Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga recently described Atiku Abubakar as a “perennial candidate for the presidency of Nigeria” following the former Vice President’s pledge to restore fuel subsidy if elected president. Atiku is currently the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has also criticised Atiku, accusing him of being “ignorant of governance” or, perhaps, of how fuel subsidy operates. While those criticisms may be valid from the government’s perspective, the more important question should be whether the former Vice President’s position on subsidy deserves a serious debate.
Rather than concentrating solely on Atiku’s political ambition, the government should engage with the substance of his argument, particularly the consequences of subsidy removal, the hardship it has created and whether the policy has delivered the promised benefits.
Since Atiku made his position known, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) appears to have gone into overdrive, responding to virtually every statement attributed to him, his associates and even his perceived body language.
The intensity of the government’s reaction has led some critics to describe it as a “knee-jerk reaction.” Atiku’s position, however, appears to have found an audience among Nigerians whose economic circumstances have deteriorated since President Tinubu announced the removal of fuel subsidy.
That said, there are reasons to question Atiku’s consistency. His presidential ambition has remained persistent, while his policy positions have sometimes appeared to shift with changing political circumstances. Since his first major bid for the presidency in 2007, Atiku has continued to challenge successive administrations.
His presidential contests have included 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2023, with another attempt now being projected for 2027. According to Atiku, his continued participation is driven by “the service of the country and an attempt to deepen democracy.”
His political journey was particularly tested during his disagreement with his former principal, President Olusegun Obasanjo. Atiku resorted to the courts and pursued his battles all the way to the Supreme Court. He emerged victorious in several legal disputes, including cases connected to allegations of corruption.
Rather than discouraging him, those experiences appeared to reinforce his reputation as a determined political fighter. They also contributed to the strengthening of judicial processes and democratic institutions.
Over the years, however, many Nigerians have regarded Atiku’s campaign promises as political platitudes. Yet, it is also fair to acknowledge that Nigeria’s challenges have evolved. The issues confronting the country in 2007 were not necessarily identical to those confronting it today.
Insecurity has become more widespread, while poverty has reached alarming levels. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, an estimated 133 million Nigerians were living in multidimensional poverty, representing about 63 per cent of the population.
It is possible that Atiku’s political messaging has been shaped by the circumstances of each election cycle. Nevertheless, the changing themes raise questions about the ideological foundation of his politics. What exactly does Atiku stand for? Is his approach rooted in populism, or is he simply a politician whose positions change according to circumstances?
Public policies, regardless of how attractive or well-intentioned they may initially appear, should not be regarded as permanent. They can and should be reviewed when circumstances change. Yet, President Tinubu appears determined to maintain his position on fuel subsidy removal.
Atiku, meanwhile, has adopted different themes during his various presidential campaigns.
His 2007 campaign message reportedly presented the election as a choice between continuing with Nigeria’s longstanding challenges and embracing meaningful change. He argued that despite Nigeria’s enormous natural resources, millions of citizens remained trapped in poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment because of poor infrastructure, unreliable electricity, weak public services and ineffective governance.
His “people first” philosophy focused on placing citizens’ welfare at the heart of economic policy. His proposals included job creation, private-sector development, security, anti-corruption efforts, education and community-focused development, particularly in the Niger Delta.
By 2011, his emphasis had shifted toward reducing Nigeria’s dependence on crude oil and diversifying the economy. Atiku argued that oil revenues were both finite and vulnerable to fluctuations and should therefore be directed toward infrastructure, human capital and productive sectors rather than primarily being consumed.
He also proposed encouraging states to develop alternative sources of revenue and reduce their reliance on federal allocations derived from oil.
His wider vision remained centred on a prosperous, secure and democratic Nigeria. He advocated private investment in the power sector, better management of public resources and improved execution of capital projects.
Despite losing out in his party’s presidential primary at the time, Atiku insisted that he was “not a quitter” and maintained his commitment to his political ambitions.
In 2015, Atiku promoted a “Nigeria for All” vision. He argued that the country had the potential to achieve much more but was being held back by insecurity, poverty, unemployment, poor infrastructure, corruption and growing ethnic and religious divisions.
He presented the election as an opportunity for Nigerians to demand a change in leadership, promising greater attention to employment, education, healthcare, security and economic development.
Drawing from his experience as Vice President, Atiku pointed to some of the reforms implemented during the Obasanjo administration as evidence that political will and effective leadership could produce meaningful transformation.
He also criticised the then-ruling PDP administration over what he considered poor governance and worsening economic and social conditions. His promise was to create a united, secure and prosperous “Nigeria for All” through investment in people, stronger institutions, anti-corruption measures and national unity.
After losing the 2015 election to Muhammadu Buhari, Atiku returned to the political battlefield in 2019 under the platform of the PDP. He ran a strong campaign but was unable to defeat President Buhari.
There is, therefore, considerable dissonance in Atiku’s political journey. While his repeated presidential bids have made him a target of ridicule and accusations of being a serial contestant, his determination cannot be denied.
His resilience has developed into remarkable tenacity and political endurance, qualities that have become both a source of personal strength and an inspiration to some of his supporters. Yet, despite his persistence, he has struggled to win the broad public trust required to secure the presidency.
Today, Atiku remains an active opposition figure, challenging the government through various policy positions, particularly his call for a reversal of fuel subsidy removal, as well as his views on borders and other national issues.
His recent position on subsidy has injected fresh energy into the political contest and demonstrated that remaining neutral on contentious economic policies may no longer be politically sustainable.
Onanuga criticised Atiku for behaving “like a man from an archaic past who least comprehends the present economic dynamics,” arguing that he would return the country to what he described as a wasteful and heavily abused subsidy regime.
But is that argument sufficient?
Why should ordinary Nigerians bear the consequences of wrongdoing allegedly committed by oil racketeers? And are Nigerians really expected to reject everything associated with the past simply because the current administration considers some of those policies outdated?
There was a period when former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua reduced fuel prices. There was also a time when former President Goodluck Jonathan abandoned a planned fuel price increase following protests by organised labour and opposition groups, including the political movement associated with President Tinubu at the time.
The public reaction to Atiku’s subsidy proposal on X, formerly Twitter, has also raised questions about how Nigerians perceive the current administration.
Social media alone cannot determine a government’s popularity or predict an election outcome. The APC itself has repeatedly argued that social media does not win elections.
Yet, the government continues to face pressure to improve its Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) transport infrastructure. After more than three years, progress remains far below expectations, with the infrastructure reportedly still at about 12 per cent.
Perhaps Atiku is not the only one who should be accused of inconsistency.
If Atiku’s policy positions have changed over time, what has Nigerians’ unquestioning faith in President Tinubu’s economic policies produced so far?
More importantly, should governance ever be treated as something fixed and unchangeable?
Recently, I overheard a professor of economics attempting to explain how the Central Bank of Nigeria had helped stabilise the macroeconomy following the removal of fuel subsidy.
The same professor, however, acknowledged that the government had yet to achieve similar stability in key microeconomic indicators.
That raises the bigger question: who should ultimately be held responsible for these shortcomings?
