In a sharp rebuke, the Presidency has dismissed recent remarks by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who warned of widespread hunger and the potential for revolutionary unrest in Nigeria, drawing parallels with historical upheavals like the 1789 French Revolution and the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Atiku’s comments, made public earlier this week, painted a grim picture of Nigeria’s socio-economic landscape, suggesting that deepening poverty and hunger could precipitate a crisis of revolutionary proportions. The Presidency, through a detailed statement issued by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser on Information and Strategy to President Bola Tinubu, described Atiku’s assertions as alarmist, misleading, and disconnected from the realities of Nigeria’s current economic trajectory.
The Presidency’s response was both a defense of the Tinubu administration’s achievements and a pointed critique of Atiku’s narrative, which it characterized as rooted in political opportunism rather than fact. Onanuga accused Atiku and his associates within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) of clinging to “doomsday scenarios and revolutionary rhetoric” while ignoring measurable progress under the current government. The statement sought to counter Atiku’s claims by presenting a data-driven account of Nigeria’s economic gains, emphasizing improvements in inflation, trade balances, foreign reserves, and fiscal management at the state level. Furthermore, the Presidency took aim at Atiku’s tenure as Vice President, attributing many of Nigeria’s current challenges to alleged economic mismanagement during the PDP’s 16-year rule from 1999 to 2015.
Atiku’s Warning: Hunger and the Specter of Revolution
Atiku Abubakar, a prominent opposition figure and the PDP’s presidential candidate in the 2019 and 2023 elections, sparked controversy with his recent remarks on the state of the nation. Speaking at a public event, Atiku drew historical analogies to argue that Nigeria’s growing economic hardships, particularly hunger and poverty, could lead to widespread unrest. He referenced the French Revolution, a period marked by social inequality and economic distress, and the Bolshevik Revolution, which arose from discontent with governance and economic stagnation, as cautionary tales for Nigeria’s leadership. Atiku’s central argument was that the current levels of hunger and economic deprivation could push citizens to the brink, potentially triggering a revolt if the government fails to address these issues urgently.
His comments come against the backdrop of Nigeria’s well-documented economic challenges, including high inflation, unemployment, and the impact of recent policy reforms such as the removal of fuel subsidies and the unification of the foreign exchange market. These measures, introduced under President Tinubu’s administration, have been contentious, with critics arguing that they have exacerbated living costs for ordinary Nigerians. Atiku’s remarks appeared to capitalize on public discontent, positioning him as a voice for the masses while casting the current administration as out of touch with the struggles of everyday citizens.
The Presidency’s Counter-Narrative: Progress and Economic Gains
In its response, the Presidency sought to dismantle Atiku’s narrative by highlighting what it described as tangible progress under President Tinubu’s leadership. Bayo Onanuga, in a statement released to the press, dismissed Atiku’s comparisons to historical revolutions as exaggerated and inflammatory. “Talk is cheap,” Onanuga declared, accusing Atiku and his handlers of being “clearly out of touch with the positive developments currently unfolding in our country.” The Presidency’s rebuttal leaned heavily on economic indicators, citing data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) to underscore improvements in key areas.
One of the administration’s flagship claims was the decline in headline inflation for the fifth consecutive month as of August 2025. Inflation, which had reached alarming levels in prior years, has been a persistent challenge for Nigeria, eroding purchasing power and driving up the cost of basic goods and services. The Presidency’s assertion that inflation is now on a downward trajectory suggests that policy measures are beginning to yield results, offering relief to consumers and businesses alike. While the statement did not provide specific figures, the reference to five consecutive months of decline implies a sustained effort to stabilize prices.
In addition to curbing inflation, the Presidency highlighted Nigeria’s trade performance as a marker of economic progress. According to the NBS, the country recorded a record trade surplus over the weekend, driven in part by a significant increase in non-oil exports. Onanuga noted that non-oil exports now account for 48% of Nigeria’s trade balance, nearly matching the contribution of crude oil at 52%. This shift, the Presidency argued, reflects a diversification of the economy away from its historical dependence on oil, a long-standing goal of successive administrations. The growth in non-oil exports, which include agricultural products, manufactured goods, and minerals, is seen as a positive step toward economic resilience and sustainability.
The Presidency also pointed to improvements in Nigeria’s foreign exchange reserves, which have risen to nearly $42 billion from $32 billion when President Tinubu assumed office in May 2023. This increase, amounting to a $10 billion boost in just over two years, was presented as evidence of prudent economic management and enhanced investor confidence. Stronger reserves provide a buffer against external shocks, support the naira’s stability, and enable the government to meet its foreign currency obligations. The Presidency further noted that the Tinubu administration had cleared over $7 billion in inherited arrears, including $800 million owed to international airlines. These payments, it argued, demonstrate the government’s commitment to honoring its debts and fostering a business-friendly environment.
Fiscal Improvements at the State Level
Beyond macroeconomic indicators, the Presidency emphasized improvements in fiscal management at the subnational level. According to Onanuga, states across Nigeria are now better positioned to meet their financial obligations, including the timely payment of salaries and gratuities. This marks a significant departure from previous years when many states struggled with salary arrears, leading to widespread discontent among civil servants. The Presidency attributed this achievement to increased revenue allocations from the federal government, a byproduct of reforms aimed at boosting national revenue. Additionally, states now have surplus funds to invest in capital projects and social programs, enabling them to address critical infrastructure needs and improve service delivery.
The statement framed these developments as unprecedented, suggesting that the scale of fiscal stability under Tinubu’s administration is unmatched by previous governments. “After just two years and five months in office, we are proud of the progress being made under President Tinubu’s leadership,” Onanuga said. “Atiku and his allies may choose to ignore these gains, but Nigerians can see and feel the positive changes taking place across the nation.”
A Jab at the PDP and Atiku’s Legacy
The Presidency’s response was not limited to defending Tinubu’s record; it also went on the offensive, accusing Atiku and the PDP of hypocrisy and selective amnesia. Onanuga argued that many of Nigeria’s current challenges are a legacy of “economic mismanagement” during the PDP’s 16-year tenure, including the eight years when Atiku served as Vice President under President Olusegun Obasanjo from 1999 to 2007. The Presidency did not provide specific examples of mismanagement but implied that policies and decisions made during that period laid the groundwork for the economic difficulties Nigeria faces today.
This line of attack is part of a broader strategy to shift blame away from the current administration and frame the PDP as responsible for Nigeria’s structural challenges. By invoking Atiku’s past role, the Presidency sought to undermine his credibility as a critic, suggesting that his warnings of unrest are motivated by political opportunism rather than genuine concern for the public. The statement accused Atiku and the PDP of being “fixated on doomsday scenarios and revolutionary rhetoric,” implying that their criticisms are designed to incite unrest rather than offer constructive solutions.
Contextualizing Nigeria’s Economic Challenges
While the Presidency’s response was robust in its defense of Tinubu’s achievements, it is worth examining the broader context of Nigeria’s economic situation to assess the validity of both Atiku’s warnings and the government’s counterclaims. Nigeria’s economy has faced significant headwinds in recent years, driven by a combination of global and domestic factors. The COVID-19 pandemic, fluctuations in global oil prices, and insecurity in key agricultural regions have all contributed to economic instability. Additionally, policy decisions such as the removal of fuel subsidies and the floating of the naira have had mixed outcomes, with short-term pain for consumers offset by long-term goals of fiscal sustainability and market-driven exchange rates.
The removal of fuel subsidies, announced in May 2023, was one of Tinubu’s first major policy moves and remains a lightning rod for criticism. While the reform was intended to free up resources for investment in infrastructure and social programs, it led to a sharp increase in fuel prices, which in turn drove up the cost of transportation, food, and other essentials. Critics, including Atiku, have argued that the government failed to implement adequate measures to cushion the impact on vulnerable populations, exacerbating poverty and inequality. The Presidency’s claim of declining inflation suggests that these pressures may be easing, but public perception of economic hardship remains a significant challenge for the administration.
Similarly, the unification of the foreign exchange market, which ended the Central Bank of Nigeria’s practice of maintaining multiple exchange rates, was designed to attract foreign investment and stabilize the naira. While the increase in foreign reserves to $42 billion is a positive sign, the naira’s value has fluctuated significantly, impacting the cost of imported goods and contributing to inflationary pressures. The clearance of $7 billion in arrears, including payments to airlines, is a notable achievement, but it remains to be seen whether these efforts will translate into sustained economic stability.
Public Perception and Political Implications
Atiku’s remarks and the Presidency’s response highlight the deeply polarized nature of Nigeria’s political discourse. Economic issues, particularly those affecting the cost of living, are highly emotive and resonate with a broad cross-section of the population. Atiku’s decision to frame Nigeria’s challenges in revolutionary terms is a calculated move to tap into public frustration, particularly among young people and the urban poor, who have been vocal about their dissatisfaction with the status quo. His reference to historical revolutions may be hyperbolic, but it underscores the urgency of addressing economic inequality and ensuring that the benefits of growth are widely shared.
For its part, the Presidency’s response reflects a strategy of projecting optimism and competence while deflecting criticism onto the opposition. By emphasizing data-driven achievements, the administration seeks to counter perceptions of failure and build public confidence in its reforms. However, the effectiveness of this approach depends on whether Nigerians “see and feel” the progress cited by Onanuga. If the benefits of declining inflation, trade surpluses, and increased reserves do not translate into tangible improvements in living standards, the government risks losing credibility.
Conclusion: A Nation at a Crossroads
The exchange between Atiku and the Presidency encapsulates the broader debate over Nigeria’s economic direction and the role of leadership in addressing its challenges. Atiku’s warnings of hunger and unrest reflect genuine concerns about poverty and inequality, but his revolutionary rhetoric risks inflaming tensions in an already fragile socio-political environment. The Presidency’s rebuttal, while grounded in economic data, must contend with the reality that macroeconomic gains often take time to trickle down to ordinary citizens.
As Nigeria navigates this critical juncture, the government’s ability to communicate its achievements and address public grievances will be crucial. For President Tinubu, the challenge is not only to sustain the economic progress highlighted by the Presidency but also to ensure that these gains translate into meaningful improvements in the lives of Nigerians. For Atiku and the opposition, the task is to offer constructive criticism and viable alternatives rather than relying on alarmist rhetoric. Ultimately, Nigeria’s stability and prosperity depend on a collective effort to bridge the gap between policy outcomes and public expectations, ensuring that the nation avoids the kind of unrest Atiku warns of while building on the progress the Presidency champions.
