Former VP demands evidence of wrongdoing as Presidency, APC and NANS attack his subsidy proposal.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has challenged the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute him if it has evidence linking him to the alleged $16 billion power-sector expenditure during the Olusegun Obasanjo administration.

Atiku, through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, accused the President Bola Tinubu administration of reviving old allegations to divert attention from questions over the use of revenues generated from the removal of petrol subsidy.

The former Vice President said he had never been invited or prosecuted over the power projects despite investigations by successive governments, insisting that allegations must be backed by evidence.

Atiku also questioned how the government had spent the additional revenue from subsidy removal, asking, “Where is the people’s money?” He argued that Nigerians had endured higher petrol, transport and food prices without seeing sufficient benefits from the policy.

However, the Presidency criticised Atiku over his proposal to restore a targeted petrol subsidy, accusing him of repeatedly changing his position on the policy.

The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, challenged Atiku to explain the cost, beneficiaries, funding mechanism and conditions for ending the proposed subsidy.

The APC also urged Atiku to take his allegations of corruption to court if he had evidence, while the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) described the proposed return of subsidy as a political response to economic hardship rather than a sustainable solution.

NANS President Akinteye Babatunde argued that restoring the old subsidy regime without addressing its structural weaknesses could recreate the problems that led to its removal.

The exchange comes amid intensifying political activities ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with Atiku and the President Tinubu administration increasingly clashing over economic reforms, accountability and the management of public resources.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *