Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, Peter Obi, has strongly criticized the President Bola Tinubu-led administration over what he described as the “haphazard implementation” of crucial economic reforms, including the removal of fuel subsidy and the floating of the naira. Speaking in an interview on Arise Television on Monday, Obi stressed that while the policies themselves are not inherently flawed, their poorly thought-out execution has deepened the economic crisis and worsened living conditions for Nigerians.
Obi, a former Anambra State Governor and vocal economic reform advocate, noted that his manifesto had always included subsidy removal and exchange rate unification. However, he insisted that any such reforms should have been executed through a well-organised, productivity-first strategy.
“There was nothing wrong with the removal of the subsidy; what is wrong is the haphazard way in which it was announced and implemented,” Obi stated during the interview.
The former presidential candidate questioned the utilisation of the financial savings supposedly gained from ending the fuel subsidy regime, which government officials have claimed would be redirected towards development projects.
“We’ve done it. Billions have been saved, but where is it? Where are the funds invested in those critical areas?” he queried, stressing the lack of visible improvements in infrastructure, healthcare, education, or security since the subsidy removal.
Obi highlighted the disconnect between policy action and tangible results, arguing that Nigerians continue to face worsening hardship due to inflation, naira devaluation, and lack of supportive economic structures.
A major plank of Obi’s criticism focused on the absence of national productivity—particularly in agriculture and manufacturing—which he believes is crucial for the success of both subsidy removal and naira floatation.
“There’s nothing wrong with floating your currency or devaluing it, but you cannot do this without productivity,” he warned.
“Floating makes your products marketable and attracts investment when you have something to sell. If you’re unproductive, it’s a double whammy—you have nothing to sell and your currency becomes worthless.”
Obi maintained that under his leadership, Nigeria would have taken measured steps to stimulate local production before embarking on any economic liberalisation.
Misplaced Priorities: Security Over Roads
The LP standard bearer also criticized the Tinubu administration for what he called misplaced priorities in national spending, particularly the push for large-scale infrastructure projects like the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway amid persistent insecurity and electricity shortages.
“Security is more fundamental than roads,” Obi said pointedly. “Would you prefer a road to your village when you cannot even drive there due to insecurity?”
He stressed that funds saved from subsidy removal should be ring-fenced for strategic development sectors like security, power, healthcare, and education, instead of being lumped into general revenue or used for prestige projects.
Proposing an inclusive governance model, Obi advocated for stakeholder consultations, especially with key operators in the oil, manufacturing, and forex markets, before rolling out transformative economic reforms.
“You don’t just announce policies. You sit with those affected, agree on a timeline and compensation models, then ring-fence the savings into areas that affect ordinary Nigerians.”
Obi’s remarks reflect growing public dissatisfaction with the outcomes of Tinubu’s bold economic policies, which, though praised by international bodies like the World Bank and IMF for their intent, have yet to deliver relief to Nigeria’s struggling population.
Since the twin policies were announced in mid-2023, inflation has soared above 33%, unemployment remains high, and the naira has lost more than 60% of its value against the dollar. The Central Bank of Nigeria has struggled to stabilise the currency, while food insecurity and fuel prices continue to affect millions.
Peter Obi’s critique adds weight to calls for strategic economic recalibration and underscores the need for practical governance rooted in national productivity, not just textbook economic reforms.