BY NKECHI NAECHE-ESEZOBOR—The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has granted leave to Universal Insurance Plc to commence legal proceedings against the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) and other respondents regarding the purported cancellation of the company’s operating license and the appointment of a Receiver/Manager.

This is contained in a notice signed by its Company Secretary, Chinedu Onyilimba, to Nigeria Exchange Limited, dealing members and investing public released yesterday on the trading floor.

The notice added that “In Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1179/2026, the court directed the regulatory body and co-respondents to show cause why an interim order staying any further action on the revocation of the insurer’s license should not be granted. To protect the company’s interest, the court explicitly restrained the respondents from taking any steps that could create a fait accompli or render the ongoing proceedings nugatory pending the determination of the application.

The case has been adjourned to 3 September 2026 for the respondents to show cause.

The company assured that it will provide updates on material developments in line with applicable regulatory requirements.

This is coming on the heels of the company’s inability to comply with the new minimum capital requirements for general business set by NIIRA Act 2025!which ended July 31st, 2026. This led to NAICOM’s  decision to revoke its operating license.

The post Court Restrains NAICOM from Revoking Universal Insurance License appeared first on Business Today NG.

The Presidency on Wednesday criticized former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar over what it described as a series of conflicting and unclear proposals regarding the management of petrol subsidies.

A statement signed byBayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President (Information & Strategy, noted  that in a swift reaction to recent statements from Atiku  and his media aides, the administration accused him of engaging in policy somersaults and political opportunism rather than offering a coherent economic strategy for the nation.

The criticism follows three contradictory stances issued by Atiku’s camp within a single week, ranging from a complete restoration and gradual phasing out of the subsidy to tying its removal strictly to local refining capacity. Demanding full transparency, the Federal Government challenged the former Vice-President to provide a realistic, costed framework explaining how his proposed “targeted subsidy” would be funded, who would benefit, and how it would avoid plunging the country back into severe fiscal distress.

The statement added that the latest comments by former Vice-President Atiku on petrol subsidy raise a fundamental question: is he seriously proposing an economic policy, or is he simply playing politics with the temporary discomfort Nigerians face?

The statement added that “Within a week, Nigerians have heard three different explanations of what an Atiku administration would do about petrol subsidy. The confusion has now become impossible to ignore.

First, Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, said Atiku would restore petrol subsidy if elected president and later phase it out. Ibe described it as a temporary intervention intended to give Nigerians and businesses room to recover.

“Then came a clarification from another senior aide, Phrank Shaibu, who said Ibe’s statement was an “unauthorised and misleading characterisation” of Atiku’s position. According to Shaibu, Atiku would not set a predetermined date for ending the subsidy. Instead, it would remain until domestic refining expands, supply stabilises, competition deepens, and the market can deliver affordable prices without government support.

But just hours later, Atiku himself intervened and effectively overruled that clarification. He insisted that his position “has not changed” and that he would restore what he called a “targeted subsidy” if elected president. He also said, “I will restore targeted subsidy and put purchasing power back in the hands of Nigerians.”

This is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a serious policy contradiction.

If Atiku’s position has not changed, why did one of his principal aides say the subsidy would be temporary and phased out? Why did another senior aide have to publicly disown that explanation and introduce a completely different framework based on market conditions? And why did Atiku then step in to reaffirm the original position?

Nigerians deserve clarity, not policy by trial and error.

More fundamentally, Atiku’s argument appears to misunderstand the dynamics of the petroleum market. Petrol does not become cheap simply because government orders a subsidy or because competition is expected to emerge. Several factors, including international crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs, transportation, distribution, and other market costs, influence pump prices.

Competition can improve efficiency and margins, but it cannot magically insulate Nigeria from global crude oil prices or other input costs.

There is also a troubling oversimplification in Atiku’s argument that “when fuel rises, transport rises. When transport rises, food rises. When food rises, families suffer.” Of course, energy and transportation costs affect food prices. But petrol prices alone have never caused food inflation. Nigerians experienced rising food prices even during the years when petrol subsidy was in place.

Agricultural productivity, insecurity, exchange rates, logistics, storage, flooding, input costs, money supply and supply constraints also matter. A serious economic programme must address these factors, as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been doing for the past three years, rather than reduce the entire cost-of-living crisis to petrol prices.

We therefore urge Atiku to stop shifting positions and explain precisely what he means by “targeted subsidy”: how much will it cost, who will benefit, how will beneficiaries be identified, how will it be funded, and what objective economic conditions will determine its eventual termination?

Nigerians cannot afford another opaque and potentially costly subsidy regime dressed up in new language.

The former vice-president should be honest with Nigerians: either he has a coherent, costed, and workable petroleum policy, or he is simply playing politics with a policy that has significantly restored fiscal health to the three tiers of government and stabilised the macroeconomic environment.

The economy is too serious for policy somersaults, incoherence, destructive populism and election gimmicks.

Atiku says his subsidy will follow the barrel of crude. Is he aware that refined petrol only constitutes 45 per cent of the by-products of a refined barrel of crude? A barrel yields other products, such as aviation fuel, kerosene, and diesel, which were deregulated many years ago.

Diesel, which the Obasanjo-Atiku administration deregulated in 2004, accounts for roughly 25% of the barrel. Jet Fuel and Kerosene make up about 9% of the barrel. Kerosene and jet fuel were deregulated in 2009, and subsidies removed in 2016.

About 10% to 15% of the barrel creates base ingredients for synthetic rubber, nylon, polyester, and plastics used in everyday goods like toothbrushes, cups, and packaging.

Asphalt makes up about 2% to 4% of the barrel. Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids (HGL), like propane and butane, make up about 4%. Lubricants and Waxes constitute about 1% to 2%. Petroleum coke and sulfur form the solid residue left from refining.

Will Atiku subsidise all these by-products of the barrel as well, since kerosene is used by the underprivileged to cook, and many homes and factories use diesel to power generators and delivery trucks? And will he allow the refineries he will supply discounted crude oil to profit from 55 per cent of the by-products, while focusing subsidy only on petrol, his obsession?

The former Vice President is definitely suffering from a lack of basic understanding of his newfound policy prescription.

The post Presidency Slams Atiku Over Unclear Fuel Subsidy Proposal appeared first on Business Today NG.