There are moments in politics when a statement is so striking that it leaves citizens wondering whether their leaders are addressing the realities of the country or describing an entirely different nation. The suggestion that the opposition has been creating hunger in Nigeria, despite the All Progressives Congress (APC) having governed the country since 2015, is one such moment. Wonders shall never end!
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s political message presented at the flag off the APC’s 2027 presidential campaign in Kaduna on Saturday, October 24, 2026 raises a fundamental question about democratic accountability: who should take responsibility for the economic conditions prevailing under a government that has exercised executive power for almost twelve years?
The APC came to power in 2015 on a wave of public dissatisfaction with the administration of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). It promised change, improved security, economic prosperity and a better life for Nigerians. The party’s message resonated with citizens who believed that a change of government would produce a change in their material circumstances.
More than a decade later, the APC remains in power. President Tinubu assumed office in May 2023, inheriting an economy already burdened by structural weaknesses and policy challenges. His administration subsequently introduced major economic reforms, including the removal of the petrol subsidy and changes to foreign-exchange management. These policies were defended as necessary measures to correct longstanding distortions in the economy.
Yet the immediate consequences for millions of Nigerians have been severe. Rising living costs, expensive transportation, pressure on household budgets and declining purchasing power have made survival increasingly difficult for many families. The question is no longer simply whether economic reforms are necessary, but whether their design, implementation and accompanying social protection measures adequately address the hardship they impose.
In a constitutional democracy, the opposition has a legitimate role in scrutinising government policies, exposing failures and proposing alternatives. Its criticism may sometimes be exaggerated, politically motivated or lacking in substance. Nevertheless, criticism is not the same as executive power.
The APC controls the Federal Government and has held that position since 2015. It has therefore had substantial opportunities to formulate economic policies, manage public resources, strengthen domestic production and address the structural causes of poverty.
Opposition parties do not determine federal budget priorities, administer federal ministries or exercise the President’s executive powers. Unless there is credible evidence that particular opposition actors have deliberately disrupted food production, sabotaged essential economic activities or otherwise caused specific hardships, attributing widespread hunger to them is a politically convenient explanation that requires proof.
A government cannot reasonably claim the credit for every economic achievement while transferring responsibility for every economic failure to its opponents.
Political leadership demands consistency. If the ruling party considers itself responsible for the country’s progress, it must also accept responsibility for assessing the shortcomings of its policies.
Hunger is a human problem before it becomes a political argument. It affects the child whose family can no longer afford a balanced meal, the civil servant whose salary loses purchasing power before the end of the month, the farmer struggling with fertiliser and transportation costs, and the small-business owner whose customers can no longer afford basic goods.
For these citizens, political exchanges between the ruling party and the opposition offer little comfort. They want affordable food, reliable electricity, meaningful employment, improved security and a government capable of translating national resources into better living conditions.
The administration may legitimately argue that some of its reforms will produce long-term benefits. However, such claims must be supported by measurable outcomes rather than political assurances alone. Nigerians are entitled to ask when the promised benefits will become visible, who will bear the costs in the meantime and what safeguards exist for the most vulnerable.
The opposition, for its part, must also demonstrate that its criticism is constructive and that its alternatives are credible. It cannot escape scrutiny merely because it does not control the federal executive. Nevertheless, the burden of demonstrating effective governance rests principally on those entrusted with governing.
President Tinubu and the APC should recognise that public frustration cannot be dismissed as the product of opposition propaganda. Citizens experience economic hardship directly; they do not need political parties to instruct them on the price of food in the market.
The appropriate response is to present verifiable economic data, explain policy choices honestly, identify failures where they exist and demonstrate a credible strategy for reducing the cost of living.
If the opposition has contributed to particular economic problems, the government should identify the conduct, provide evidence and pursue appropriate legal or policy remedies. Generalised accusations cannot substitute for evidence or responsible governance.
Ultimately, Nigeria’s democratic institutions are stronger when political leaders accept that power comes with responsibility. The APC cannot indefinitely invoke the failures of previous administrations while resisting scrutiny of its own record after almost twelve years in office.
A ruling party that has governed for nearly twelve years blaming the opposition for hunger is a striking illustration of the contradictions of partisan politics. But beyond the irony lies a serious national concern: Nigerians need explanations less than they need results.
The true measure of President Tinubu’s leadership will not be how effectively his administration attributes blame, but how decisively it reduces hunger, restores purchasing power and improves the living conditions of ordinary citizens.
Campaigns, of course, are not seminars. They are meant to energise supporters, and attacking opponents is as old as democracy itself. Mr Tinubu is not the first incumbent to run against the people who are not in office. Still, voters judge incumbents by results, and the central question on January 16, when INEC has fixed the presidential election, will be simple: are you better off than you were?
In the final analysis, the Nigerian electorate will judge the government not by the sophistication of its political messaging, but by what citizens can afford, the opportunities available to them and the dignity with which they are able to live.
And when hunger becomes a national concern, accountability must begin with those who hold the reins of power.
- Mr Abdulkadir, Esq is a legal Consultant based in Gombe and can be reached via [email protected]
