Obasanjo Blames Tinubu’s Economic Policies for Rising Poverty

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has criticised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s economic reforms, saying the sharp depreciation of the naira has reduced Nigerians’ purchasing power and worsened poverty across the country.

Obasanjo made the remarks on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, during the Financial Times Africa Summit in London, United Kingdom, where he questioned the economic consequences of the administration’s policies, particularly its foreign exchange reforms and the removal of the petrol subsidy.

The former president argued that the naira’s decline against the United States dollar had significantly weakened the financial position of Nigerian households, making it more difficult for citizens to afford essential goods and services.

He said the exchange rate had moved from approximately ₦500 to the dollar to about ₦1,500, a development he described as a major loss in the value of Nigerians’ money.

“We do not live in isolation as a country. We interact with the rest of the world. And overnight, you devalue the currency by 300 percent. The naira went from N500 to a dollar to N1,500 to a dollar,” Obasanjo said.

He added that the depreciation had made Nigerians poorer and contributed to the country’s severe poverty challenge.

“What that meant was that every Nigerian is made poor by 300 percent. That made Nigeria become the poverty capital of the world, which means Nigeria has the largest number of poor people in the world,” he said.

Obasanjo questioned the benefits of the currency adjustment, insisting that a policy that substantially eroded citizens’ purchasing power could not be considered beneficial to the country without examining its consequences for ordinary people.

“You cannot say to me that that is good for Nigeria. You cannot say to me that that is good for us in any sense,” he added.

The former president’s comments have added to the ongoing debate over the impact of the Tinubu administration’s economic reforms on inflation, living standards, business costs and poverty.

Tinubu announced the removal of the petrol subsidy shortly after assuming office in May 2023. His administration subsequently introduced foreign exchange reforms that allowed the naira to trade more freely against other currencies.

READ ALSO:

• Nigerian Journalist Sentenced to 4 Years Over Facebook Post Criticising Police
• Hyundai Unveils Mufasa, Grand Creta SUVs to Strengthen Nigeria Line-up (Updated)
• NAFDAC Busts Illegal Herbal Factory in Lagos, Arrests Manager Over Fake Registration Number

The government has defended the measures as necessary to address longstanding economic distortions, reduce pressure on public finances, improve the efficiency of the foreign exchange market and attract investment.

However, the reforms coincided with a sharp depreciation of the naira and increases in the cost of imported goods, transportation and other essential commodities, placing considerable pressure on household budgets.

Obasanjo also challenged the argument that the removal of the petrol subsidy was the only viable option available to the government, contending that corruption accounted for a substantial portion of the costs associated with the previous subsidy arrangement.

He argued that tackling corruption within the petroleum subsidy system could have reduced the financial burden on the government and limited the amount of support required.

The former president’s position differs from that of the Tinubu administration, which has maintained that ending the subsidy was necessary to reduce government expenditure and free up resources for development.

Obasanjo questions Tinubu’s second-term bid

Obasanjo also questioned the argument that Tinubu should be given a second term to consolidate his economic reforms, asking what specific policies were being sustained if the outcome was greater hardship for citizens.

He criticised the suggestion that Nigerians should continue to endure the consequences of the reforms without clearer evidence that their living conditions were improving.

The former president maintained that his criticism was directed at the administration’s economic policies and their impact on the public.

He also expressed doubts about the direction of the economy, saying he could not identify clear signs that conditions were improving for Nigerians.

Calls for production and anti-corruption measures

Despite his criticism, Obasanjo outlined measures he believes could help improve Nigeria’s economic prospects, identifying corruption, wasteful spending and unnecessary luxury as areas requiring urgent attention.

He argued that public resources must be managed more responsibly, while government expenditure should be directed towards priorities capable of improving citizens’ welfare.

Obasanjo also stressed the need to strengthen domestic production, saying Nigeria must produce more goods and services rather than depend heavily on imports.

His recommendations centred on reducing corruption, curbing waste and increasing productivity as part of a broader strategy to improve the economy.

The former president also referred to Ghana’s currency performance as a point of comparison, arguing that developments in the neighbouring West African country raised questions about Nigeria’s economic management.

However, exchange-rate movements alone do not provide a complete measure of economic performance, as inflation, export earnings, foreign reserves, productivity and other factors also influence a country’s financial position.

Tinubu, in his Independence Day address on October 1, 2026, defended his administration’s reforms, describing them as difficult but necessary measures to address longstanding weaknesses in the economy. He argued that the government was moving from economic adjustment towards broader prosperity.

The disagreement between the two leaders reflects the wider national debate over whether the reforms will eventually deliver improved living standards or whether changes to their implementation are needed to reduce the burden on households.

As Nigerians continue to contend with the cost of living, the central question remains whether economic growth, currency stability and government revenue gains can translate into affordable food, transportation, housing and other basic necessities.