--- title: "Tinubu Promised to Protect Nigerians' Money. Three Years Later, Can He Justify Another Term?" url: 'https://contextura.world/africa/tinubu-promised-to-protect-nigerians-money-three-years-later-can-he-justify-another-term' markdown: 'https://contextura.world/africa/tinubu-promised-to-protect-nigerians-money-three-years-later-can-he-justify-another-term.md' date: '2026-10-25' description: "In 2023, Bola Tinubu warned Nigerians that Peter Obi would keep saving their money until they went hungry. Today, with poverty widespread, food insecurity persistent, and corruption remaining a serious governance challenge, the question is whether Tinubu's own record can withstand the standard he u…" --- # Tinubu Promised to Protect Nigerians' Money. Three Years Later, Can He Justify Another Term? **In 2023, Bola Tinubu warned Nigerians that Peter Obi would keep saving their money until they went hungry. Today, with poverty widespread, food insecurity persistent, and corruption remaining a serious governance challenge, the question is whether Tinubu's own record can withstand the standard he used to judge his opponents.** In January 2023, while campaigning for the presidency, Bola Ahmed Tinubu attacked his political rivals with a memorable argument about money and economic management. According to Sahara Reporters, he warned that Atiku Abubakar would sell Nigerians' birthright, while Peter Obi would keep saving their money until they went hungry. The statement was intended to persuade voters that prudent financial management was not enough and that a president had to translate national resources into prosperity for ordinary people. That argument now deserves to be applied to the man who made it. Having governed Nigeria since May 2023, Tinubu must be judged not simply by what he promised, but by what Nigerians can afford, what their incomes can buy, what public services they receive and whether the country's economic reforms have improved their lives. The question of a second term should therefore not be reduced to party loyalty, political alliances or the ability to present selected economic indicators as proof of success. A president's record must be assessed against the condition of the country, the hardship endured by its people and the government's own stated objectives. There are signs of improved macroeconomic stability under Tinubu, including stronger foreign exchange conditions at various points, increased government revenues and continued economic growth. But stabilisation is not the same as prosperity, and an economy can grow while millions of people struggle to afford food, transport, housing and healthcare. The central question is whether the gains being reported at the macroeconomic level are reaching ordinary Nigerians at a scale sufficient to justify another four years. ## Poverty is not a political talking point The scale of deprivation in Nigeria remains one of the most serious tests of the administration. The World Bank's 2026 Nigeria overview estimates that 69.6 per cent of Nigerians lived below the lower-middle-income poverty line of US$4.20 per day in 2025, while 50.8 per cent, or approximately 123 million people, lived in extreme poverty under the international measure it reports. These are modelled estimates using an international poverty threshold, not a claim that every person counted has the same circumstances. Nevertheless, they reveal the depth of the economic challenge confronting the country. The same assessment warns that food inflation disproportionately affects poorer households, which can spend up to 70 per cent of their income on food. Source: [World Bank, Nigeria country overview](https://www.worldbank.org/ext/en/country/nigeria). The United Nations Development Programme's 2026 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index presents another disturbing picture. Its latest Nigeria estimate, based on 2024 data, puts multidimensional poverty at 38.7 per cent, up from 33 per cent in 2021. The estimated number of people experiencing overlapping deprivations rose from 72.2 million in 2021 to 90.1 million in 2024. This measure examines disadvantages across health, education and living standards, rather than income alone. The figures are not directly interchangeable with the World Bank's income-poverty estimates, because the measures use different methods and reference periods. Together, however, they show why claims of economic recovery must be tested against household living conditions, not merely national output. Source: [TheCable's report on the UNDP 2026 Multidimensional Poverty Index](https://www.thecable.ng/un-nigerias-multidimensional-poverty-rate-rises-to-38-7-as-17-9m-citizens-battle-deprivation/). These numbers should prompt questions that cannot be answered with speeches about sacrifice. How many Nigerians who were already struggling before the reforms have been lifted into secure employment? How many households can now reliably afford three meals a day? How many young people have found stable, productive work rather than being pushed into precarious informal employment or emigration? How many families can pay school fees, obtain medical care and maintain a decent standard of living without borrowing? A government seeking another mandate should be expected to answer such questions with independently verifiable results. It is not enough to tell people that the economy is improving if the improvement remains beyond their reach. ## The cost of reform and the question of who pays Tinubu's administration removed the petrol subsidy and pursued major changes to the foreign exchange system. The government has defended these policies as necessary to reduce fiscal distortions, improve market functioning and restore economic stability. There are legitimate arguments for reforming a subsidy system that can be costly, poorly targeted and vulnerable to abuse. Likewise, a more transparent foreign exchange market can address distortions that benefit some participants at public expense. The question is not whether Nigeria needed economic reform. It is whether the reforms were designed, sequenced and accompanied by sufficient protections for the people least able to absorb their immediate costs. When petrol prices rise, the impact extends beyond motorists. Transport fares increase, food distribution becomes more expensive, businesses face higher operating costs, and households have less money left for other necessities. When the cost of imported inputs rises through exchange-rate adjustments, businesses may pass those costs to consumers. These effects are particularly severe where wages fail to keep pace with prices, public transport is unreliable, and electricity supply forces households and firms to pay for alternatives. The resulting pressure is not adequately captured by announcing that a subsidy has been removed or that the exchange rate is now more market-driven. A serious assessment must ask who benefited, who paid, how the savings were used and whether the poorest citizens were protected. The International Monetary Fund's 2026 assessment estimated that 63 per cent of Nigerians were living below the national poverty line and that 27 million people faced food insecurity in the autumn of 2025. It also noted that millions of households had been enrolled in the cash-transfer system, but that enrolled households had received at most three transfers of ₦25,000 since 2023 at the time covered by its report. These figures describe a difficult policy environment, not proof that every hardship was caused exclusively by Tinubu's decisions. Nigeria entered his presidency with longstanding structural weaknesses, and global price movements and domestic insecurity have also affected living costs. Yet the purpose of electing a president is to determine whether that leader can manage inherited problems and improve the country's direction, not simply explain why the problems exist. Source: [International Monetary Fund, Nigeria: 2026 Article IV Consultation](https://www.elibrary.imf.org/abstract/journals/002/2026/125/article-A001-en.xml). ## Corruption and the credibility of government A country cannot build public confidence through economic announcements alone. It also needs transparent spending, credible investigations, effective oversight and consequences for the misuse of public resources. Nigeria's performance in Transparency International's 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, published in 2026, should concern anyone assessing the state of public accountability. Nigeria scored 26 out of 100 and ranked 142nd among 182 countries. The index measures perceptions of public-sector corruption, so it is not a count of proven criminal cases and does not establish that a particular official committed an offence. It is, however, an important warning about the country's continuing governance problems. Source: [Transparency International, Nigeria country profile](https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/nigeria). The appropriate response to such a record is not to declare every politician guilty or to treat allegations as convictions. It is to demand transparent procurement, accessible budget information, independent audits, credible investigations and timely prosecution where evidence supports criminal charges. The public should be able to see how money saved through fiscal reforms is spent, how major contracts are awarded, what public projects actually deliver and whether officials are held accountable when public funds are mismanaged. These standards should apply to the ruling party and the opposition alike. Anti-corruption rhetoric has little value if the public cannot see consistent enforcement and measurable improvements in the institutions responsible for protecting public resources. For Tinubu, the issue is straightforward: a government asking Nigerians to accept painful reforms must demonstrate that public sacrifice is matched by public integrity. Citizens should not be expected to endure higher costs indefinitely while questions about spending, public contracts and the quality of services remain unanswered. If the administration believes its record on accountability is strong, it should welcome independent scrutiny and publish evidence that can be tested. If it believes its reforms are working, it should show how the benefits are being distributed, especially among low-income households. ## Economic growth is not the same as a better life Nigeria's economy has continued to grow, and the World Bank reported real GDP growth of 4.0 per cent in 2025. Growth is important because an economy that does not expand cannot sustainably create the jobs, tax revenues and productive opportunities the country needs. But aggregate growth does not tell us how the gains are distributed, whether new jobs pay enough to support a family or whether public services are improving. A rise in national output can coexist with falling purchasing power for households whose incomes grow more slowly than the cost of living. That is why economic performance must be evaluated through a wider set of indicators, including real wages, employment quality, food affordability, electricity access, school attendance, healthcare costs and poverty reduction. Source: [World Bank, Nigeria data](https://data.worldbank.org/country/ng). The administration should be asked to publish clear, comparable measures of progress from the beginning of its term to the present. How has the purchasing power of workers changed after inflation? How many sustainable jobs have been created, and what proportion of new entrants to the labour market can obtain them? Have the benefits of higher public revenues translated into better roads, reliable electricity, stronger schools and accessible healthcare? How much of the public budget is absorbed by debt servicing, and how much reaches services that improve daily life? These questions are more useful than arguments over whether a single growth figure proves that the government has succeeded or failed. The administration deserves credit for improvements that can be independently demonstrated, just as it must answer for setbacks linked to its decisions. But economic growth should be treated as one component of the verdict, not the verdict itself. The purpose of economic policy is ultimately to improve people's lives, not merely to improve the appearance of national accounts. ## What did Tinubu promise, and what has he delivered? The political irony of Tinubu's 2023 warning about Peter Obi is difficult to ignore. He presented the prospect of saving money without ensuring people's welfare as a failure of leadership. That standard applies to any government that celebrates fiscal restraint while households cannot meet basic needs. It also applies to governments that spend heavily without delivering meaningful results. Neither saving money nor spending it is inherently virtuous. The real test is whether public resources are managed responsibly and converted into improvements that Nigerians can see and experience. Tinubu's defenders can reasonably point to inherited economic problems, the need to remove long-standing distortions and the possibility that some reforms will take years to yield their full benefits. Those arguments deserve examination rather than automatic dismissal. But a promise of future gains cannot become a permanent exemption from accountability. The administration must show which policies are working, which have failed, what has been changed in response and how long citizens are expected to wait for tangible improvements. Where hardship was foreseeable, the government should also explain why adequate safeguards were not introduced earlier or why existing support proved insufficient. The opposition, in turn, should be expected to explain how it would address the same structural problems, fund its proposals and avoid repeating the failures of previous governments. Criticism alone is not a governing programme. Nigerians need credible alternatives, detailed policy commitments and leaders willing to submit their promises to measurable scrutiny. The standard should be the same for every candidate: clear plans, transparent financing, realistic timelines and a willingness to be held responsible for results. ## Should another term be treated as the default? A second term is not an automatic reward for occupying the presidency, nor should it be rejected without considering the evidence. It is a request for voters to entrust the same leadership with another period in office. That request should be assessed against the record already accumulated: the condition of household finances, the scale of poverty and food insecurity, the effectiveness of social protection, the quality of public services, the credibility of anti-corruption efforts and the government's ability to create productive opportunities. The burden of explanation belongs to an incumbent who wants more time, particularly when the policies pursued during the first term have imposed substantial costs on the public. The relevant question is not whether Tinubu can point to a favourable statistic or whether his opponents can produce an alarming one. It is whether the total record demonstrates that the country is moving towards greater security, prosperity and accountability, and whether the government has a credible plan to correct the areas where progress has been inadequate. The data on poverty and deprivation are serious enough to make a complacent case for continuity difficult. At the same time, the strongest public argument must acknowledge improvements where they exist and distinguish between outcomes caused by government policy, longstanding structural conditions and external events. Nigerians should not have to choose between unquestioning loyalty and unsubstantiated condemnation. They should demand evidence, compare credible alternatives and judge the administration by the results it has delivered. The presidency is a public trust, not a private entitlement, and no party should be allowed to treat a second term as the natural conclusion of its first. ## Nigerians deserve answers, not another slogan In 2023, Tinubu warned that Peter Obi might save Nigerians' money until they went hungry. Three years later, poverty, food insecurity and the cost of living remain central tests of his own administration. The figures do not, by themselves, settle every causation question or prove that every policy has failed. They do establish that the scale of deprivation is too large for the government to rely on claims of macroeconomic progress without demonstrating how that progress reaches ordinary people. The case for another term must therefore be made with evidence, not entitlement. Tinubu's government should explain what has improved, what has deteriorated, who has benefited from reform and what concrete changes Nigerians can expect if the administration continues. Opposition parties should be required to meet the same standard. The public deserves a debate rooted in measurable outcomes, honest accounting and credible alternatives, rather than slogans that condemn opponents for risks the ruling party must now answer for itself. **Contextura's position is that no incumbent should be granted another term by default. The decision should turn on the evidence of performance, the cost borne by ordinary Nigerians, the credibility of the available alternatives and the public's right to demand accountability from every government.** --- ## Navigation - Parent: [Africa](https://contextura.world/africa.md) - Previous: [Nigeria's Political Elite Are Living Like Kings While Citizens Are Told to Endure](https://contextura.world/africa/nigerias-political-elite-are-living-like-kings-while-citizens-are-told-to-endure.md) - Next: [Africa Is Not Hungry Because It Lacks Land: The Politics of Food, Failed Governments, Terrorism and Western Hypocrisy](https://contextura.world/africa/africa-is-not-hungry-because-it-lacks-land-the-politics-of-food-failed-governments-terrorism-and-western-hypocrisy.md)