ABUJA, NIGERIA — Political analyst Tony Elumunor has launched a scathing rebuttal of a recent opinion piece by Azu Ishiekwene, describing it as a “poisoned chalice” that unfairly caricatures former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s proposal to reintroduce fuel subsidy, while the issue of refining capacity lies at the heart of the matter .
In a detailed critique, Elumunor took aim at Ishiekwene’s September 3, 2026, article titled “Has Atiku Cornered Tinubu On Petrol Subsidy?” which he argued was a “devil’s brew of deceptive philosophy” masquerading as a balanced interrogation of the ADC presidential candidate’s campaign promise. According to Elumunor, the piece was in fact “a one-sided fusillade of thunderbolts” against Atiku’s ideas, offering six numbered reasons why reintroducing petrol subsidy was impossible.
“The most inexcusable failure in Ishiekwene’s treatise is the wooden-headed insistence that refined petroleum products importation bazaar is the only option open to Atiku,” Elumunor wrote. He argued that the columnist conveniently ignored the possibility of domestic refining, which is central to Atiku’s proposal and the broader national conversation about energy independence.
Atiku has consistently argued that his proposed fuel subsidy model would not be a return to the old import-subsidy regime but a targeted, capped, transparently budgeted, and independently audited intervention designed to support domestic refining and reduce the cost burden on consumers. He has maintained that the support would gradually become unnecessary as domestic refining capacity expands, supply stabilises, and competition increases. The former vice-president’s approach hinges on fixing local refineries, stabilising the naira, and providing targeted support before any deregulation.
Elumunor also took issue with what he described as Ishiekwene’s “wooden-headed insistence” that Atiku would rely on imported products, arguing that this misrepresentation ignores the fundamental premise of the ADC candidate’s policy. He insisted that the core of the debate is not whether to import or subsidise imports, but whether Nigeria can refine its own crude oil domestically—and whether politicians have the will to make that happen.
The rebuttal comes at a time when the fuel subsidy debate continues to dominate Nigeria’s political discourse ahead of the 2027 elections. Atiku has made the reintroduction of a managed subsidy regime a central pillar of his campaign, arguing that the Tinubu administration’s removal of subsidies has imposed “extraordinary hardship” on Nigerians without adequate safeguards. The ruling All Progressives Congress, however, has consistently defended the removal, arguing that maintaining an artificially low price would have rendered the Dangote Refinery commercially unviable and stifled private sector investment in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector.
Elumunor criticised what he described as an attempt to frame the debate in terms of “either import and subsidise or deregulate and suffer,” arguing that this false binary serves to shut down discussion of a third option: domestic refining. By reducing the cost of production and stabilising the exchange rate, he argued, Nigeria could achieve lower prices without resorting to subsidies.
The debate is likely to intensify as the 2027 elections approach, with candidates expected to present their economic agendas to the electorate. For now, Elumunor’s critique serves as a reminder that the subsidy conversation is as much about refining capacity as it is about pricing policy, and that any serious proposal must grapple with the structural challenges of Nigeria’s petroleum sector. Whether Ishiekwene or others in the media will respond to the critique remains to be seen.
