Atiku

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has criticised President Bola Tinubu’s administration over the state of the Nigerian economy, calling on the President to apologise to Nigerians and leave office.

Atiku made the demand in a statement issued by Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communications of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council.

The former vice-president described the Tinubu administration as one of the most ruinous governments Nigeria has experienced and accused it of making life increasingly difficult for citizens while continuing to accumulate debt.

“A government that says more money is coming in must explain why it keeps borrowing and why the people paying for its policies cannot see the promised gains.”

He cited figures from the Debt Management Office, which put Nigeria’s public debt at ₦166.79 trillion as of June 30, 2026, compared with ₦49.85 trillion in March 2023.

“After more than three years of demanded sacrifice, Nigerians are left with higher food, transport and energy bills, strained public services and a recorded public debt of ₦166.79 trillion as at 30 June 2026, according to the Debt Management Office.

“Nigeria’s recorded public debt stood at ₦49.85 trillion in March 2023 and ₦166.79 trillion by June 2026.

“I expect President Tinubu to put the full account before Nigerians. He should identify the old debt newly recorded, the foreign debt whose naira value rose with the exchange rate, and every new loan contracted since he assumed office. He should show what has been repaid and what remains outstanding. Accounting explanations must not become a hiding place for fresh borrowing,” he said.

Atiku also criticised what he described as a gap between official claims of economic recovery and the experience of ordinary Nigerians.

“The Tinubu economy is producing two Nigerias: one in which ordinary citizens are suffocating under rising food, fuel, transport, electricity, education and housing costs, and another in which those with wealth, access and privilege are far better positioned to protect and multiply their fortunes.”

“That is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of these reforms. Government celebrates macroeconomic indicators while millions of citizens struggle to translate those statistics into food on the table.

“An economy cannot be declared successful simply because government revenue is rising, reserves are improving or official statistics look better while the purchasing power of ordinary citizens is being destroyed. The true test of economic policy is whether Nigerians can afford food, transportation, housing, education, healthcare and electricity,” he said.

He further pointed to rising fuel prices, saying petrol had sold for about ₦1,400 per litre in Lagos and Abuja and as high as ₦1,500 in parts of northern Nigeria in September. He also said diesel prices had exceeded ₦2,000 per litre.

“The philosophy of an economic reform cannot be that the poor surrender more and more while those already insulated from hardship become increasingly comfortable. Nigerians were promised that today’s pain would produce tomorrow’s gain. After more than three years, they are entitled to ask: gain for whom?

“A mother cannot feed her children with a government revenue announcement. A worker cannot pay transport fare with a speech about reform. Nigerians do not eat GDP figures, FAAC allocations or PowerPoint presentations. The numbers must eventually arrive at the dinner table,” he said.

Atiku also raised concerns over the amount of government revenue being used to service Nigeria’s debt.

“BudgIT reported that by the third quarter of 2025, debt service had reached ₦12.52 trillion against ₦18.63 trillion in revenue — 67.2 per cent. In practical terms, roughly ₦67 out of every ₦100 of the revenue reflected in those figures went to debt service.”

“Money committed to debt service is money unavailable for competing public needs. Nigerians were told to endure the pain because there would be gains. Where are those gains?”

He referred to remarks made by Tinubu at the Africa Forward Summit in Nairobi in May, where the President reportedly said Nigeria expected to spend about $11.6 billion on debt servicing in 2026.

“If President Tinubu understands abroad what debt payments are taking away from Nigeria, then he must explain at home why the borrowing bill continues to grow.

“History warns us where this road can lead. Fiscal distress does not begin on the day a bailout is announced. It develops when borrowing becomes routine, debt service consumes an ever-larger share of available revenue and governments repeatedly borrow to finance gaps that previous borrowing failed to close.

“Nigerians should not have to wait for creditors to tell them what their household budgets already reveal.”

Atiku also called for greater disclosure of the country’s external debt-service obligations for the second quarter of 2026.

He said the President and the All Progressives Congress (APC) should apologise to Nigerians over the hardship he attributed to the administration’s economic policies since 2023.

“President Tinubu should apologise to the families who can no longer afford decent meals; to workers whose wages disappear on transportation before the month has properly begun; to parents struggling to pay school fees; to pensioners whose incomes have been destroyed by inflation; and to businesses fighting daily to keep their doors open.

“Nigerians were asked to sacrifice. Fuel subsidy was removed. The naira was allowed to depreciate sharply. Electricity and transportation costs rose. Government revenues increased, yet borrowing continued. After all of this, the Nigerian people are entitled to ask one simple question: what exactly did our sacrifice buy?

“An apology is not too much to ask from a government under whose watch millions of Nigerians have been pushed into deeper economic distress. Leadership must have the humility to admit when policies have inflicted enormous pain on the people they were supposed to serve.

“Good economics must ultimately improve human life. If government revenue rises while families become poorer; if debt rises while public services remain inadequate; if citizens surrender subsidies, pay higher prices and endure declining purchasing power while government continues borrowing, then Nigerians have every right to demand a full account of where their sacrifice has gone.

“President Tinubu and the APC owe Nigerians that account and they owe them an apology. Apologise to Nigerians. Account for the money collected. Reconcile the borrowing. Explain the charges. Show the people what their sacrifice bought. Then make a solemn pledge to step away from governance rather than ask Nigerians for another mandate to endure this suffering.

“The real test of this economy is not whether the numbers look good in government presentations. It is whether ordinary Nigerians can afford to live.

“Reconcile the borrowing. Explain the charges. Show Nigerians what their sacrifice bought. Apologise for the hardship. And leave governance to those prepared to make life affordable again.”

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice President and presidential candidate under the platform of the ADC in 2027, Atiku Abubakar has questioned who is constitutionally exercising the powers of the Nigerian presidency following the expiration of the 21-day period since President Bola Ahmed Tinubu left the country on an official three-week vacation.

Atiku raised the issue in a statement posted on Facebook on Monday, September 21, 2026, citing Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, which sets out the procedure for the transfer of presidential functions during the President’s temporary absence.

The Presidency announced on August 30 that Tinubu had departed Nigeria for Europe to begin a three-week vacation as part of his annual leave. According to the announcement by his Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the President was expected to return after the working vacation.

Section 145(1) of the Constitution states that whenever the President proceeds on vacation or is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, he shall transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The provision further states that the Vice President shall perform the functions of the President as Acting President under the prescribed arrangement.

The same section provides that where the President is unable or fails to transmit the declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly shall, through a resolution supported by a simple majority in each chamber, mandate the Vice President to perform the functions of President as Acting President.

Atiku said Nigerians had not been shown any such constitutional communication transferring presidential authority to Vice President Kashim Shettima.

“President Tinubu left Nigeria on 30 August. The Presidency publicly announced a three-week vacation. Yet, to date, Nigerians have not been shown any constitutional letter transmitting presidential authority to Vice President Kashim Shettima,” he wrote.

He called on the Presidency to publish the letter if it exists and argued that, in the absence of such a declaration after 21 days, the National Assembly should explain why the constitutional procedure had not been activated.

“This is not a matter of political convenience. It is a matter of constitutional order,” Atiku said.

His comments come as Shettima is in New York representing Tinubu at the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly. The Presidency said Tinubu mandated his deputy to lead Nigeria’s delegation to the UNGA, which begins its general debate on September 22.

Atiku also questioned the situation against the backdrop of recent domestic challenges, including the deaths of 37 Nigerians in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps in Minna and rising petrol prices in parts of the country.

He argued that the circumstances required Nigerians to know clearly who was exercising presidential authority and under what constitutional provision.

“Nigeria cannot be governed by assumptions. It cannot be governed by presidential social-media posts from Europe,” Atiku wrote.

“It cannot be governed by photographs from private dinners at the Élysée Palace.

“It cannot be governed on autopilot.”

The former Vice President further urged the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to clarify whether they had received any communication from Tinubu under Section 145(1).

He also called on the National Assembly to explain its position if no declaration had been transmitted within the constitutionally stipulated period.

“The Presidency should therefore tell Nigerians immediately whether President Tinubu transmitted the declaration contemplated by Section 145(1) before leaving the country,” Atiku said.

“The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House should equally tell Nigerians whether such a communication was received.

“And if no declaration was transmitted within the constitutionally stipulated period, the National Assembly must explain why the procedure provided by Section 145(2) has not been activated.”

Atiku concluded by asking: “Who, constitutionally, is in charge of Nigeria?”

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has rejected allegations by the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council that he compromised Nigeria’s interests in the Mambilla hydropower project.

Atiku, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, said the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris did not find him guilty of corruption or rule that he received a $500,000 bribe linked to the project.

His response came after the APC campaign council called on him to withdraw from the 2027 presidential race over allegations connected to the Mambilla project and a payment made to Jennifer Douglas, his then-wife, in 2003.

The dispute followed the ICC tribunal’s recent ruling in favour of Nigeria in the arbitration involving Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and the Federal Government.

The tribunal rejected Sunrise’s claims over the Mambilla project and ordered the company and its promoter, Leno Adesanya, to reimburse Nigeria for part of its legal expenses. Reports on the award put the recoverable Nigerian legal costs at about $11.82 million.

A major issue examined during the arbitration was a $500,000 payment that Adesanya transferred through China Castle Investments Limited to Douglas’s United States bank account on January 30, 2003.

Adesanya told the tribunal that the money represented a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku. The tribunal, however, rejected his explanation because it was not supported by sufficient documentary evidence.

The APC subsequently linked the payment to negotiations over the Mambilla project and alleged that Atiku, who was vice-president at the time, worked with then Minister of Power Olu Agunloye to facilitate the contract.

Atiku, through a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, challenged the APC to identify where the ICC award made the alleged finding against him.

He accused the ruling party of presenting allegations considered during the arbitration as though they amounted to a corruption verdict.

“The APC cannot manufacture the missing finding simply because the actual award does not provide the political conclusion it desperately wants,” Atiku said.

He added:

“Nigeria alleged before the tribunal that the transfer was connected to the disputed Mambilla contract. Sunrise and Adesanya denied that allegation.

“Adesanya offered an explanation which the tribunal did not accept.

“But an unsuccessful explanation by Leno Adesanya does not automatically become a corruption verdict against Atiku Abubakar.

“I was not a member of the technical process that evaluated the competing proposals and recommended Sunrise. I did not sit on the procurement panel.

“I did not award the contract. So anyone alleging that I manipulated that process has a simple responsibility: show the instruction I gave, show the intervention I made, and show the paragraph of the tribunal award where that corrupt influence was found.

“If the tribunal wanted to find that the $500,000 was a bribe paid to Atiku, it could have said so plainly. If it wanted to find that Atiku abused his office to procure the contract for Sunrise, it could have said so plainly.

“The APC cannot insert into an international arbitral award words and conclusions that the arbitrators themselves did not put there.”

Atiku Rejects Claim That Tribunal Summoned Him

The former vice-president also disputed the claim that the tribunal summoned him to give evidence but that he refused to appear.

He said the fact that former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and the late Muhammadu Buhari participated in the proceedings did not mean that he was also summoned.

“For the avoidance of doubt, I was not a party to the arbitration and I did not testify before the tribunal,” Atiku said.

“The reported contents of the award do not establish that the tribunal summoned me, ordered me to testify or found that I disobeyed any directive to appear.

“There is a world of difference between a party to an arbitration attempting to secure somebody’s testimony and the tribunal itself summoning that person to appear.

“Those distinctions matter. The APC cannot erase them simply because doing so makes for a more convenient headline.”

Atiku also compared the allegations against him with the long-running controversy over a $460,000 forfeiture involving President Bola Tinubu in the United States.

The ICC proceedings themselves examined Atiku’s role in the Mambilla project and his reported involvement in discussions around the project. However, reports on the final award indicate that the tribunal did not make a finding that Atiku personally received the $500,000 as a bribe.

The arbitration arose from a dispute between Sunrise and the Nigerian government over the Mambilla hydropower project. Sunrise had sought billions of dollars in claims against Nigeria, but the tribunal ultimately ruled against the company’s claims.

The latest exchange has added another political dimension to the Mambilla controversy, with the APC and Atiku offering different interpretations of what the ICC tribunal’s findings mean for the former vice-president.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has questioned the Federal Government over the rising cost of petrol, following the latest increase in the pump price to N1,470 per litre.

Atiku, through his spokesperson, Phrank Shaibu, said the development had added to the economic pressure confronting Nigerians, especially as higher fuel prices continue to affect transportation, food and other household expenses.

The former vice president also challenged the government to explain how the savings from the removal of the petrol subsidy have been used to cushion the impact of rising living costs.

According to him, Nigerians who have endured the effects of subsidy removal deserve to know what has happened to the funds saved by the government.

He said, “Petrol at N1,470 per litre is not merely a figure at the filling station. It enters the price of transportation, food, school runs, farming, manufacturing and virtually everything Nigerians buy. Every increase at the pump travels directly into the household budget.

“After all the pain imposed on Nigerians, they have a right to ask: where are the subsidy savings and where is the money?”

Atiku, who is the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, also compared the current petrol price with the situation in 2008, when crude oil prices were significantly higher but petrol sold at a much lower price under the administration of the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.

“With crude oil around $102.52 per barrel, Nigerians are paying as much as N1,470 per litre. In 2008, when crude oil reached about $147 per barrel, petrol sold at N65 per litre under the Yar’Adua administration. The difference is that government then understood that economic policy must ultimately protect the welfare of citizens,” he stressed.

The latest increase in petrol prices has continued to raise concerns over its wider effect on the cost of living, with transportation operators, businesses and households facing higher operating and daily expenses.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Federal Government has rejected former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s proposal to restore petrol subsidy if elected president in 2027, describing the plan as a threat to the reforms introduced in Nigeria’s petroleum sector.

The government argued that returning to subsidy could create fresh legal and fiscal challenges while discouraging investment in domestic refining, including the Dangote Refinery and other modular refineries.

The position was conveyed by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, in response to Atiku’s proposal.

Onanuga described the former vice-president’s position as retrogressive and fiscally unsustainable, accusing him of making the proposal out of “desperation to win the presidency”.

He maintained that Nigeria’s petroleum sector had undergone fundamental changes since Tinubu announced the removal of petrol subsidy shortly after assuming office.

Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, also defended the policy, saying subsidy removal generated N15.8 trillion for the federation between June 2023 and December 2025.

According to Oyedele, the Federal Government received N5.4 trillion from the resources, while N10.4 trillion was distributed to state and local governments.

Tinubu has also criticised Atiku’s proposal, arguing that it reflects a lack of understanding of governance and economic management.

The President made the remarks when he received Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke at the State House.

Atiku, who is now the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, has made the restoration of petrol subsidy a major part of his 2027 campaign.

The former vice-president had supported subsidy removal during the 2023 election campaign but now argues that Nigerians have not seen sufficient benefits from the policy.

He has said the revenue generated after the subsidy removal has not translated into improved living conditions or affordable food for ordinary Nigerians.

Atiku has proposed a different intervention for the oil and gas sector, with emphasis on domestic refining. He said any government support should be capped, included in the budget and tied to verifiable production and measurable benefits for consumers.

He also proposed that crude allocated under the programme should be tracked to ensure that Nigerians benefit from the intervention.

Atiku said his proposal would not amount to a return to the opaque subsidy arrangement of the past. Instead, he described it as a controlled mechanism designed to support Nigerian refineries and ensure that cheaper crude feedstock benefits consumers.

However, economists have expressed differing views on whether restoring subsidy would provide a sustainable solution to Nigeria’s economic difficulties.

Prof. Uche Uwaleke, President of the Capital Market Academics of Nigeria, CMAN, said the debate should focus beyond the immediate appeal of cheaper petrol.

He argued that the central question should be how scarce public resources could be used sustainably to improve citizens’ welfare.

Uwaleke noted that the former subsidy system placed a heavy burden on public finances and created opportunities for arbitrage, smuggling and rent-seeking.

“The success of subsidy removal should not be measured simply by whether government stopped paying the subsidy.

“It should be measured by whether it succeeded in converting that difficult sacrifice into a more productive economy, stronger public services, increased domestic production and a better quality of life for the ordinary Nigerian,” he said.

Prof. Ken Ife, a global financial analyst and development economist, also opposed the idea of returning to a blanket subsidy regime merely to reduce petrol prices.

Ife argued that Nigeria should focus on addressing the structural problems affecting fuel supply and the wider economy instead of artificially reducing pump prices.

He warned that a return to the previous consumption-based subsidy system could recreate the inefficiencies, distortions and financial leakages associated with the former arrangement.

“In broad macroeconomic terms, and even in development economies, you do not subsidise consumption. What you subsidise is production.

“You cannot borrow money to pay for subsidy. That is unlawful when you consider Fiscal Responsibility Act. It does not recognise that as a legitimate expenditure or as a legitimate borrowing,” he said.

Despite the government’s defence of subsidy removal, some Nigerians say the policy has brought severe economic pressure.

A civil servant, Ibrahim Abbas, said workers had expected the savings from subsidy removal to enable the government to accelerate infrastructure development and strengthen the economy.

“The only thing we civil servants have experienced since subsidy was removed is economic hardship and a huge depletion of the purchasing power of the Naira.

“The implementation of the new minimum wage is still shrouded in confusion, and all these make Atiku’s proposal attractive to ordinary Nigerians ” he said.

A retired civil servant, Sule Aliu, similarly said the economic situation had been particularly difficult for retirees since the subsidy was removed in 2023.

The disagreement over petrol subsidy is expected to remain a major issue in the build-up to the 2027 presidential election, with the Tinubu administration defending its decision to end the policy while Atiku presents its restoration as part of his campaign promise.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has said his proposed fuel subsidy policy will focus on supporting crude supplied to Nigerian refineries rather than subsidising imported petrol if he wins the 2027 presidential election.

Atiku, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, said the policy is designed to lower the cost of petrol through cheaper crude feedstock for domestic refineries.

He made the clarification in a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, on Friday.

The statement followed criticism of Atiku’s proposal to restore fuel subsidy, particularly concerns over whether such a policy could compel private refineries to sell petrol below their production costs.

Atiku said recent comments from Dangote Refinery about government-imposed petrol prices had been misrepresented by the administration of President Bola Tinubu.

“Dangote raised a legitimate business concern. The presidency turned it into a campaign of fear,” the statement reads.

“A refinery that has invested billions of dollars cannot be commanded to sell indefinitely below cost and absorb the losses.

“That would be reckless, economically destructive and unfair to any private investor. But that is precisely why our proposal is different.”

‘We’ll Subsidise Production, Not Imports’

According to Atiku, his proposed model would redirect fuel subsidy towards crude supplied to local refineries instead of imported petrol.

“We are restoring subsidy through a production subsidy model, not an import subsidy model,” he said.

“The difference is simple enough for every Nigerian to understand. Import subsidy spends public money supporting petrol refined abroad and brought into Nigeria.

“Production subsidy supports crude refined here in Nigeria so that Nigerian refineries can produce fuel more cheaply and Nigerians can pay less.”

The former vice-president compared the proposed approach to government support for farmers, where assistance is provided to reduce the cost of producing food rather than subsidising imported food.

“That is exactly what we are proposing for fuel. We are restoring subsidy but moving it from importation to production. The subsidy follows the barrel refined in Nigeria,” he said.

He said qualifying domestic refineries would receive support through a transparent and capped system subject to independent verification. The arrangement, he added, would reduce the cost of crude used by the refineries.

“If the crude entering a refinery becomes cheaper, the cost of producing petrol should also come down,” he said.

“That reduction should then reach the average Nigerian while preserving legitimate refining costs and a reasonable commercial margin.”

Atiku also rejected the suggestion that his proposal would require private refineries to sell their products at a loss.

“The Tinubu Presidency knows this. If it pretends otherwise, then it is not confused. It is deliberately misleading Nigerians,” Atiku.

‘No Subsidy For Foreign Refineries’

Atiku said his proposed intervention would be restricted to crude refined within Nigeria, with local refineries, workers, businesses and consumers expected to benefit from the policy.

“Under our plan, support will be tied strictly to crude refined in Nigeria. Nigerian refineries will benefit. Nigerian workers will benefit. Nigerian businesses will benefit. Nigerian consumers will benefit,” he said.

“If you do not refine in Nigeria, you do not qualify. This is not a subsidy for foreign refineries. It is not a subsidy for importers. It is not a subsidy for middlemen. It is a subsidy for Nigerian production.”

The ADC candidate further said his administration would not dictate an arbitrary petrol pump price to domestic refineries.

“If government wants to provide additional relief beyond what lower crude-input costs can sustainably deliver, then government must pay for that relief openly,” he said.

“It must be budgeted. It must be capped. It must be audited. Nigerians must know exactly what is being spent and what they are receiving in return.”

Atiku said the government should not set a politically attractive petrol price while leaving private refiners to absorb the resulting losses.

“You cannot announce a politically convenient petrol price and quietly dump the cost on the refinery,” he said.

“That is not policy. That is confiscation by another name.”

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Vice Presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, NDC, Rabi’u Kwankwaso, has called on the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, Atiku Abubakar, to abandon his 2027 presidential ambition and support the NDC.

Kwankwaso made the appeal on Thursday when he received members of the Fulani Farmers Association at his residence in Abuja.

The former Kano State governor urged Atiku to step aside for the NDC ticket and assured him that he would be taken care of if the party eventually wins the presidency.

“Step down for us; if we win, we will take care of you,” Kwankwaso said.

The appeal comes amid ongoing efforts by opposition politicians to form a united front against President Bola Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Atiku, a former Vice President, remains one of the prominent opposition figures seeking the presidency in 2027.

Kwankwaso and the NDC presidential candidate, Peter Obi, had previously been associated with the ADC before they left the party in May. They cited internal divisions and court cases within the party as reasons for their departure.

Their move to the NDC has added to the realignment among opposition politicians ahead of the next presidential election.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has accused President Bola Tinubu’s administration of worsening the operating environment for Nigerian businesses while foreign investors continue to withdraw capital from the country.

Atiku, who is the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), made the allegation in a statement issued on Tuesday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu.

He cited data from the Nigerian Exchange, which showed that foreign investors invested ₦513.36 billion in the Nigerian equities market between January and July 2026 but withdrew ₦779.43 billion, resulting in a net capital outflow of ₦266.07 billion.

According to Atiku, foreign outflows exceeded inflows in every month within the period, with the net outflow about 11.7 times higher than the ₦22.68 billion recorded during the corresponding period of 2023.

“This is not merely an investment statistic. It is a confidence verdict on the Tinubu economy,” the statement read.

The former vice-president also criticised the Federal Government’s rising domestic borrowing, which he said increased by 90.5 per cent to ₦24.7 trillion within eight months.

He claimed that government credit had grown more than four times faster than credit available to the private sector.

“So, the picture is now painfully clear: Tinubu’s government is crowding Nigerian businesses out of the domestic credit market while foreign investors are taking their money and heading for the exit,” he said.

Atiku further listed rising food prices, transportation costs and business expenses among the challenges facing Nigerians.

“Local businesses are suffocating. Foreign capital is fleeing. Government borrowing is exploding. Food prices has skyrocketed. Transportation costs are crushing families.”

He accused the Tinubu administration of celebrating its economic reforms despite what he described as worsening economic hardship.

Atiku argued that an economy could not be considered to be recovering when businesses could not access affordable credit, manufacturers faced high operating costs, households experienced declining purchasing power and investors were reluctant to retain their funds in the country.

He said investors were assessing factors such as policy consistency, inflation, purchasing power, regulatory predictability and the prospect of earning sustainable returns.

“And their verdict is increasingly unmistakable: take the money and run,” he said.

The ADC presidential candidate called for policies that would rebuild investor confidence, reduce the cost of doing business and make energy and transportation more affordable while promoting local production.

He argued that the private sector, rather than increased government borrowing, should serve as the main driver of economic growth.

“That is the fundamental difference between Tinubu’s economics of government consumption and Atiku’s economics of private-sector production and household affordability,” he said.

Atiku added: “You cannot borrow the private sector dry, impoverish consumers and then advertise yourself to the world as an investment destination. The investors are already answering the propaganda. They are leaving.”

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, has expressed concern over reports that some young Nigerians are resorting to kidney sales because of worsening economic difficulties.

Atiku made the remarks in a post on X on Thursday, where he linked the reported development to the rising cost of living under the administration of President Bola Tinubu.

The former Vice President said he had received what he described as “disturbing stories” about young Nigerians who were considering the sale of parts of their bodies as a means of raising money.

“I have heard disturbing stories about the extent to which young Nigerians are being driven simply to survive. Perhaps the most horrifying are the growing reports of young people selling parts of their bodies: kidneys in particular, in desperate attempts to raise money,” Atiku wrote.

He maintained that young Nigerians should have opportunities to develop their talents and pursue their ambitions instead of considering the sale of their organs.

According to him, they should be “selling dreams, ideas and innovation, not their body organs,” and described the reported situation as something that should “offend the conscience of every Nigerian.”

Atiku further alleged that some young Nigerians were being pushed to sell their kidneys for as little as ₦1.7m. However, the figure was not linked to a specific report or government agency.

The reported amount could not be independently verified.

Atiku attributed the alleged trend to the pressure caused by the increasing prices of basic necessities, including food, transportation, accommodation, education, healthcare and electricity.

He said, “In Tinubu’s Nigeria, almost everything required to live with dignity is becoming more expensive by the day: food, transport, rent, school fees, medicine and electricity.

“Yet young Nigerians are reportedly being driven to sell their kidneys for as little as ₦1.7 million.

“That should break the heart of a nation.

“Young Nigerians should be building careers, starting businesses, raising families and pursuing their dreams, not calculating how much parts of their bodies can fetch simply to stay alive.

“When young Nigerians begin to see their kidneys as emergency savings, we are no longer talking about ordinary economic hardship. We are talking about desperation at its most frightening.”

The ADC presidential candidate acknowledged that Nigerian laws prohibit the commercial sale of human organs and organ trafficking.

He, however, argued that “laws alone cannot cure the poverty and desperation that make vulnerable young people easy prey for criminal networks.”

Atiku called for economic measures that would address the difficulties faced by ordinary Nigerians. He listed affordable food, lower transportation costs, accessible healthcare, decent employment opportunities and “renewed hope for the next generation” among the measures he said were needed.

He concluded with a criticism of the President, saying, “Tinubu made Nigeria expensive. I will make Nigeria affordable again.”

His comments came amid recent reports of alleged organ trafficking activities in some parts of Nigeria.

The Nigeria Police Force recently paraded four suspects, including two nephrologists, over an alleged organ-trafficking operation.

The police alleged that one of the suspects, Emmanuel Ode, admitted to recruiting victims. Investigators also alleged that a 22-year-old man was taken to a hospital in Abuja in April, where his kidney was allegedly removed for $1,250, said to be about ₦1.7m.

According to investigators, the suspected syndicate targeted vulnerable young people facing financial difficulties in Nasarawa and surrounding areas.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has criticised President Bola Tinubu over his recent comments on proposals aimed at reducing energy costs, saying Nigerians have endured prolonged economic hardship while the government is now promising relief as the 2027 elections draw closer.

Atiku made his position known through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, who issued a statement on Tuesday titled, “Tinubu, the issue is not Atiku — it is why Nigerians can no longer afford to live.”

Shaibu said Atiku was not interested in turning the matter into a personal confrontation with the President. He maintained that the former vice president would continue to advocate policies that could ease the financial burden on Nigerians.

He said, “Atiku has more important people to engage directly: the mother struggling to feed her children; the civil servant whose salary disappears into transportation; the farmer paying more to move produce to market; the student being pushed into debt simply to remain in school; and millions of Nigerians whose daily reality bears no resemblance to the prosperity advertised in your tweets.”

The statement followed Tinubu’s recent criticism of Atiku’s economic proposals, particularly suggestions for reducing energy costs. The President had also rejected the possibility of a return to fuel subsidy arrangements.

Shaibu questioned the timing of the administration’s renewed promises to reduce transportation costs, boost food production and provide assistance to vulnerable Nigerians after years of economic difficulties.

“Why did Nigerians have to suffer for more than three years before your government discovered that economic growth must reach ‘the dining table and the pocket ‘. Why is intervention backwards when Atiku proposes it, but progressive when you announce it?,” he asked.

According to the statement, lowering energy costs could have broader economic benefits because cheaper fuel would reduce transportation and production expenses. This, it said, could eventually bring down the prices of food and other essential commodities.

Shaibu also outlined aspects of the Atiku Economic Recovery Plan, which he said would provide targeted support for Nigerian crude supplied to domestic refineries under a capped and transparently budgeted framework.

He said the proposal would involve tracking crude supplied to refineries, monitoring refined petroleum products and introducing a consumer pass-through mechanism to ensure Nigerians benefit directly from the intervention.

“The economics is straightforward. Reduce fuel costs, and you reduce pressure on transportation. Reduce transportation costs, and you reduce the cost of moving tomatoes, rice, yam, livestock and manufactured goods,” he said.