Chuks Okocha in Abuja
Former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has accused President Bola Tinubu of using the 90-day cost-of-living relief plan announced by the National Economic Council (NEC) to woo voters ahead of the presidential election.
Atiku, through his Director of Strategic Communication at the ADC Presidential Campaign Council, Phrank Shaibu, said the timing of the initiative raised questions about the government’s commitment to easing the hardship Nigerians had endured over the past three and a half years.
Addressing a press conference on behalf of Atiku, Shaibu said: “The presidential election is 86 days away. Yet President Bola Tinubu’s National Economic Council has announced a cost-of-living plan that will run for 90 days.
“The arithmetic is plain: the plan ends after Nigerians have voted. After three and a half years of hardship, this government is asking families to carry another promise into the polling booth and wait for relief until the votes are counted.
“This is election bait. Tinubu is offering hungry Nigerians the promise of affordable food, but the promised relief comes with a deadline that outlasts the election. The message is simple: vote first; relief later. Nigerians should refuse the bait and judge this government by the three and a half years they have already lived through,” Atiku added.
The plan, according to Atiku, identifies five priorities: food affordability, tax harmonisation, completion of important projects, removal of investment bottlenecks and household support. He argued that these were problems Nigerians had expected the administration to address since taking office.
“Families have cut meals. Workers spend more of their wages getting to work. Manufacturers struggle to produce, and businesses have closed. Tinubu cannot erase three and a half years of hardship with a 90-day announcement,” he said.
Atiku argued that the consequences of petrol subsidy removal on transport, food and production costs had been predictable, insisting that measures to protect vulnerable households should have accompanied the decision.
“Instead, the government imposed the costs immediately and left Nigerians to wait for the benefits. Now, after years of hardship, it has suddenly discovered that people need affordable food.
“A government cannot put a 90-day deadline on hunger, the cost-of-living crisis and insecurity and call it an economic policy,” he said.
Atiku also questioned the effectiveness of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited’s (NNPC) petrol discount promotion, which began on October 1 and was subsequently presented by the government as part of its relief efforts.
He said he had visited NNPC Retail stations and was told that no discount was available, adding that he bought petrol at N1,405 per litre.
“With barely a week left before the offer expires, my experience as a customer was simple: a promise of relief, and a higher price at the pump. If NNPC says motorists can access a discount through an app, it must explain why customers arriving at its stations were told there was none.
“How many customers received the discount? At which stations? How many litres were sold at the reduced price? Publish the figures,” he said.
Atiku questioned the reach of the promotion, noting that NNPC had about 900 retail stations in a country where motorists bought petrol from thousands of outlets.
“What reach can a N66-per-litre promotion have when it is confined to that network? And what lasting relief does N66 offer families whose transport and food bills remain high?” he asked.
He added: “Tinubu announces relief at a podium. Nigerians arrive at the pump and pay more. Now his government expects the country to trust another announcement, this time with a 90-day deadline.”
The former vice-president said the timing of the initiative was significant because the cost-of-living crisis had become central to his campaign, which he said was focused on making Nigeria affordable again.
He accused the Tinubu administration of attempting to appropriate that message with a relief plan whose timeline extended beyond the election.
“Nigerians should not trade three and a half years of lived hardship for three months of promises,” he said.
Atiku challenged the government to provide details of the five priorities outlined in the plan.
On food affordability, he asked which costs would fall for farmers, transporters and traders, when consumers would begin to see lower market prices, and how the government would sustain affordability beyond the 90-day period.
On tax harmonisation, he demanded details of the charges to be removed or consolidated and urged the government to publish the full tax schedule, including whether the promised relief would be followed by higher charges after the election.
He also questioned which projects would be completed within 90 days, how much remained to be paid for them and when Nigerians would be able to use them.
“A project is complete when it serves people, not when it is marked complete on a government dashboard,” he said.
On investment bottlenecks, Atiku asked which barriers the government intended to remove within the period, arguing that manufacturers needed reliable power, manageable transport costs and access to affordable finance to expand operations and create jobs.
He also demanded details of the proposed household support, including eligibility criteria, the amount each household would receive, when payments would begin, the budget and the payment mechanism.
Atiku raised concerns about a registration form reportedly being circulated under the name “Arise for Tinubu 2027”. He said the form requested voter identification, bank details and telephone numbers, and questioned who was collecting the information, how it would be used and whether the exercise was linked to the government’s household support programme.
“No Nigerian should have to hand over voter or bank details to a political group to receive public relief,” he said.
He urged the government to clarify whether the registration exercise was connected to any publicly funded programme and, if not, explain how it would prevent household support from being used to recruit voters or collect their personal data.
Atiku maintained that Nigerians who had borne the burden of the government’s reforms were entitled to evidence that the promised benefits would reach them and continue beyond election day.
“People do not reject reform because they fail to understand it. They reject being told to sacrifice today for relief that never arrives—or arrives with an expiry date,” he said.
He pledged to make Nigeria more affordable through disciplined public spending, targeted household relief, lower costs of producing and transporting essential goods, and policies that would enable Nigerian manufacturers to expand and employ more people.
“Economic policy should be judged by what families can afford, not by how many deadlines a government announces,” he said.
Atiku challenged Tinubu to answer two questions: whether Nigerians were better off than they were in May 2023, and whether they would still be able to afford food on the 91st day of the proposed relief plan.
“Until he can answer both, Nigerians have every reason to see this 90-day exercise for what it is: a political timetable dressed up as economic relief.
“President Tinubu made life expensive. Atiku Abubakar will make life affordable again,” he said.
Atiku also questioned Tinubu’s record on security in Kaduna State ahead of the President’s expected visit to launch his re-election campaign today.
He said the President should reflect on the state’s experience with deadly attacks, civilian casualties and natural disasters before seeking another mandate.
“Tinubu is also expected in Kaduna to launch his re-election campaign. Before the music starts and the crowd is assembled, he should remember what the state has endured under his presidency,” he said.
Atiku cited the December 3, 2023, military drone strike on civilians attending a Maulud celebration in Tudun Biri, in which at least 85 people were killed. He said Tinubu sent the Vice-President to visit survivors but did not personally visit grieving families.
He also referred to reports by residents of Giwa in September 2024 that another military airstrike had killed at least 24 civilians.
In Kajuru, he said, families had buried loved ones and searched for relatives abducted by bandits. He also cited a kidnapping-related attack in Kachia in September 2025 that affected 152 people, with eight deaths and nine injuries recorded.
Atiku further highlighted the impact of storms and floods in the state. He said windstorms and rain in July 2025 affected 6,172 people and damaged hundreds of shelters across five local government areas, while flooding in Zaria in September affected 476 people and left dozens injured.
“When families were burying their dead, searching for their children and clearing wreckage from their homes, Kaduna needed the attention of its President,” he said.
Atiku questioned the Presidency’s account of Tinubu’s September 2025 visit to Kaduna, which he said listed a wedding and a courtesy call.
“Tinubu can find his way to Kaduna for a wedding. He can find his way there for votes. Why was he absent when grieving families needed their President?” he asked.
He urged Tinubu not to use affected families as a backdrop for a campaign event, calling on the President to explain what had been done for the victims of Tudun Biri, the outcome of investigations into civilian deaths and the measures being taken to protect communities still threatened by abductions.
“Before asking Kaduna for another mandate, he should explain what has been done for the victims of Tudun Biri, what became of investigations into civilian deaths and how his government will protect communities still threatened by abduction,” Atiku said.