The African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate says the administration should stop placing the blame on former President Muhammadu Buhari and instead explain how refinery-related liabilities grew under its own watch.
Atiku’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, made the accusation in a statement issued in Abuja on Sunday.
₦4.15 trillion increase
According to Shaibu, the combined obligations linked to the Port Harcourt, Warri and Kaduna refineries rose from about ₦4.52 trillion at the end of 2023 to ₦8.67 trillion a year later.
That represents an increase of roughly ₦4.15 trillion in 12 months.
Atiku argues that the figure demands more than another explanation about inherited problems.
His central question is straightforward:
What did Nigerians get for the additional money?
He wants the government to account for the spending, the petroleum products expected from the facilities and any savings that were supposed to flow to consumers.
From flagship achievement to financial burden
Atiku also highlighted what he described as a contradiction in the government’s messaging.
In November 2024, the administration announced that the Port Harcourt refinery had restarted operations at 70% capacity, presenting the development as an important achievement under its Renewed Hope programme.
But NNPC leadership has subsequently acknowledged that the refineries were operating at what Atiku characterised as severe financial losses.
For the former vice-president, the contrast raises questions about how the projects were evaluated and presented to the public.
He rejected the president’s repeated references to liabilities inherited from previous administrations, describing that defence as an attempt to avoid responsibility for developments that occurred during Tinubu’s tenure.
What ₦4 trillion could have funded
Atiku argued that the refinery figures should not be viewed merely as accounting entries.
He pointed to the potential alternative uses of such a huge sum, including:
- Universities and overcrowded classrooms
- Better-equipped hospitals
- Road rehabilitation
- Electricity infrastructure
- Clean water projects
His argument is that every naira committed to an underperforming asset represents money that cannot simultaneously address another national priority.
He therefore described the situation as a failure of stewardship, rather than simply an operational problem.
‘You cannot claim only the successes’
Atiku also challenged what he sees as a double standard in the administration’s approach to accountability.
His position is that a government cannot take ownership of positive developments while automatically assigning responsibility for disappointing outcomes to its predecessors.
After more than three years in office, he said, Nigerians have the right to assess the liabilities created or expanded during the current administration.
A warning ahead of 2027
The refinery dispute also feeds directly into Atiku’s broader argument against another Tinubu term.
He characterised the president’s record as one marked by heavy spending, ambitious announcements and limited tangible benefits for ordinary Nigerians.
Atiku’s warning is ultimately political as much as economic:
He believes Nigeria cannot afford to spend another four years carrying the cost of what he regards as government failure.
The refinery question, however, leaves a larger issue hanging over the administration: if billions have been committed to reviving Nigeria’s refineries, can the government demonstrate results that justify the investment?