The Presidency has fired back at former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi, branding him as desperate for power and lacking depth in matters of governance and economics.
Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Policy Communication, Daniel Bwala, launched the scathing attack via his official X handle on Monday, following Obi’s appearance on Arise Television.
Bwala expressed disbelief that Obi would agree with the Tinubu administration’s economic policies—particularly the removal of fuel subsidy and unification of foreign exchange—while still claiming he would have implemented them more effectively.
“Is anybody watching Peter Obi on Arise TV? He agreed with our policy of removal of subsidy and unification of the foreign exchange; he claimed he would have done it better than us in an ‘organised manner’,” Bwala wrote.
He questioned Obi’s grasp of policy and governance, accusing him of playing semantics without offering substantive alternatives.
“He was asked what the ‘organised manner’ is. He played with words, yet to arrive at agreeing with us.
“Anybody with a rational mind knows these guys are just looking to grab power, but they don’t have any alternative agenda.
“He seems to have very shallow knowledge of economics and governance.
“Remember, this is even an interview anchored by a member of his Obidient movement.
“That’s why you don’t hear ‘I put it to you’ and no barking like a rottweiler; Yet ‘if it didn’t Dey it didn’t Dey.’”
Meanwhile, during his Arise TV appearance, Obi reaffirmed his support for the subsidy removal and naira floatation but criticised the Tinubu government for its “haphazard” approach.
“I have consistently maintained that I would have removed the fuel subsidy.
“If you go to my manifesto, it is there and the steps I would have taken in an organised manner.
“There is nothing wrong with the removal of the fuel subsidy.
“What is wrong is the haphazard way in which it was announced and implemented,” he said.
Obi also questioned the whereabouts of the billions reportedly saved from subsidy removal, demanding transparency from the government.
“Since we were told that we removed it because we don’t want to borrow and that the funds will allow for investments in critical infrastructure.
“Billions saved. Where is it? Where is it invested in critical areas of development?”
