*** Clarifies position on proposal to restore petrol subsidy

By Chidera Orji

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has accused the Federal Government of applying a double standard in its petrol subsidy policy, alleging that petroleum companies receive generous fiscal incentives while ordinary Nigerians continue to bear the burden of rising fuel prices.

Atiku, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, made the allegation in a statement issued on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu.

He questioned the government’s decision to abolish petrol subsidies while continuing to offer tax credits, concessions and other incentives to investors in the oil and gas sector.

According to Atiku, Nigerians were told that removing the subsidy was necessary to reform the economy, but the government allegedly takes a different approach when dealing with major oil investors.

“Nigerians were told there was no alternative and that enduring this pain was the necessary price of economic reform. But when major oil investors knock on Tinubu’s door, the sermon changes,” he said.

Atiku specifically cited the Federal Government’s deep offshore oil and gas incentives framework, which he said provides eligible projects with production tax credits of between $3 and $4.50 per barrel, with additional incentives capable of taking the total benefit to as much as $11.50 per barrel under certain conditions.

He therefore questioned why government intervention was considered undesirable when aimed at helping consumers but acceptable when it benefits investors.

“So, what exactly is Tinubu’s objection: government intervention itself, or government intervention for Nigerians?” Atiku asked.

Atiku Questions ‘Subsidy-Free’ Claim
The former vice-president also challenged the Federal Government’s claim that petrol subsidy had been completely eliminated.

He referred to the audited accounts of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), which, according to him, recorded about N4.84 trillion in energy-security expenses and related shortfalls in 2023 and approximately N7.13 trillion in 2024.

Atiku said NNPCL had attributed part of the expenditure to the gap between the exchange rate used to determine the regulated PMS ex-coastal price and the prevailing exchange rate when import obligations were settled.

He questioned why such huge public funds were still being spent to bridge pricing gaps if Nigerians were already paying market-driven petrol prices.

“So, where exactly did the subsidy go?” Atiku asked, arguing that changing the terminology to “under-recovery”, “shortfall” or “energy security” did not change the fact that public resources were being used to cover the difference between the economic cost of petrol and its selling price.

‘We’re Not Returning to the Old Subsidy Regime’

Atiku also clarified his position on his proposal to restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027.

He said his proposed intervention would not amount to a return to the previous open-ended and opaque subsidy system.

Instead, he said his administration would introduce a targeted and capped programme that would be transparently budgeted and independently audited, while linking the intervention to increased domestic production.

He also proposed measures aimed at expanding refining capacity, promoting competition and improving the purchasing power of households.

“You cannot subsidise capital and criminalise relief for citizens. You cannot offer cushions upstairs and call suffering downstairs reform,” Atiku said.

The ADC candidate further called for greater transparency surrounding tax credits, remissions and other incentives granted to petroleum companies.

He demanded disclosure of the beneficiaries of such incentives, the amount of government revenue forgone and the investments delivered in return.

Atiku also argued that Nigerian investors should have equal and transparent access to similar incentives.

He maintained that the success of economic reforms should ultimately be judged by whether they improve the living standards of Nigerians rather than by the level of hardship citizens are forced to endure.

His comments come days after he said he would restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027.

President Bola Tinubu has, however, criticised Atiku’s position, describing the former vice-president as “ignorant of governance and the economy.”

Peter Obi

By Chidera Orji

The Presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), Peter Obi, has reiterated his support for the removal of petrol subsidy, arguing that alleged mismanagement of the proceeds from the policy should not be used as justification for its reversal.

Obi made his position known on Monday while speaking at a conference organised by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.

The former Anambra State governor said the removal of petrol subsidy, in itself, was not necessarily the problem, stressing that the major concern was how the resources and savings generated from the policy were being managed by the government.

According to Obi, returning to the subsidy regime would amount to addressing the wrong problem, rather than tackling the alleged mismanagement and lack of accountability surrounding the funds saved from the policy.

He maintained that government must ensure that resources freed from subsidy removal are transparently managed and channelled into productive sectors of the economy, including infrastructure, education, healthcare and other areas capable of improving the welfare of Nigerians.

Obi’s latest comments come amid continued debate over the economic consequences of the petrol subsidy removal, which has contributed to higher fuel prices and increased the cost of transportation and other essential goods and services.

The Federal Government has consistently defended the decision to remove the subsidy, arguing that the policy was fiscally unsustainable and that the resources previously spent on subsidising petrol could be redirected to development projects and social interventions.

However, critics have continued to demand greater transparency over the savings from subsidy removal, particularly as Nigerians grapple with the rising cost of living.

Obi, who was the Labour Party’s presidential candidate in the 2023 election, has increasingly focused his political messaging on economic management, accountability, production and prudent use of public resources ahead of the 2027 general elections.

His latest position therefore places emphasis not on restoring the subsidy regime, but on ensuring that the government properly manages the funds generated from its removal and delivers tangible economic benefits to Nigerians.

Some Lagos-based lawyers have called for a review of the approach to destroying illicit cannabis plantations, advocating alternative measures to prevent illegal drug cultivation.

The NDLEA is empowered by law to seize and destroy illicit cannabis plantations as part of efforts to prevent the cultivation and circulation of prohibited drugs.

The lawyers made the call in separate interviews with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Lagos while reacting to the effectiveness of the approach.

Mr Chris Ayiyi, Principal Partner of Ayiyi Chambers, Apapa, said cannabis cultivation could have legitimate economic applications, noting that scientific research had established various uses of the plant.

He said the major concern should be the abuse of cannabis rather than the plant itself, adding that destroying plantations might not effectively control drug abuse.

He suggested that the law should be reviewed to explore other ways of managing cannabis cultivation while preventing its illicit use.

The lawyer urged the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) to strengthen efforts to prevent the circulation of illicit drugs.

He also called for increased public awareness campaigns on the harmful effects of drug abuse and greater awareness of penalties for drug-related offences.

Similarly, Mr Chibuikem Opara of Justification Chambers, Ikeja, said the wholesale destruction of cannabis plantations might not be in the interest of government or other stakeholders.

Opara suggested that a different approach could be considered, including converting confiscated plantations to alternative agricultural uses.

He said the approach could be similar to measures adopted in some South American countries, including Colombia and Brazil.

According to him, affected plantations could be converted to crops such as coffee.

“My opinion is that instead of cutting the head with the neck, the confiscated plants may be channelled to better pharmaceutical use but under strict supervision,” he said.

Opara, however, stressed the need for strict supervision if confiscated cannabis were to be considered for pharmaceutical purposes.

He said such an approach could help prevent illicit use while exploring legitimate applications of the plant.

Also speaking, a former operative of the NDLEA, Chief Benson Ndakara, said the agency could destroy illicit cannabis plantations as an effective approach to drug control.

He, however, said it was important to amend the law to reflect provisions for alternative uses of cannabis.

Ndakara noted that although the destruction of drug plantations was aimed at keeping illegal drugs out of circulation, cultivation could recur without appropriate legal provisions.

He also pointed out that in other countries, the law allowed cultivation of cannabis for economic reasons.

“In England, for example, it is not so; their law permits them to extract cannabis oil for human use, while the harmful aspects of the plant is destroyed or prevented from being used.

“During my visit to London, I saw it myself; Sadly, however, we do not have that technology yet in Nigeria,” he said.

He drew a distinction between two major types of cannabis oil extracts, namely Cannabidiol (CBD) and Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

According to him, CBD was useful for human consumption as it interacted with the body to improve sleep and relieve pain.

He said THC, however, could only be used under strict medical control.

He noted that cannabis was grown in many parts of the country, adding that it could be put to lawful and restricted use if the law was amended.

A lawyer who litigates in drug-related offences, Mrs Vivian Ekwegh, said government should provide financial support to illicit drug growers to enable them to engage in legitimate farming.

She said idleness could lead to unruly behaviour, adding that destroying plantations without corresponding financial support could worsen the hardship faced by affected farmers.

“I think government should consider alternative measures by empowering, encouraging and supporting cannabis farmers to go into other types of farming with their farmlands rather than destroying their farms and seizing their lands.

“This is because people tend to be recalcitrant when they have no other means of survival, so, government can give them grant and support to cultivate other crops,” she said.

Ekwegh noted that cannabis planting was legal in some countries.

“Canada has beer which is made from cannabis. Nigeria can also make a lot of money through the cultivation of cannabis for exports,” she said.

She noted, however, that government had refused to legalise its cultivation as citizens were likely to abuse such privilege without strict regulations.

On her part, another Lagos-based lawyer, Mrs Elizabeth Chiozor, underscored the need to create job opportunities for the teeming youth population.

“For me, a most tactical approach in combating illicit drug plants is for government to create more job openings to keep the youths lawfully engaged.

“If you check around it is easy to observe that many of our youth are addicted to harmful drugs and more worrisome is that they even know how and where to cultivate it.

“Once they are productively occupied in their respective fields of employment, it simply becomes inconvenient for them doing drugs,” she said.

While approving the destruction of illegal drug plantations, she noted that the measure would discourage those planning to embark on such ventures.

(NAN).