Tinubu blames opposition for hunger, poverty in Nigeria; Atiku kicks, says president delusional

President Bola Tinubu’s central accusation was that opposition politicians caused the hunger and poverty Nigerians are experiencing. He made the claim while formally launching the APC’s 2027 presidential campaign in Kaduna. The dispute matters because food prices, inflation and falling purchasing power are already major public concerns, making economic hardship a central election issue.

Tinubu told supporters to distrust opposition criticism, especially attacks on his decision to remove the petrol subsidy. He argued that the old system involved corruption, false invoices, fuel smuggling and wasteful spending. He also said his government was paying salaries on time and praised APC governors for development projects.

The president asked Nigerians to give him another opportunity in 2027. He promised to continue pursuing prosperity, development and national growth. Opposition politicians, including Atiku Abubakar, are likely to keep challenging the government’s account of who caused the hardship and whether its reforms are improving daily life.

Atiku Abubakar rejected Tinubu’s accusation because he believes the hardship followed decisions made by Tinubu’s government. Since May 2023, the administration has removed the petrol subsidy and changed the foreign-exchange regime. These reforms were followed by persistent concerns over high food prices, inflation and declining purchasing power, so Atiku argued that the president should accept responsibility.

Atiku described Tinubu’s claim as a “delusional, shameless attempt” to avoid responsibility for misery inflicted by the government. His main mechanism is political accountability: the government controls major economic policies, while ordinary Nigerians experience their effects through prices, transport costs and household budgets.

The disagreement will likely shape the 2027 election debate. Tinubu says the reforms are necessary and that his administration is addressing the problems. Atiku says the same policies helped create the hardship. The article does not establish which explanation is correct, but it shows that both sides are presenting sharply different accounts.

A petrol subsidy is financial support that allows consumers to buy petrol for less than the government’s full cost of supplying it. The state covers some of the difference, directly or through the subsidy system. Removing the subsidy means petrol prices are no longer kept down through that support. This matters because fuel is closely connected to transport and everyday economic activity.

Tinubu’s government said the old system encouraged corruption, falsified invoices and fuel smuggling. It also argued that ending the subsidy would reduce public expenditure and free resources for more sustainable economic growth. At the Kaduna rally, Tinubu declared that fuel subsidy belonged to the past and said the policy would not be reversed.

The change remains controversial. Critics want evidence that savings and additional revenue from the reform are reaching ordinary Nigerians. The article reports continuing concerns about food prices, inflation and purchasing power, so the reform’s success will be judged by whether living conditions improve.

The other major economic reform identified in the article was a change to Nigeria’s foreign-exchange regime. In everyday terms, a foreign-exchange regime is the system used to manage the naira’s value against other currencies and determine how people and businesses obtain foreign currency. Changing it can affect import costs, businesses and prices, although the article does not specify the exact measures.

The article places this reform alongside petrol-subsidy removal. The government defended both measures as necessary economic changes. It said subsidy removal would reduce public expenditure and tackle alleged corruption, while the broader reforms were intended to establish foundations for sustainable economic growth.

The immediate public test is whether these policies improve living conditions. Nigerians are facing concerns over high food prices, inflation and declining purchasing power. The article says critics want evidence that savings and additional revenue from the reforms are translating into benefits for ordinary people. It does not provide detailed foreign-exchange results or figures.

Fuel and food prices can affect more than 200 million people when considering Nigeria’s population figure given in the question. That scale matters because petrol is linked to transport and distribution, while food is a basic household need. A price change can therefore reach families, workers, businesses and communities across the country, even when people do not buy fuel directly.

For example, higher petrol costs can raise the expense of moving farm goods to markets and transporting people to work or school. Those added costs may appear in food prices and other household expenses. The article specifically identifies high food prices, inflation and declining purchasing power as persistent public concerns after major economic reforms.

The national reach makes the 2027 political debate especially significant. Tinubu says his administration is addressing the problems and pursuing prosperity and growth. Critics want proof that reform savings and revenue are improving ordinary Nigerians’ lives. The article does not provide a precise affected-person count beyond the population figure supplied in the question.

When petrol becomes more expensive, transport operators and businesses usually face higher running costs. They may pass those costs to passengers and customers through higher fares and prices. Because goods travel from producers to markets, fuel costs can also raise the price of food and other essentials. This is the basic chain linking petrol prices to household hardship.

The article does not list a detailed price chain, but it reports concerns over high food prices, inflation and declining purchasing power. In practical terms, inflation means money buys fewer goods and services. If wages do not rise as quickly as prices, families have less money left for food, transport, healthcare and other needs.

These effects make subsidy removal politically sensitive. Tinubu says ending the subsidy stops corruption, false invoices and fuel smuggling, while critics question whether the benefits are reaching citizens. The forward test is whether government savings and new revenue eventually offset higher costs through stronger incomes, lower inflation or improved public services.

Ending a subsidy improves the economy for ordinary people only if public savings and new revenue produce visible benefits. Nigerians can compare what the government says it saved or collected with changes in wages, food prices, transport costs, inflation and poverty. The comparison matters because a stronger government balance sheet does not automatically mean families are better off.

The article provides the government’s stated mechanism: subsidy removal should reduce public expenditure, address alleged corruption and support sustainable growth. It also reports critics’ demand for evidence that savings and additional revenue are translating into improved living conditions. Useful signs would include salaries keeping pace with prices, more affordable essentials and reduced pressure on household budgets.

The current picture remains contested. Tinubu says salaries are being paid on time and that his administration is addressing the problems. Yet concerns over food prices, inflation and purchasing power persist. Ahead of 2027, voters will likely compare these claims with their own economic experience and available government evidence.