The president Bola Tinubu-led federal government on Monday, reacted to the criticism of the former Labour Party’s presidential candidate, Peter Obi, describing him as a ‘shallow’ personality who is not well grounded in the issues of economics and governance.
Daniel Bwala, Special Adviser to the President on Policy Communication, confirmed this in a statement uploaded on his official X account.
While expressing surprise that Obi could agree with President Bola Tinubu’s economic policies, particularly the removal of fuel subsidies and the unification of foreign exchange, Bwala emphasised that the former Anambra governor and other opposition figures were only interested in gaining power at all costs.
He wrote, “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’.
“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.”
Obi asked Tinubu on Monday to answer for how his administration used the billions of dollars in income that were supposedly saved by eliminating fuel subsidies.
He made the demand when he appeared as a guest on Arise Television.
While agreeing that there was nothing wrong with eliminating the controversial gasoline subsidy and floating the naira, Obi admitted that if elected president, he would have done the same thing.
The former Anambra governor, on the other hand, claimed that he would have implemented the policies gradually and in a more ‘organised’ manner than the Federal Government’s ‘haphazard’ approach.
Obi said, “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.
“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?”
