Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has said a recent report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) confirms that the economic reforms introduced by President Bola Tinubu have deepened hardship across the country.
Atiku’s spokesperson, Phrank Shaibu, made this known in a statement issued on Sunday. The IMF, in its latest assessment of Nigeria’s economy, warned that the country is entering a more fragile phase and revised its growth forecast downward to 4.1 percent.
The report has sparked widespread reactions among Nigerians and key stakeholders. Responding, Atiku said the IMF’s findings merely reflect the daily realities faced by citizens, contrary to the government’s optimistic economic narrative.
According to him, while officials present reforms in technical terms, ordinary Nigerians are grappling with severe economic strain, with wages losing value amid rising costs of living. He stressed that hardship has worsened under the current administration, despite promises of renewed hope.
“At a time when Nigerians were promised renewed hope, what they have received is renewed hardship—raw, relentless, and unforgiving,” Atiku said. “The IMF is not breaking news; it is confirming a national emergency that this administration refuses to acknowledge.”
He further described the situation at the grassroots level as dire, noting that many families are withdrawing their children from school due to rising costs, while insecurity is forcing farmers off their lands.
The IMF report underscores growing concerns about Nigeria’s economic trajectory under Tinubu’s reforms, which include the removal of fuel subsidies and the unification of the foreign exchange market. While the government argues these measures are necessary for long-term stability, critics say they have triggered inflation, unemployment, and widespread poverty.
The downward revision in growth projections adds pressure on policymakers to balance fiscal discipline with measures that cushion the most vulnerable. As debates over Nigeria’s economic direction intensify, the gap between official narratives and lived experiences remains a central point of contention.
