The Presidency has accused former Vice President and Peoples Democratic Party candidate in the 2023 election, Atiku Abubakar, of resentment towards President Bola Tinubu’s rise to power.
Abubakar was criticised for proposing economic reforms and anti-corruption measures in a tweet titled, “What We Would Have Done Differently.”
The Presidency claimed that, since Abubakar’s loss to Tinubu, he has “shown more interest in undermining President Bola Ahmed Tinubu than in addressing his party’s internal crises. We suspect he is envious of Tinubu’s position—an office he has unsuccessfully sought six times,” according to a State House release by Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, on Sunday.
The statement partly read, “It is perplexing that he would elevate his untested, hypothetical proposal, which Nigerians soundly rejected during the 2023 presidential election, as a superior alternative to the multi-faceted reform programmes implemented by the Tinubu administration. If his plan lacked popular appeal, he must accept that repackaging it will not address the social and economic challenges his People’s Democratic Party (PDP) left after 16 years in power.”
THE LOUNGE: Equatorial Guinea Sex Scandal – The Man or The Women, Who Is To Blame?0:00 / 0:00
The statement added that Atiku’s economic analysis demonstrated a significant misunderstanding of Nigeria’s current realities. His narrative, “What We Would Have Done Differently,” indicates a lack of awareness of the pressing economic needs, which are now being addressed through President Tinubu’s leadership.
“What reforms would Atiku propose in his hypothetical presidency? While he suggests a consultation period upon assuming office, the Nigerian economy requires immediate, decisive action. A leader must be ready to tackle challenges from Day One, as President Tinubu has done.
“Atiku went further to accuse President Tinubu of ‘stealing his presidency,’ which exposes his sense of entitlement and disconnect from the electorate. Tinubu rightfully won the presidency, a position Atiku was unqualified for due to his arrogance, insensitivity to Nigeria’s diversity, and his disregard for his party’s power rotation arrangement between North and South after eight years of President Muhammadu Buhari.”
The statement argued that Atiku’s proposed consultation approach upon assuming office shows a lack of understanding of Nigeria’s fragile economy. It praised Tinubu’s “firm action plan” for being immediately implemented to address pressing issues.
The Presidency defended its removal of the fuel subsidy, stressing the urgency given that the “Nigerian state was on life support.”
“Atiku’s idea of a consultation period upon entering office shows a troubling lack of awareness regarding the state of the economy, which was in dire need of urgent action. The Tinubu administration arrived with a firm action plan to address shortcomings that persisted during President Olusegun Obasanjo’s tenure when Atiku was Vice President.
“We can only imagine the detrimental effects of Atiku’s proposed lengthy town hall meetings on Nigeria’s economy had he been elected and taken such an approach. The country needed a proactive leader like Tinubu, who got to work immediately rather than one who would waste time on consultations and a questionable privatisation agenda.
“Atiku’s critiques of Tinubu’s presidency are mere harebrained ideas, lacking realistic alternatives. He must recognise the decades of mismanaged economic policies inherited by the current administration, including excessive subsidy expenditures surpassing government earnings from crude oil. As of mid-2023, the landing cost of fuel was between N500 and N600, yet it was sold at an average of N200 nationwide. The 2023 budget allocated N3.36 trillion for fuel subsidies until June 2023, against a projected N2.23 trillion in oil revenue for the year. The Nigerian state was on life support.”
The statement noted that the estimated N5.4 trillion saved from subsidy removal in 2024 is being directed toward infrastructure development and social intervention programmes to benefit all tiers of government and improve Nigerians’ quality of life.
The statement further highlighted Tinubu’s economic reforms since taking office, including increased revenue from the Federal Inland Revenue Service, implementation of a minimum wage between N70,000 and N85,000 across several states, a social intervention campaign involving cash transfers and palliative distribution, student loans, among other reforms.
It also criticised Abubakar’s suggestion to privatise Nigeria’s four oil refineries, arguing that the approach lacked originality and practical benefit.
The statement read further, “In 2007, investors were only willing to offer $160 million for 51% equity in the Port Harcourt Refinery, while the Kaduna Refinery received a bid of $102 million. Industry experts and the late President Umar Musa Yar’Adua, who cancelled the refineries’ sale by the Obasanjo-Atiku government, considered these bids as scrap value.
“As Vice President, Atiku oversaw the sale of national assets to private individuals and associates at low prices. Today, most public enterprises he sold have been stripped and are now inactive assets.
“The Tinubu administration’s approach, which involves contracting the fully rehabilitated refineries to private sector managers at an agreed return to the government, is more beneficial than selling national assets to private interests without the technical capacity to operate them. Tinubu’s government aims to revitalise these refineries while supporting modular refineries and the larger-capacity Dangote Refinery.
“This plan will secure domestic production, stabilise retail prices, and reduce foreign exchange challenges by supplying crude oil to refineries in Naira, potentially cutting retail prices. President Tinubu remains focused on Nigeria’s progress and addressing the nation’s real challenges. Atiku Abubakar should move beyond political distractions and focus on constructive discussions,” the statement concluded.
