Atiku Faults Tinubu Over Hunger, Says APC Cannot Blame Opposition After 11 Years in Power

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has criticised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for blaming opposition politicians for the hunger and poverty confronting Nigerians, insisting that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) must accept responsibility for its record after more than 11 years in power at the federal level.

Atiku, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, made the remarks in a statement issued on Saturday, 24 October 2026, through Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council.

His reaction followed Tinubu’s remarks at the APC presidential campaign flag-off in Kaduna, where the President accused his political opponents of creating the hunger and poverty affecting Nigerians.

The exchange has brought economic hardship, government accountability and the record of successive administrations back into the centre of Nigeria’s political debate ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

Atiku argued that the APC could not reasonably shift responsibility for the country’s economic difficulties to opposition parties after governing Nigeria for eight years under former President Muhammadu Buhari and more than three years under Tinubu.

He maintained that Nigerians were entitled to demand explanations for rising living costs, the removal of the petrol subsidy, the depreciation of the naira, insecurity and questions surrounding public expenditure.

Tinubu Blames Opposition for Hunger and Poverty

Tinubu made the controversial remarks while addressing supporters at the APC’s presidential campaign flag-off in Kaduna on Saturday.

The President challenged opposition politicians who had criticised his administration over hunger and poverty, arguing that those now raising concerns were responsible for creating the problems.

“I hear my opponents talking about hunger, poverty. Who created it? They did! They created the hunger; they created the poverty. We are trying to eradicate it,” Tinubu said.

The President also defended his administration’s performance, saying salaries were being paid regularly and commending APC governors for their work.

His comments came as the administration continued to defend its economic reform programme, which includes the removal of the petrol subsidy and changes to the foreign exchange system.

The government has maintained that its reforms are intended to address longstanding economic distortions, improve public finances and establish conditions for sustainable growth.

However, the measures have also contributed to significant pressures on household budgets, particularly through the cost of fuel, transportation, food and other essential goods.

Tinubu’s remarks prompted a response from Atiku, who argued that the ruling party must account for its years in government instead of attributing the country’s economic difficulties to political opponents.

Atiku Says APC Must Accept Responsibility

In his response, Atiku rejected the suggestion that the opposition should bear responsibility for the hardship Nigerians are experiencing.

He argued that the APC’s record in government made it necessary for the party to answer questions about the country’s economic condition.

“Mr President, blaming the opposition for hunger is either delusion or a staggering case of political amnesia,” Atiku said.

He pointed out that the APC governed Nigeria for eight years before Tinubu assumed office in May 2023.

The former Vice-President added that Tinubu’s administration had spent more than three years in power, bringing the party’s period of federal government to approximately 11 years.

“Nigerians know who has been in power, and hardship did not begin when the opposition started talking about it. Stop insulting their intelligence and answer for your record,” he said.

Atiku maintained that the economic difficulties confronting households and businesses could not be dismissed by blaming opposition politicians for raising concerns about the cost of living.

He argued that the administration should explain the effects of its decisions and demonstrate how its policies were improving the welfare of ordinary Nigerians.

The disagreement reflects a wider political contest over responsibility for Nigeria’s economic challenges, with the government defending its reforms and opposition figures demanding stronger evidence that the measures are delivering relief to citizens.

Petrol Subsidy Removal Comes Under Renewed Scrutiny

Atiku also questioned the consequences of the petrol subsidy removal introduced by Tinubu shortly after assuming office in 2023.

The policy ended the longstanding system of government support that had kept petrol prices below the levels that would otherwise have prevailed under the previous arrangement.

The government has defended the decision as necessary to reduce the fiscal burden associated with the subsidy and redirect public resources towards other priorities.

However, the removal of the subsidy, combined with changes in the foreign exchange market, contributed to higher fuel prices and increased transportation and production costs.

These pressures have affected households, traders, manufacturers and service providers, many of whom depend on petrol or diesel to transport goods, power equipment or run their businesses.

Atiku challenged Tinubu to explain the economic consequences of the policy and account for the benefits that Nigerians were expected to receive from the reform.

He also questioned the depreciation of the naira, arguing that the combined effects of fuel costs and currency weakness had placed additional pressure on consumers.

The former Vice-President’s criticism forms part of a broader disagreement over how Nigeria should balance fiscal reform, price stability and immediate relief for households.

While the government has emphasised the need to correct structural economic problems, critics have argued that the burden placed on citizens requires more effective social protection and measures to improve affordability.

Atiku Questions Naira Depreciation and Cost of Living

The ADC presidential candidate raised concerns about the naira’s depreciation against the United States dollar, citing a movement from approximately ₦471 to ₦1,329 to the dollar in his criticism of the administration.

Exchange rates vary according to the period, market and official or parallel-market measure being considered. Nevertheless, the depreciation of the naira has been a major factor in the cost of imported goods and inputs used by Nigerian businesses.

When the local currency loses value, imported food, machinery, raw materials, medicines and other products can become more expensive in naira terms, depending on international prices and other market conditions.

Businesses facing higher import and operating costs may pass some of those increases on to consumers.

The effects can spread through the economy, influencing the prices of transportation, food, household items and services.

Atiku argued that the administration must explain how its economic policies would address these pressures and improve the purchasing power of Nigerians.

The government, meanwhile, has maintained that its reforms are intended to establish a more sustainable economic framework and improve confidence in Nigeria’s financial system.

The central question for households remains whether the benefits of economic adjustment will translate into lower inflation, better incomes, more employment and improved access to essential goods and services.

World Bank Poverty Estimate Raises Further Questions

Atiku also referred to a World Bank estimate that 63 per cent of Nigerians would be living below the national poverty line in 2026.

He used the figure to reinforce his argument that the economic difficulties facing the population require urgent attention and clear explanations from the government.

Poverty estimates depend on the methodology used, the poverty threshold, the period covered and the underlying household data. The figure cited by Atiku should therefore be considered in the context of the relevant World Bank assessment rather than treated as a complete description of every household’s circumstances.

Nevertheless, poverty and the rising cost of living remain important issues in the national debate.

For low-income households, increases in food and transport prices can consume a large proportion of available earnings, leaving less money for healthcare, education, housing and savings.

The impact can also be severe for informal-sector workers and small business owners whose earnings fluctuate from day to day.

Atiku argued that the administration’s response should focus on the experiences of Nigerians facing these pressures and provide credible evidence that government policies are improving living conditions.

The debate also highlights the importance of reliable poverty data in evaluating government programmes and determining whether social-protection measures are reaching those who need assistance.

Abuja-Kaduna Expressway Inauguration Criticised

Atiku also criticised Tinubu over the inauguration of the Abuja-Kaduna Expressway, alleging that the road had not been completed when the President announced the project milestone.

He questioned the decision to commission the road from inside a stadium rather than demonstrate that the relevant construction work had been completed.

“Your decision to commission the unfinished Abuja to Kaduna Expressway from inside a stadium shows how far removed you are from the daily reality of Nigerians. A road cannot be completed with a speech or a ribbon cutting ceremony,” Atiku said.

The criticism raises broader questions about the difference between announcing an infrastructure milestone and delivering a completed, usable public project.

Road projects can involve several stages, including construction, rehabilitation, inspections, safety checks and the completion of individual sections. An accurate assessment requires details about the sections covered by the inauguration and the work remaining at the time.

The government has highlighted infrastructure development as part of its broader policy agenda. Atiku’s allegation, however, underscores the importance of transparent project reporting so that citizens can establish what has been completed, what remains outstanding and how public funds have been used.

For commuters and businesses using the Abuja-Kaduna route, the practical value of the project ultimately depends on the road’s condition, safety and accessibility.

Questions Over Budgeting and Public Expenditure

The former Vice-President also raised questions about the Federal Government’s budget implementation arrangements, including the extension of the 2024 budget into 2025 alongside the implementation of a separate 2025 budget.

He argued that the administration should explain how its expenditure decisions were managed and what results were achieved from the public resources involved.

Atiku further questioned figures he cited concerning energy security spending and pipeline-related expenditure by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC).

According to his statement, ₦7.13 trillion was recorded under energy security in 2024, while ₦11.2 trillion was associated with pipeline-related spending by NNPC.

He called for explanations of the figures, including information about the beneficiaries, the purposes of the expenditure and the results delivered.

The figures and the interpretation attached to them require examination against the relevant official budget documents, financial statements and audit records before conclusions can be drawn about the nature or legality of the expenditure.

Public spending can cover a variety of purposes, and amounts recorded under broad categories may include different projects, obligations or transactions. Establishing whether expenditure was appropriate requires examining the underlying records and applicable procedures.

Atiku’s questions nevertheless highlight the importance of transparent public financial management, particularly where large sums are involved.

The government and relevant institutions can help address such concerns by providing clear explanations, publishing verifiable records and ensuring that expenditure is subject to appropriate oversight.

Insecurity Also Features in Atiku’s Criticism

Atiku extended his criticism beyond the economy to the security situation in Nigeria.

He questioned the administration’s response to killings, kidnappings and the displacement of communities affected by violence.

Insecurity has remained a major concern in several parts of the country, with residents facing threats from armed criminal groups, insurgents and other violent actors.

Attacks can destroy livelihoods, interrupt farming and commercial activities, force families to leave their homes and increase the need for humanitarian assistance.

Atiku argued that the government should answer questions about its response to these challenges rather than shift responsibility to political opponents.

Security policy involves multiple factors, including intelligence gathering, the deployment of personnel, criminal investigations, border management and cooperation between federal, state and local authorities.

Assessing performance therefore requires examining concrete outcomes, including the protection of communities, the prevention of attacks, the rescue of abducted people and the prosecution of those responsible for serious crimes.

The persistence of insecurity has made public safety another major issue likely to feature prominently in discussions about the government’s record.

Economic Accountability Moves to the Centre of the 2027 Debate

The exchange between Tinubu and Atiku illustrates how economic hardship is becoming an increasingly prominent subject in political debate ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

Tinubu’s administration has defended its reforms as necessary to address longstanding fiscal and economic problems. The President has also argued that his government is working to improve the country’s economic prospects.

Atiku, in contrast, has focused on the immediate costs of those policies and demanded explanations for their effects on households and businesses.

The disagreement reflects two competing approaches to evaluating economic policy: the government’s emphasis on structural adjustments and longer-term objectives, and the opposition’s emphasis on the present consequences for citizens and the administration’s responsibility to deliver measurable relief.

Both the policy choices and their outcomes are relevant to a comprehensive assessment.

Economic reforms may be designed to correct longstanding problems, but their implementation also raises questions about the distribution of costs, the adequacy of social protection and the time required for expected benefits to reach households.

For voters and other citizens, the important considerations include the direction of prices, employment opportunities, household purchasing power, access to essential services and the transparency of public spending.

The debate is therefore likely to extend beyond political statements to the evidence available on economic performance and the experiences of Nigerians across different income groups.

Atiku Abubakar’s criticism of Tinubu over hunger and poverty has intensified the debate about responsibility for Nigeria’s economic difficulties after more than 11 years of APC rule at the federal level.

The former Vice-President has challenged the President to explain the effects of petrol subsidy removal, naira depreciation, budget implementation decisions, public expenditure and the government’s response to insecurity.

Tinubu, for his part, has blamed opposition politicians for creating hunger and poverty while defending his administration’s performance and economic reform agenda.

The competing claims underline the need to distinguish political arguments from independently verifiable evidence. Assessing the government’s record requires examining economic data, public accounts, infrastructure delivery, security outcomes and the effectiveness of measures intended to protect vulnerable households.

As the 2027 election approaches, economic hardship and government accountability are likely to remain central issues in the national conversation.

Ultimately, citizens will need reliable information about policy decisions and their outcomes to assess the competing claims and determine whether the measures pursued by those in power are delivering meaningful improvements in their daily lives.