As part of his yearly holiday, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will leave Abuja today for a three-week vacation in Europe.
The president, Bayo Onanuga, received a succinct statement from the Special Adviser on Information and Strategy.
“His first stop will be London, United Kingdom.”
“President Tinubu is expected to return home after the working vacation to join the hectic campaign for the January 2027 election,” Onanuga said .
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has questioned the claim by President Bola Tinubu that petrol subsidy has been completely removed, alleging that substantial energy-security costs and petroleum under-recoveries remain within the system.
ALSO READ: Atiku Questions Tinubu’s Subsidy Claims, Cites N17.5 Trn Costs
Atiku raised the issue in a statement signed by Phrank Shaibu, Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication in the media office of Atiku Abubakar, on Friday, August 21, 2026, while responding to Tinubu’s criticism of his proposed intervention in the petroleum sector.
Atiku said: “But there is an even greater hypocrisy in Tinubu’s subsidy sermon.
“Tinubu told Nigerians subsidy was dead. Yet NNPC’s audited accounts reportedly contain approximately ₦17.5 trillion in energy-security costs and petroleum under-recoveries, including about ₦7.13 trillion classified as Energy Security and ₦8.67 trillion in under-recoveries.
“So what exactly did Tinubu remove?
“If subsidy is dead, why are under-recoveries alive? If corruption was eliminated, why has opacity survived?
“Tinubu has given Nigerians the worst of both worlds: he removed the relief but retained the opaque costs. Nigerians got the pain; the government kept the bill.”
The former vice president also criticised the administration’s argument that increased Federation Account Allocation Committee revenues to states represented one of the benefits of subsidy removal.
Atiku said: “Now that Tinubu tells Nigerians that one of the great achievements of subsidy removal is that states which previously struggled to pay salaries now receive larger FAAC allocations, he must realise that this argument is economically shallow and, worse still, an admission of developmental failure.
