President Bola Tinubu has been challenged to explain why his administration is introducing a temporary petrol price relief scheme after previously criticising calls to restore fuel subsidy, with former APC chieftain Timi Frank demanding an apology to former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and Nigerians.
Frank, a former Deputy National Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Congress, said the Federal Government’s 30-day petrol discount had reopened the debate over whether the removal of subsidy in May 2023 was the right approach to easing the country’s economic burden.
He argued that the government’s latest intervention echoed the objective of Atiku’s proposal to restore subsidy as a way of cushioning Nigerians against rising fuel prices and the escalating cost of living.
“We expect Tinubu and his government to first apologise to Atiku Abubakar for its previous attacks on his position to return fuel subsidy if voted into office as President,” Frank said in a statement issued in Abuja on Friday.
The Federal Government announced the 30-day discount at Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited retail outlets on Thursday, with priority given to public transport operators.
However, the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, said the initiative was not a return to subsidy but an arrangement to sell petrol at cost for an initial 30 days.
Frank dismissed the distinction as unconvincing, arguing that the government’s decision raised questions about its earlier position on interventions aimed at reducing the burden of high fuel prices.
“Simply put, Tinubu, who maintained a hardline stance on fuel subsidy removal, has gone back to his vomit,” he said.
The former APC spokesman said the President should acknowledge the hardship Nigerians had endured since the subsidy removal, which he blamed for contributing to higher transportation, food and business costs.
He maintained that a discount lasting only 30 days would do little to address the prolonged financial strain on households, workers, traders and small-business owners.
Frank also demanded details of the scheme, including the number of participating NNPCL outlets, the volume of petrol to be sold at the discounted rate and the government’s plans after the initiative expires.
He insisted that Nigerians needed a lasting response to rising living costs rather than a temporary intervention whose benefits might disappear after one month.
The controversy has also brought Atiku’s position on fuel subsidy back into focus ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
In August, the former vice-president restated his support for restoring the policy, declaring: “On the question of subsidy, my position has not changed and will not change: I will restore it!”
The Presidency had questioned the fiscal and legal basis of Atiku’s proposal, raising concerns about how a restored subsidy would avoid the problems associated with the previous arrangement.
Frank, however, said the new petrol discount had strengthened the argument for considering measures that shield citizens from the effects of high energy and transportation costs.
“But now, having seen the light in Atiku’s proposal, Tinubu simply came down off his high horse and adopted the idea without any acknowledgments,” he alleged.
He warned that the government could not resolve public dissatisfaction simply by describing its latest intervention as a discount rather than a subsidy.
For Frank, the central question is whether the measure will deliver meaningful relief beyond its initial 30-day window, as Nigerians continue to grapple with rising expenses.
The Federal Government’s position remains that the initiative is a temporary cost-based pricing arrangement, not a restoration of the former fuel subsidy system.
