—Says Economy is rebounding
—Accuses ex-President of basing economic criticism on old data
By Johnbosco Agbakwuru
ABUJA —THE Presidency on Sunday slammed former Vice President and Presidential candidate of the African Democrstic Congress, ADC, Alhaji Abubakar over his accusation of the Tinubu-led government of fiscal recklessness. alleging that the former Vice president based his accusation on outdated 2024 data.
The Presidency said Nigeria’s economic reforms have started yielding results, with improved revenue mobilization, lower debt-service pressure, higher allocations to states and local governments, and new investments in health, education and infrastructure.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, in a statement titled: “Facts, Not Fear: A Point-by-Point Response to Atiku Abubakar on Nigeria’s Reform Journey,” said Atiku was still wallowing in “frozen snapshots of history” without considering evolving economic realities under President Tinubu’s reform agenda.
The Presidency said Atiku Abubakar’s criticism of the government was “rooted in 2024” and ignored what he described as major changes in the economy since then.
It said: “Politics thrives on disagreement. Democracy demands it. But disagreements must be rooted in facts, not frozen snapshots of history. When yesterday’s data are presented as today’s reality, the public deserves context.
“Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, in his typical pastime, has accused the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of fiscal recklessness, citing excess borrowing in the 2024 budget, questioning the removal of fuel subsidy, criticising tax reforms, concocting an oil windfall of N7.98 trillion, and suggesting that Nigeria is drifting economically.
“His concerns, though misplaced, deserve a response—not because criticisms should be silenced – but because Nigerians should have a fuller picture of where the country is today. Here are the real issues Atiku and his courtiers should apprise themselves of:”
The Presidency said Nigeria’s dollar-denominated GDP had risen from about $253 billion after the exchange-rate reset to about $377 billion, while naira GDP increased from about ₦314 trillion in 2024 to about ₦530 trillion.
It said the figures showed that the economy had moved beyond its post-adjustment trough, adding that a debate anchored in 2024 cannot explain Nigeria in 2026.
“Perhaps the first observation is chronological. It is curious that in the middle of 2026, the opposition’s principal economic argument remains anchored to developments in the 2024 fiscal year. Economies are dynamic. Reforms are processes, not events. Judging a reform programme solely by its earliest and most painful phase is like judging chemotherapy by the nausea it induces while ignoring the remission it seeks to achieve.
“The Nigerian economy that underwent painful adjustment in 2024 has evolved considerably. Following the exchange-rate reset, Nigeria’s dollar-denominated GDP fell to about $253 billion, reflecting the immediate effect of currency realignment. Since then, figures from statistics bodies and multilateral agencies like the IMF indicate that it has recovered significantly to approximately $377 billion, representing an increase of roughly 49 per cent from that post-adjustment trough.
“Likewise, Naira GDP has expanded from about ₦314 trillion in 2024 to around ₦530 trillion, a 69% increase reflecting both higher economic activity and price changes. These figures should continue to be assessed alongside real GDP growth, inflation, and household welfare. They do illustrate that the economy did not remain frozen at its most moment.
“The reforms were never advertised as painless. They were presented as necessary structural adjustments intended to correct long-standing distortions, including distortions created in the Obasanjo-Atiku years, 1999-2007.”
The presidency argued that borrowing should be judged by debt capacity and the use of funds, saying Nigeria’s debt-to-GDP ratio remains around 40 percent and debt service to revenue has fallen to below 60 percent from nearly 100 percent in December 2022.
“On the matter of Nigeria’s debts, it is important to ask a broader question: What is Nigeria’s capacity to sustain her debt? For debt, in itself, is not the defining measure of fiscal health.
“What matters are the size of the economy; our revenue-generating capacity; debt servicing costs; the purposes for which funds are borrowed; and whether borrowed resources finance productive investments or recurrent consumption. Nigeria’s debts have been acquired for productive, long-term infrastructural and investment purposes – according to the law.
“Nigeria’s debt-to-GDP ratio remains relatively modest (at barely 40%) compared with many peer economies and advanced countries (South Africa (85%), Egypt (80%), Ghana (60%), Kenya (75%), USA (130%), UK (110%), China (300% – unofficially), even though debt-service pressures have historically been significant.
“Still, the Tinubu Administration has seen a reduction in the debt service-to-revenue ratio, from a high of nearly 100% in December 2022 to less than 60% today. This is a remarkable achievement that shows that Nigeria’s revenue efficiency has improved, while debt management remains conservative and astute.
“All the same, the more meaningful question is whether borrowing finances investments that expand productive capacity and future revenues, rather than merely postponing difficult choices.”
The statement said the removal of fuel subsidy has boosted Federation Account allocations to states and local governments, expanded fiscal space, and enabled more spending on roads, schools, hospitals, salaries, pensions and social programmes.
It said: “For decades, economists across ideological divides criticised Nigeria’s fuel subsidy as fiscally costly and poorly targeted. Even before the current administration, several international institutions had argued that the subsidy consumed resources that could otherwise support development.
“Nigerians suffered over the years as a vast proportion of our resources were deployed to pay fuel-subsidy merchants. An idea that was mooted in the early 1970s, when Nigeria saw her first oil boom in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, had become toxic and a drainpipe on the economy.
“It must be said that the government in which Alhaji Atiku was Vice President waded through that toxic phenomenon, and never did the needful. The current administration deserves commendation for being able to get rid of something that has become a lodestone around the neck of our collective patrimony.
“The visible consequence of subsidy removal has been the sharp improvement in revenues accruing to states and local governments through the Federation Account.
“Higher statutory allocations have expanded fiscal space at the subnational level, enabling many states to increase spending on roads, schools, hospitals, salaries, pensions, and social programmes. Independent assessments, including those from the World Bank, have noted improvements in public revenues and subnational capital spending, which is another word for infrastructural development, following major fiscal reforms.
“This means that President Tinubu has tactically placed more responsibility for socioeconomic development on states and local governments, while providing requisite funding. This is true federalism and a bold statement on the much-vaunted subject of economic restructuring – another important issue gallantly avoided by the government in which Alhaji Atiku served and wielded great influence.”
On tax policy, the presidency stated that the reforms are meant to reduce pressure on low-income earners and small businesses while ensuring that wealthier individuals and profitable firms pay more.
It said “the government has also expanded healthcare and education spending, including the rehabilitation of primary health centres, support for maternal care, the rollout of cancer centres, the Nigerian Education Loan Fund, and efforts to end university strikes.
“Another of Atiku’s uninformed criticisms suggests that the Tinubu administration chose to tax Nigerians more. This is blatantly false, and the statement is an attempt to deceive and dissemble.
“The objective of the tax reforms is not merely to increase collections but to create a broader, more equitable tax system. The reforms are intended to reduce the burden on many low-income earners (people earning N1 million per annum and below) and small businesses (with turnover of N100 million and below) while strengthening compliance among higher-income individuals and profitable enterprises – many of whom had avoided or evaded taxes under the cover of informality for decades.
“The underlying principle is that those with greater capacity should bear a larger share of the tax burden, while micro-enterprises and vulnerable households receive greater protection. Nigerians understand that to have a fine, working nation, we all must contribute to her prosperity. And we are on course.”
Continuing, it said: “Over the past three years, the Federal Government, working with states, has expanded efforts to rehabilitate and upgrade primary healthcare facilities, strengthen tertiary hospitals, improve access to essential medicines, and broaden maternal and child health interventions.
“The administration has also publicised initiatives aimed at reducing the financial barriers to maternal care, including programmes that support access to caesarean sections for eligible indigent mothers through public facilities.
“Over 100 facilities across Nigeria provide free caesarean operations for indigent mothers. Thousands of women across the country, from Sokoto to Port Harcourt, have benefited.
“Three world-class cancer centres are operational in Kubwa, Enugu and Katsina, while cancer centres in 13 states have been expanded. As at April 2026, over 3,000 Primary Healthcare Centres have been revitalised, upgraded, and refurbished, while over 78,000 frontline workers have been retrained in 3 years. This is verifiable information, and no mean feat.”
The statement dismissed Atiku’s claim of an N7.98 trillion oil windfall, saying any gains from higher oil prices are reflected in FAAC receipts and are offset by production shortfalls, costs, and existing crude-sale arrangements.
It further said the administration’s reforms are meant to correct long-standing distortions and strengthen macroeconomic stability, adding that the government welcomes debate but insists that criticism should be based on facts.”
It said “Nigeria is certainly not over-borrowed. The unvarnished truth is that Nigeria’s revenue-to-GDP ratio is still ranked among the lowest globally, limiting the government’s ability to fund public services without borrowing.
“Recent reforms have started to improve revenue mobilisation, broaden the tax base, reduce leakages, and strengthen public financial management.
“Certainly, improvements in revenue collection are helping reduce fiscal vulnerabilities. But this is a process that has commenced. Viewed from this angle, it is evident that President Tinubu has taken the Nigerian economy down a path of unprecedented reinvention and rejuvenation.
“The debt debate should, therefore, examine not only how much Nigeria borrows but also whether the country’s capacity to generate and manage revenue continues to improve. At a mere 40% debt-to-GDP ratio and less than 60% debt service-to-revenue ratio (improving), the argument of overborrowing is alarmist and does not stick.”
On oil windfall, the presidency said Atiku and his handlers revealed analytical deficiency
“There is no such windfall of N7.98 trillion. Any incremental revenue from higher oil prices is reflected in the monthly FAAC figures. While the average price for the half-year 2026 for Brent is around $90 compared to the $64.85 benchmark, the average daily production fell short at about 1.6m bpd compared to the forecast of 1.84m bpd.
“The production shortfall partly offset the price premium. In addition, some crude volume had been pledged for loans used to pay for the wasteful subsidy in the past, which the President was bold enough to remove, stopping the bleeding but not immediately translating into available revenue.
“The convenient mistake many analysts make is to multiply the oil price by the daily crude production volume to determine revenue to the government. Such analyses ignore the cost of production, the share of crude belonging to the oil-producing companies and the impact of crude sale contracts such as forward contracts designed to hedge against price volatility.”
The presidency contended that Tinubu’s administration has chosen to dismantle several long-standing policy distortions that previous governments acknowledged but often deferred.
“The reforms have carried undeniable costs, and legitimate questions remain about implementation, inflation, and social protection. Yet describing the entire programme as “financial recklessness” overlooks the broader context of structural change, fiscal rebalancing, and efforts to improve macroeconomic stability.
“A mature national conversation should move beyond slogans. It should assess reforms against measurable outcomes rather than isolated episodes. We welcome elevated discourses that examine the philosophical underpinnings of President Tinubu’s approach to the economy, not pedestrianism.
“Nigerians need elevated standards of living, which requires immediate sacrifices. But indeed, the worst is over, as the effects of the necessary economic chemotherapy were more severe in 2023 and 2024.
“All economic watchers are aware that in November 2025, inflation rates in Nigeria fell to 14.4%. Because of the disruption caused by the Middle East War, the rate shot up to 15.91%. But it has begun another descent as economic analysts project that inflation will trend towards 12% by the end of the year.”
The post Presidency slams Atiku over ‘fiscal recklessness’ debt claims appeared first on Vanguard News.