in petrol subsidy that Atiku wants to return? If he is so fascinated by the policy why did he pledge to remove it in the past? He made the pledge not once or twice.  So, we are talking of pledges, not a pledge made over a period of years!

  In 2020, as a pro-petrol subsidy removal campaigner, he claimed that the policy “breeds corruption and discourages investments”. Two years later, he opted for gradual removal, arguing: “it is inevitable that it (subsidy removal) will happen”. His strategy for the removal, he said, would be “through negotiations with organised labour and other stakeholders”.

In that same 2022, about three months to the presidential election in February 2023, he made his categorical statement yet on why the policy could no longer be sustained.  “I will remove fuel subsidy within my first 100 days in office and chart a roadmap for investing the savings”. When the present administration removed subsidy on coming to office on May 29, 2023, Atiku rather than keep quiet and watch how things would go thereafter went cynical.

He was dissastisfied that an administration has just done within the twinkling of  an eye what the government in which he served between 1999 and 2007 as vice president and chairman of the National Economic Council (NEC) could not do in eight years. He claimed that “we (referring to the then PDP government in which he served) achieved subsidy removal in two phases”. Did their government ever do that. It is not on record that they did. He and his principal and arch-political foe, former President Olusegun Obasanjo never broached the issue, at least not publicly.

The only person who did but chickened out was former President Goodluck Jonathan, another PDP administration in which Atiku never served. So, Atiku should not take glory for what another givernment did, whether PDP controlled or not. He claimed that the Tinubu administration “suddenly removed subsidy”, adding: “the PDP administration pursued phased removal and provided palliatives before taking further steps”. Pray, if they had done that, would Tinubu have removed subsidy again? His claim is fallacious and deserves no response.

Seventeen years later, the same man who claimed that the PDP government in their own time (1999-2007) “gradually removed” subsidy, has capitulated. “I have always advocated for the removal of petrol subsidy… its administration has been opaque and vulnerable to corruption .I will adopt a phased approach to minimise the impact on Nigerians”, he said in November 2024. Last Thursday, he did  the mother of all somersaults: “If I win the presidential election, I will restore the subsidy”. What changed to make him change his mind?

What came next was the usual political statement that he and his aides are good at. According to him, his planned move is informed by the mismanagement of the subsidy savings. He promised to recover the mismanaged funds and embark on a phased subsidy removal. Atiku is famous for saying things he did not do and would never do. If indeed the Obasanjo administration had started a phased subsidy removal as far back as their time in office as he once gloated, why is he now interested in restoring the same policy –  and thereafter remove it? Does that make economic sense?

The answer can only be found in his desperation for votes in the January 16, 2027 presidential election. By speaking in Hausa in that interview, his targets were the talakawa and the illiterates across the country who speak the language. He was appealing to base sentiments in order to curry their votes. They will not oblige him because these people have become wise to his ways.

Let Atiku speak Hause from now on till the time of the election, it will not cut ice with his targets and the larger discerning electorate. The outcome of the poll will shock him and his running mate, Rotimi Amaechi, to the marrows. Amaechi had nothing to say when he appeared at the ongoing bar conference in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, on Monday. Like Atiku, he has held various elective and  political offices as speaker, governor and minister, with nothing to show for it, except to now go about mouthing “I am hungry” in order to deceive voters.

Contrary to his and his ilk claims, the removal of subsidy and the harmonisation of the exchange rates are not the sole causes  of  “hunger”. Were the people not “hungry” when Atiku and Amaechi held offices? Were both of them too not “hungry” then, speaking literally. They should not reduce the removal of subsidy, which among other policies,  is aimed at reviving the virtually dead economy which their respective administrations bequeathed to Nigerians to bamboozling the undiscerning, as well as a tool for scare-mongering.

Until now, the question by Atiku and others in his camp had always been where are the subsidy savings? Now that they have been told what has been done with the N15.8 trillion savings, they are still not satisfied. Did they expect the government to put the savings in an escrow account, when there are programmes and projects to be funded? Who does that except a dunderhead? Of course,  it is good to save for the rainy day, but you do not do that at the expense of financial obligations and other commitments. Even at that, the government is still saving, considering the considerable improvements in the foreign reserves.

After all said and done, Atiku is not sure about what he wants. His uncertainty shone like a light in a dark alley in a statement in which he likened petrol subsidy to a market people can enter and exit at will. “What he (Atiku) proposes is a targeted, capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited intervention with a clearly defined exit (emphasis mine) mechanism…”, the statement said. Sir, the Presidency, as the highest office in the land, is not what to play yo-yo with. It is an exalted office, which includes managing the serious business of the national economy. 

  It is a job that requires serious-minded persons with vision and a clear head to handle, not freewheelers who are only interested in bearing the title of president to fulfil their marabout’s prediction that they will one day answer that name. Marabouts propose, God disposes. Let those who have ears hear.