Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has challenged President Bola Tinubu to accept responsibility for the economic hardship facing Nigerians rather than blaming opposition parties for hunger and poverty.
Atiku described Tinubu’s allegation that the opposition was responsible for the country’s economic difficulties as an attempt to evade accountability for the consequences of his administration’s policies.
He argued that the president could not implement policies that worsened living conditions and subsequently blame his political opponents for drawing attention to the hardship.
Atiku’s position was conveyed in a statement issued in Abuja by Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communications of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council.
In the statement, the former vice president questioned Tinubu’s attempt to associate the opposition with the country’s economic challenges, insisting that Nigerians knew which party had controlled the federal government in recent years.
“Mr President, blaming the opposition for hunger is either delusion or a staggering case of political amnesia,” Atiku said.
He noted that the APC had governed Nigeria for eight years before Tinubu assumed office, adding that the ruling party had remained in power for another three and a half years under the current president.
According to him, the country’s economic difficulties cannot be separated from the policies and decisions of successive APC-led administrations.
“The hardship your administration has brought upon Nigerians is real. You cannot deny it by blaming others,” he said.
Atiku also criticised Tinubu over the reported commissioning of the Abuja-Kaduna Expressway before its completion, arguing that ceremonial events could not substitute for the delivery of functional infrastructure.
He maintained that the president should address public concerns about the condition of the economy rather than make statements that, in his view, disregarded the daily struggles of ordinary Nigerians.
The ADC presidential candidate further questioned the administration’s handling of petrol subsidy removal and the depreciation of the naira, citing the increase in the exchange rate from about ₦471 to the dollar to approximately ₦1,329.
He also referenced a World Bank estimate that 63 per cent of Nigerians would be living below the national poverty line in 2026, using the projection to challenge the government’s economic performance.
Atiku raised additional questions about public expenditure, including the reported ₦7.13 trillion recorded under energy security in 2024 and ₦11.2 trillion in NNPC pipeline-related spending.
He called for greater transparency regarding the expenditure and the projects or services delivered in return.
The former vice president also questioned what he described as a $12.4 billion gap flagged in Nigeria’s external accounts for the first half of 2026, as well as $22.5 million reportedly paid in other charges relating to an Abu Dhabi financing facility.
He argued that the government owed Nigerians explanations on these matters, insisting that questions about public finances should not be dismissed through political accusations.
Beyond the economy, Atiku accused the administration of failing to adequately address persistent insecurity, citing killings, kidnappings and the displacement of communities across the country.
He said Nigerians were more concerned about the government’s response to these challenges than its attempts to blame the opposition.
“You cannot govern for three years, make life harder, and then blame others for describing the hardship,” he said.
Atiku added that the 2027 presidential election would provide Nigerians with an opportunity to assess Tinubu’s performance in office.
According to him, the electorate would judge the administration by its impact on household finances, businesses and community security rather than by its campaign rhetoric.
He concluded that the president should focus on addressing the country’s challenges and explaining his administration’s record instead of attributing public dissatisfaction to opposition criticism.
