Atiku Vows to Scrap NELFUND, Offers Student Debt Forgiveness if elected

ADC presidential candidate slams Tinubu’s ‘witchcraft economics,’ says President raised school fees before offering loans as ‘rescue’

The presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has vowed to review and effectively scrap the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) policy while providing debt forgiveness for qualifying Nigerian students if elected president in 2027. Atiku’s position was disclosed by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, in a statement issued on Tuesday evening. The statement came in response to President Bola Tinubu’s recent post on X, in which the president criticised Atiku’s economic positions without directly mentioning him. Shaibu dismissed Tinubu’s invocation of NELFUND as proof that education had become more affordable under his administration, describing the argument as dishonest. He contended that the President had first driven up the cost of education before presenting loans as a rescue package. “Celebrating NELFUND as proof that education has become affordable under your government is like setting school fees on fire and then boasting that you lent students a bucket of water,” Shaibu queried. He described the arrangement as “witchcraft economics,” stating: “You make education more expensive, lend students money to survive the increase, and then demand applause for the rescue. That is not affordability. It is witchcraft economics: create the burden with one hand, offer debt with the other, and demand applause for the intervention.”

According to Shaibu, Atiku has already conducted a review of the existing student-loan framework and does not believe young Nigerians should begin their working lives under the weight of education debt. “His approach will reduce the underlying cost of education and, after review, provide forgiveness for qualifying student debts so that young Nigerians can graduate with hope rather than repayment burdens. Education should open doors, not mortgage the future,” said Shaibu. Shaibu insisted that a student loan, by its nature, could not be mistaken for a scholarship, and that the true measure of any education policy was whether families could keep their children in school without being forced into borrowing. He pointed out that government should not “parade the loan itself as evidence that the system is working” once the underlying cost of education has become prohibitive for ordinary families. He further accused the presidency of deploying scare tactics against Nigerian students and workers by suggesting that Atiku’s proposed energy intervention, targeted at Nigerian crude supplied for domestic refining, would somehow undermine NELFUND, cut salaries or reverse the minimum wage. “If your government has the arithmetic, Bola, publish it. Show Nigerians, line by line, how a transparently budgeted subsidy tied to Nigerian crude and domestic refining suddenly empties NELFUND or workers’ pay packets,” he demanded. Shaibu maintained that Atiku’s position was the direct opposite of what the presidency had claimed, insisting that reducing the cost of energy and transportation would leave workers’ salaries and students’ upkeep going further rather than less. “Reduce the cost of energy so that salaries buy more. Reduce transport costs so that less of a worker’s wage disappears merely getting to work. You cannot make life painfully expensive, push students towards debt to survive the consequences, and then frighten those same students that cheaper fuel will take their loans away,” he declared.

READ ALSO:

• Ogun Pastor Dies in Crash Hours After Allegedly Killing Wife in Domestic Dispute
• Edo Police Arrest Cleric Accused of Making ‘Protective Charms’ for Kidnap Gangs
• Reps Panel Traces 58 Bank Accounts, 12 Illegal Entities in PFIPC Fraud Network

Meanwhile, a NELFUND board member representing students, Comrade Umar Farouk Lawal, has faulted Atiku’s comments and challenged the former vice president to provide evidence that President Tinubu ordered an increase in tuition fees in tertiary institutions. Lawal, in a statement on Wednesday, said there was no evidence that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu ordered an increase in tuition fees in federal or state-owned tertiary institutions. He challenged Atiku and heads of tertiary institutions across the country to produce any presidential directive, circular, memo, or official document showing that President Tinubu ordered an increase in tuition fees. He described the allegation as misleading, saying political discussions about the education and future of Nigerian students should be based on facts and verifiable evidence. “As the Board Member representing Students on the Board of the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND), I wish to state categorically that at no time has Mr. President ordered the increment of tuition fees in any federal or state-owned tertiary institution in Nigeria,” Lawal stated.

Lawal defended the NELFUND scheme, saying the Fund was established to ensure that financial difficulties do not prevent Nigerian students from accessing higher education. He cited figures indicating that more than 1.38 million students had benefited from the scheme as of April 2026, with over N242 billion disbursed for tuition and upkeep support. As of August 2026, the total disbursement had reportedly reached over N322 billion through more than 1.6 million student loan applications. He rejected the description of NELFUND as merely a response to alleged increases in school fees, saying such a characterisation misrepresented the purpose and impact of the Fund. “NELFUND is a major intervention designed to expand access to tertiary education and provide financial relief to students from families who may otherwise struggle to meet the cost of their education,” he stated.

Lawal also challenged Atiku to explain what aspects of NELFUND he intended to review and how his proposed alternative would improve on the existing system. “If Alhaji Atiku Abubakar believes that NELFUND requires a review, Nigerians deserve to know what exactly he intends to review, what aspect of the existing framework he considers inadequate, and how his proposed alternative will improve upon the support currently being provided to students,” he said. On reports that Atiku’s proposal could include debt forgiveness for qualifying beneficiaries, the NELFUND board member said Nigerians should be told how such a policy would be funded and implemented without undermining the sustainability of the student loan system. Lawal further clarified that decisions by individual tertiary institutions to review or adjust their charges should not automatically be attributed to the President. He noted that federal and state tertiary institutions have governing structures and authorities responsible for determining institutional charges within the applicable regulatory framework. He urged political leaders, particularly those seeking the presidency, to make constructive, evidence-based, and student-centered contributions to discussions on the future of education in Nigeria. “It will be wrong to discredit an initiative that has provided tangible assistance to millions of Nigerian students without presenting credible evidence to support such allegations,” he said. Bayo Onanuga, President Tinubu’s special adviser on information and strategy, and Daniel Bwala, special adviser on policy communication, were unavailable for comment. Text and WhatsApp messages sent to them had not been answered as of press time.

Atiku Vows to Scrap NELFUND, Offers Student Debt Forgiveness if elected

Atiku, Obi Unite in Fresh Bid to Unseat Tinubu as 2027 Election Campaign Heats Up

As Nigeria’s economic crisis deepens, opposition leaders launch coordinated attacks on President Bola Tinubu’s policies, foreign trips, and governance record—but internal coalition fractures threaten their unity

The 2027 Nigerian presidential election is rapidly taking shape as a battle of words, with key opposition figures Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi launching coordinated attacks on President Bola Tinubu over what they describe as worsening economic hardship, misplaced priorities, and governance failures. The two former presidential candidates, who lead different political platforms—the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) respectively—have intensified their criticism of the current administration. Their latest offensive comes as President Tinubu embarks on another three-week holiday in Europe, a decision both leaders have questioned amid growing domestic challenges. Atiku and Obi are urging Nigerians to reject the incumbent administration at the polls, framing the 2027 election as a critical opportunity to change the country’s trajectory. However, their ability to present a united front remains complicated by internal political maneuvering and coalition fractures.

In a pointed statement released on Tuesday, Atiku Abubakar made it clear that his criticism of President Tinubu transcends political rivalry. The former vice president insisted that the central issue confronting Nigeria is not about personalities but about the inability of millions of citizens to afford basic necessities. “Tinubu, the issue is not Atiku. The issue is that Nigerians can no longer afford to live,” Atiku said. He accused the president of devoting a substantial portion of his recent social media statements to attacking economic positions without directly naming him. Atiku emphasized that his concern lies with ordinary Nigerians struggling with rising costs across multiple sectors, from food and transportation to education and healthcare. He insisted that the success of any economic policy should ultimately be measured by its tangible impact on the daily lives of ordinary citizens, not by macroeconomic indicators that bear no resemblance to the realities on the ground.

Atiku’s criticism centered on the government’s economic reforms, particularly the petrol subsidy removal policy. He pointed to Nigeria’s current fuel price of approximately N1,400 per litre, comparing it unfavorably with other oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, Angola, the United Arab Emirates, and Libya, where petrol sells at significantly lower rates—in Libya’s case, roughly N34 per litre despite that country’s political instability. “How did your celebrated reform leave Nigerians paying vastly more for fuel while enjoying a lower standard of human development?” Atiku asked. “That is not merely a pump-price debate. It is an affordability scandal.” The former vice president argued that high petrol prices affect virtually every aspect of the economy—transportation, agriculture, food distribution, manufacturing, and household expenses—because costs are passed through various stages of the supply chain before reaching consumers. He contended that this cascading effect means that ordinary Nigerians bear the brunt of policy decisions made without adequate consideration for their welfare.

READ ALSO:

• We were offered $3m to drop Tinubu records campaign — US firm
• NDA Releases 78th Regular Combatant Course Admission List, Sets Reporting Date
• Ogogo’s N25m Surfaces After Death, Ilaro Chief Imam Returns Actor’s Money

Atiku proposed an alternative approach through his Atiku Economic Recovery Plan (AERP) , which he said would reduce costs at their source rather than allow prices to rise before government intervention through palliatives. Under his proposal, Nigerian crude would be supplied for domestic refining under a capped, transparently budgeted framework, with refined products independently audited and monitored to ensure consumers benefit directly from lower fuel costs. He argued that reduced transportation costs would lower prices for food and manufactured goods, allowing families to retain more income for essentials like rent, education, and healthcare. “The economics is straightforward,” Atiku explained. “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. Reduce those costs and more of a worker’s income remains available for food, rent, education and healthcare. That is structural relief.”

The Presidency has pushed back strongly against Atiku’s proposals. Critics within the administration accused the former vice president of policy inconsistency, noting that he previously supported subsidy removal. A Tinubu support group, the PBAT Door-to-Door Movement, slammed Atiku’s criticism, describing him as a “serial presidential contestant without direction.” They argued that Atiku’s proposal to return to a form of subsidy demonstrates a “serious ignorance on governance and economy” and represents an opportunistic reversal of his own previous positions. The administration maintained that its reforms, while painful in the short term, are necessary for long-term economic stability and growth, and that any return to subsidy would undermine the progress made so far.

Atiku also rejected the government’s reliance on the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) as evidence that education has become affordable under the current administration. “Celebrating NELFUND as proof that education has become affordable under your government is like setting school fees on fire and then boasting that you lent students a bucket of water,” Atiku said. “A student loan is not a scholarship. It is a liability.” He argued that his approach would focus on reducing the underlying cost of education while providing forgiveness for qualifying student debts, insisting that “education should open doors, not mortgage the future.” He further challenged the Federal Government to publish details supporting its claim that his proposed intervention could negatively affect NELFUND, workers’ salaries, or the minimum wage, demanding that Nigerians be shown, line by line, how a transparently budgeted subsidy tied to Nigerian crude and domestic refining would suddenly empty NELFUND or workers’ pay packets.

READ ALSO:

• ‘Rich Dad Poor Dad’ Author Robert Kiyosaki Reveals He Is $1.2 Billion in Debt
• Lagos Cleric, 74, Remanded Over Alleged Defilement of 9-Year-Old Granddaughter
• 2027: Atiku vows to review NELFUND, forgive qualifying student loans

Atiku also called for a comprehensive reconciliation of nearly N30 trillion identified across Federation Account revenues, deductions, savings, and transfers, as well as transparency over Import Duty Exemption Certificate approvals covering approximately N34 trillion worth of imports in 2025. He demanded clear explanations of what measurable improvements Nigerians received in return for the sacrifices associated with subsidy removal, questioning why relief measures were only being promised “in the next few weeks” as the 2027 election approaches. He accused the administration of offering what he described as “a temporary dose of political anaesthesia” after years of economic hardship, asking pointedly: “So when you suddenly announce that relief is coming ‘in the next few weeks,’ Nigerians are entitled to ask: Why now?”

Peter Obi, the NDC presidential candidate, launched a separate but complementary attack on President Tinubu’s leadership style, focusing particularly on the president’s frequent foreign trips and vacation habits. Obi expressed concern that President Tinubu had left the country for another holiday at a critical moment when Nigeria faces serious economic and security challenges, including parents unable to afford food for their children, families struggling with transportation costs, communities ravaged by insecurity, thousands of children unable to access education, and the reported abduction of approximately 600 Nigerians, predominantly women, children, and elderly persons, during Juma’at prayers in Niger State. “Yet, at this critical moment, the President has left the country for another holiday,” Obi said, contrasting the president’s absence with the daily struggles of ordinary Nigerians who have nowhere to escape from the nation’s mounting problems.

Obi raised concerns over reported government expenditure on presidential trips and related travel expenses, alleging that between June 2023 and April 2026, government expenditure on presidential travel amounted to approximately N37.64 billion, while President Tinubu reportedly spent approximately 261 days outside Nigeria during this period. In stark contrast, he claimed that only N36 million was released to the Federal Ministry of Health in 2025 despite a capital allocation of N218 billion. “This is the calamity befalling our country today,” Obi declared, arguing that a government that can spend billions on presidential travel while critical sectors remain underfunded should not be allowed to continue in office. He insisted that leadership is fundamentally about setting the right priorities and urged Tinubu to focus on addressing the challenges confronting Nigerians rather than repeatedly travelling abroad.

READ ALSO:

• Nollywood Actress Atinuke Kareem Dies After Brave Battle with Breast Cancer
• Two Teenagers Drown in Kaduna as Heavy Flooding Submerges Communities
• Nigeria’s Opposition Coalition Faces Critical Test as Key Leaders Skip Unity Summit

Obi advocated for greater patronage of domestic tourism, suggesting that Nigerian presidents should lead by example by vacationing within the country. “I look forward to a Nigeria where our President can vacation in Kano, Katsina, Sokoto, Cross River State, Bauchi, Ebonyi, and many other destinations across our country,” he said. He argued that tourism could create jobs and support multiple sectors including hospitality, transportation, agriculture, entertainment, crafts, and small businesses, while generating investment and foreign exchange. “Tourism creates jobs. It supports hospitality, transportation, agriculture, entertainment, crafts, and small businesses. It brings investment and foreign exchange and allows communities to benefit directly from their natural and cultural assets,” Obi explained. He criticized what he described as the practice of exporting Nigeria’s wealth while importing pleasures that could be enjoyed within the country, stating that “we cannot continue to export our wealth and import our pleasures while our own enormous potential remains neglected.”

Obi also referenced his partnership with Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, whom he described as his running mate and partner in the opposition movement. “We deserve leadership that puts Nigeria first; leadership that cares and plans for a better Nigeria. That is the kind of leadership that the partnership between H.E. Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso and me will bring,” Obi said, presenting their alliance as a viable alternative to the current administration.

Despite the coordinated attacks on President Tinubu, the opposition coalition faces significant internal challenges. The reported “unification” of opposition figures is more complex than it appears, with public disagreements and strategic maneuvering among leaders. As of mid-2026, there were reports of public disputes within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) coalition, with accusations of being “regional players” and a lack of cohesion affecting the coalition’s credibility. In a significant development, Peter Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso reportedly left the ADC coalition to join another opposition platform, the National Democratic Coalition (NDC) . This new alliance, dubbed the “OK Movement,” is seen as a direct challenge to Atiku Abubakar’s influence, a bid to reshape the opposition landscape for the 2027 election, and a reflection of the feud between Atiku and his former boss, Olusegun Obasanjo, who allegedly opposed Atiku’s presidential nomination and backed Obi.

Former Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose commented on the opposition’s challenges, noting that “Atiku has lost already; Obi has lost already” unless a “miracle” brings them together. He also noted that some in the North are aggrieved that Kwankwaso is deputizing for Obi, reflecting the regional and ethnic tensions that continue to complicate opposition politics in Nigeria. The ASHE Foundation think-tank argued that while Atiku is criticized for a U-turn on subsidy policy, his stance, along with Tinubu’s and Obi’s, is rooted in “neoliberal ideology” that fails the masses, advocating instead for a “social democracy” approach that prioritizes state subsidies to protect citizens and boost the economy. These ideological differences, combined with personal rivalries, present significant obstacles to any unified opposition campaign.

The next presidential election is scheduled for January 16, 2027. As of August 2026, commentators were already expressing strong confidence in President Tinubu’s re-election prospects while criticizing the preparedness of opposition figures. The success of any opposition bid will depend on resolving internal disputes among leaders, settling on a consensus candidate and clear platform, presenting a unified front to voters, developing credible alternatives to current policies, and mobilizing voters effectively across diverse regions. The 2027 election campaign is likely to be dominated by issues of economic recovery and cost of living, the fuel subsidy debate, security challenges, education and healthcare funding, foreign policy and Nigeria’s international standing, and governance transparency and anti-corruption efforts. For Nigerian voters, the choice will ultimately be between an administration that argues its painful reforms are necessary for long-term stability and an opposition that promises immediate relief and a different approach to governance—but whose internal divisions raise questions about its ability to deliver on its promises.

Atiku, Obi Unite in Fresh Bid to Unseat Tinubu as 2027 Election Campaign Heats Up

Nigeria’s Opposition Coalition Faces Critical Test as Key Leaders Skip Unity Summit

Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi absent as G100 proposes four-year transition government to break APC’s hold on power

Nigeria’s much-anticipated opposition coalition may be stumbling at the first hurdle, as key presidential hopefuls stayed away from a landmark summit aimed at forging a united front against the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2027 elections.

The G100 summit, held at the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre in Abuja on August 31, 2026, brought together representatives of six opposition parties—the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Allied Peoples Movement (APM), National Democratic Congress (NDC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Peoples Redemption Party (PRP), and Social Democratic Party (SDP)—to negotiate a framework for cooperation and the possibility of presenting a single presidential candidate.

However, the notable absence of Atiku Abubakar, the ADC presidential candidate, and Peter Obi, the NDC presidential candidate, has raised serious questions about the coalition’s viability and whether opposition leaders are genuinely prepared to set aside personal ambitions for the sake of unity.

Opening the summit, G100 leader and former APC National Vice Chairman Salihu Mohammed Lukman stressed that the initiative was aimed at preventing a repeat of the fragmentation that characterised the 2023 presidential election, where the opposition vote was split among multiple candidates. He recalled the negotiations that produced opposition unity ahead of the 2015 election, saying the lesson was not sentimental but “arithmetical.”

Lukman argued that opposition parties must first agree on the rules and structure of cooperation before negotiating positions and personalities. “Rules before outcomes. Table before seats,” he said, adding that what had been missing from previous opposition efforts was “not analysis” but “a table.” He stressed that the summit was not asking any party to dissolve or abandon its identity, nor demanding the immediate withdrawal of any presidential candidate. Rather, the parties were being asked to authorise machinery for developing a credible framework for cooperation, including a Central Leadership Committee, Publicity and Communication Committee, and Legal Committee.

READ ALSO:

• Lagos Businesswoman Stabbed to Death by Her Security Guard Just Two Weeks After Employment
• FBI confirms Tinubu was subject of US criminal investigation in 1990s
• 16-year-old in police custody over alleged killing of 20-year-old in Cross River

While Atiku and Obi were absent, other presidential candidates participated in the meeting, including Donald Duke of the PRP, Adewole Adebayo of the SDP, and Moses Olusoji of the Democratic Leadership Alliance, alongside national officers, lawmakers, and other opposition figures.

In a significant development, the Turaki-led faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) formally endorsed the G100 initiative, announcing its decision to join the opposition coalition. The faction’s National Publicity Secretary, Ini Ememobong, said the decision was driven by what he described as the “wailings of Nigerians groaning under the repressive Bola Tinubu APC-led Federal Government” and the need to cooperate with other credible political forces to unseat the incumbent at the federal level.

“Our participation is anchored on the promise that the process will be hinged on the philosophical underpinnings of transparency, equality, data-driven decisions and egalitarianism,” Ememobong quoted the faction’s National Chairman, Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, as saying. He added that any result “midwifed by these virtues will certainly offer Nigerians a credible leadership capable of alleviating the skyrocketing poverty and rising insecurity in the country.”

The summit proposed establishing five working groups to produce documents within four weeks for consideration at a second summit, including a National Covenant for Democratic Renewal, Single-Term Transition Charter, National Reform Programme, Framework for Opposition Unity, and Roadmap to a Common Presidential Candidate.

Among the proposals emerging from the opposition process is a single four-year transition arrangement, framed around a broader national reform programme. This proposal attempts to address two questions at once: who leads the coalition, and what happens after victory? However, it also raises a further question: would Nigerians vote for a candidate promising a four-year transition—or for one promising a conventional presidency?

Speaking at the summit, House of Representatives Minority Leader Frederick Agbedi urged opposition leaders to put aside personal ambitions and focus on removing the current government and rescuing the country from what he described as widespread suffering. “Nigeria is in pain. Nigeria is suffering,” he said, adding, “If we are united, what the APC did in 2015, we can repeat it.”

PRP National Chairman Hakeem Baba-Ahmed also endorsed the initiative, declaring, “No party alone can defeat APC,” while describing the coalition as a sign of hope for Nigerians. SDP National Chairman Sadiq Umar Gombe described the political situation as requiring an urgent national rescue effort and expressed confidence that Nigerians, particularly voters in northern Nigeria, would support a credible opposition alternative.

Lukman cautioned that the success of the coalition would depend less on declarations of unity than on the quality of the political architecture created to sustain it, stressing that neither the G100 nor the Minority Caucus was promoting any particular presidential candidate. “Our only interest is the one stated in the Doctrine we published on August 2 — that a democracy is sustained not merely by holding elections, but by the credible possibility of an alternative government,” he said.

In response to Atiku’s absence, his media aide Phrank Shaibu said the former vice president’s absence was “unavoidable” and should not be “mischievously interpreted as a boycott or lack of commitment to opposition unity.” Shaibu added that Atiku “is fully aligned with the objective of the summit and has made his position clear: Nigeria urgently needs a broad, disciplined and united opposition capable of ending the hardship, insecurity and economic mismanagement of the Tinubu administration in 2027.”

However, a source familiar with the discussions noted that the emergence of the G100 after various parties had already produced their presidential candidates could make negotiations particularly difficult, especially the argument on who will step down. “The argument is, who will be willing to step down at this point in time?” the source asked.

Lukman himself acknowledged that unity would require sacrifice, saying, “Someone in this hall will have to accept an outcome he/she did not want. That is what unity is.” He ended with an appeal: “The table is here. The chairs are here.”

As the 2027 contest gathers momentum, the coalition’s fate may ultimately depend on whether its leaders can answer the question that has defeated many of their predecessors: Can Nigeria’s opposition agree not only on who to remove, but also on who should lead and what should replace the incumbent government?

Nigeria’s Opposition Coalition Faces Critical Test as Key Leaders Skip Unity Summit