The Blame Game and the Price Nigerians Pay

For Nigerians struggling to afford food, pay transport fares and meet household expenses, political arguments offer little comfort. What matters is whether the government can make life more affordable.

So when a president blames his opponents for the hunger confronting citizens, the question is not merely who created the problem, but who is responsible for solving it.
a
That is why President Bola Tinubu’s remarks at the APC’s 2027 presidential campaign flag-off in Kaduna on October 24 deserve scrutiny.

Responding to criticism of his administration, he declared: “Who created it? They did! They created the hunger, they created the poverty. We are trying to eradicate it.”

It was a striking claim, but one that raises a fundamental question of accountability. If the opposition created Nigeria’s hunger, what responsibility does the incumbent government accept for the hardship experienced under its watch?

Certainly, Nigeria’s economic difficulties did not begin with Tinubu’s inauguration in May 2023. Years of policy inconsistencies, corruption, insecurity, inadequate infrastructure and weak economic management contributed to the country’s vulnerabilities. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which governed from 1999 to 2015, has its own record to defend.

But the All Progressives Congress (APC) has governed Nigeria since 2015. It cannot reasonably claim credit for every achievement during its years in power while assigning every failure to its predecessors. Historical responsibility may be shared, but executive accountability cannot be indefinitely transferred to the past.

Consider the economic reforms introduced by Tinubu’s administration, particularly petrol subsidy removal and foreign-exchange market liberalisation. The government argued that these measures were necessary to reduce fiscal pressures, address market distortions and establish a foundation for sustainable growth.

Those objectives are legitimate subjects of economic debate. The former subsidy regime had significant fiscal costs, while the previous foreign-exchange system created distortions.

However, the justification for reform does not eliminate the responsibility to manage its consequences.

Higher petrol prices, naira depreciation and increased transportation and production costs have placed substantial pressure on household budgets. The Federal Ministry of Finance reported headline inflation of 15.39 per cent and food inflation of 19.57 per cent in August 2026. Although both rates had declined from a year earlier, prices were still rising year-on-year.

For families whose incomes have failed to keep pace, slower inflation does not necessarily mean relief. Food may become more expensive at a slower rate yet remain beyond the reach of households already struggling to survive. That is the difference between improving economic indicators and improving living standards.

Tinubu is entitled to defend his reforms and argue that their long-term benefits outweigh their immediate costs. But if his administration claims ownership of the policies, it must also accept responsibility for their implementation, their consequences and the measures taken to protect vulnerable citizens.

This does not absolve the opposition. Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi and other opposition figures must explain how their alternatives would address inflation, food insecurity, unemployment and declining purchasing power.

Any proposal to reverse subsidy removal must demonstrate how it would be financed and whether its benefits would outweigh its fiscal costs. Criticism alone is not an economic programme.

Nevertheless, opposition parties have a democratic responsibility to question government policies. Their arguments should be answered with evidence, not dismissed through sweeping accusations. A president seeking another mandate must be prepared to defend his record against scrutiny.

The stakes are particularly high in Northern Nigeria, where insecurity, disrupted farming and poor access to markets compound economic vulnerability. Farmers need security, businesses need predictable costs, and households need affordable food. Campaign rhetoric cannot substitute for these practical necessities.

As the 2027 election approaches, the APC must explain what its reforms have achieved and when Nigerians can reasonably expect further relief. The opposition must present credible alternatives, while previous administrations must answer for their own records. None should be exempt from scrutiny.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether Tinubu inherited economic problems. He did. It is whether his administration is addressing them effectively and accepting responsibility for the effects of its own decisions.

A government cannot claim credit for reform while assigning its costs entirely to political opponents. Nigerians deserve more than arguments over who caused their hardship; they deserve evidence of what is being done to end it.

That is the real price of the blame game: while politicians argue over responsibility, ordinary citizens continue paying for the consequences.