Atiku: I Shunned National Peace Accord Because It’s One-sided

• Disowns spokesman’s remarks on fuel subsidy removal

Chuks Okocha in Abuja

Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has said he refused to attend the recent signing of the National Peace Accord organised for presidential candidates because attendance at the event has always been one-sided.

Atiku spoke when the ‘Council of the Wise’ of the Savannah Centre for Democracy, Diplomacy and Development (SCDDD), led by a former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, visited him in Abuja as part of its engagement with political stakeholders ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The organisation said it was at Atiku’s residence to plead with him and other presidential contenders to promote peaceful, issue-based and credible campaigns ahead of the elections.

Atiku referred to the National Peace Accord signed in Abuja on August 18 by presidential candidates and political parties ahead of the commencement of campaigns for the 2027 general election.

The peace accord, convened by the National Peace Committee (NPC)  in partnership with the Kukah Centre, committed political parties, candidates and their supporters to peaceful campaigns, respect for electoral institutions and issue-based engagement.

THISDAY reports that apart from Atiku, President Bola Tinubu did not attend the ceremony in person but was represented by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, George Akume.

Among those who signed were: Peter Obi of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), Omoyele Sowore of the African Action Congress (AAC), Adewole Adebayo of the Social Democratic Party (SDP). APC Chairman, Yilwatda Nentawe signed for President Bola Tinubu, candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Atiku told the Ariwoola-led council that he had been involved in the peace accord process in previous elections but became dissatisfied because opposition parties were usually the ones participating while the ruling party stayed away.

“I used to be a signatory to what is this peace committee. I started boycotting it last election until our former Head of State, General Abdulsalami, had to plead with me. I said, but it is one-sided. It is always the opposition parties that attend. The ruling party is never, never a participatory signatory to this peace committee. And if they are not, what is the point of my coming to sign?

“That is why even the last one (held last week), I refused to attend because it is one-sided. This is one challenge I think that we need to correct,” he said.

Earlier, Ariwoola congratulated Atiku on his emergence as the ADC presidential candidate and urged him to ensure that his campaign was free of hate speech, inflammatory statements and other conduct capable of provoking violence.

Ariwoola said the Council of the Wise was reconstituted in June 2026 to continue its intervention and mediation efforts before, during and after elections, having engaged political and other stakeholders ahead of the 2015, 2019 and 2023 elections.

He said the council considered it necessary to engage the presidential candidates ahead of the 2027 elections and remind them of their responsibility to ensure that campaigns were devoid of hate speech, inflammatory statements and utterances capable of provoking violence.

Meanwhile, Atiku has clarified that his proposed petroleum intervention is not a return to Nigeria’s discredited import-subsidy regime, but targeted support for domestic production designed to reduce the cost of living.

In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said the clarification became necessary following comments credited to his spokesman, Paul Ibe, suggesting that an Atiku administration would “restore fuel subsidy and remove it later.”

Shaibu described the comments as, “an unauthorised, imprecise and materially misleading characterisation of Atiku’s policy position,” stressing that no spokesperson has the latitude to redefine, embellish or improvise on a policy already clearly articulated by the candidate.

He stated: “For avoidance of the doubt, policy belongs to the candidate, not the spokesperson. Our responsibility as communicators is to explain Atiku’s position accurately, not create formulations capable of confusing Nigerians or handing opponents convenient talking points.

“Atiku has never proposed restoring the import-subsidy regime and subsequently removing it on some predetermined date. That is not his policy and should not be attributed to him.

“What Atiku proposes is a targeted, capped, transparently budgeted and independently audited subsidy that supports domestic refining and production, with measurable exit conditions built in from day one.

“There is no arbitrary withdrawal date. As domestic refining expands, supply stabilises, competition deepens, and the market becomes capable of delivering affordable prices without government support. The intervention progressively becomes unnecessary. You do not remove scaffolding because the calendar says so. You remove it when the building can stand securely on its own.”

He argued that Nigerians must not be distracted by arguments over terminology, stressing that Tinubu has simply transferred the shock of his reforms to Nigerian families.

“The real question is simple: Why has everything become so expensive, and what will Atiku do to make life affordable again? Tinubu transferred the shock of his reforms to Nigerian families. Atiku will reduce production and transportation costs, strengthen domestic refining, and restore purchasing power.

“The choice is not removal of subsidy versus restoration of subsidy. It is Expensive Nigeria versus Affordable Nigeria,” he argued.