The Presidency on Monday fired back at Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential contender, over remarks he made regarding President Bola Tinubu’s use of funds following the elimination of the fuel subsidy.
According to the Presidency, the previous governor of Anambra state had a limited understanding of governance and economics.
Join our WhatsApp community
The attack on the presidency was a reaction to remarks made by Peter Obi during his appearance on the Arise News program, in which he demanded that the government provide an explanation for the billions of dollars that were made from the withdrawal of subsidies.
Special Adviser to the President on Policy and Communication, Daniel Bwala in his X handle (formerly Twitter), accused Obi of being interested in grabbing power but lacked the knowledge of economics and governance.
In his X handle @BwalaDaniel, he said: “Is anybody watching @PeterObi on Arise TV? He agreed with our policy of removal of subsidy and unifications of the foreign exchange; he claimed he would have done it better than us in an “organized manner”
“He was asked what is the “organized manner” He played with words yet to arrive at agreeing with us.
“Anybody with rational mind knows these guys are just looking to grab power; but they don’t have any alternative agenda.
“He seem to have Very shallow knowledge of economics and governance
“Remember this is even an interview anchored by a member of his Obidient movement ohhh that’s why you don’t hear “I put it to you” no barking like a Rottweiler; Yet “if it didn’t Dey it didn’t Dey.”
Join our WhatsApp community
Recall that during his appearance as a guest on Arise News, Peter Obi pressed Tinubu to explain how his government used the billions of dollars that were purportedly saved by eliminating the fuel subsidy.
Although Obi acknowledged that there was nothing wrong with the contentious fuel subsidy being removed and the naira floating, he stated that if he had been elected president, he would have taken the same action.
Peter 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.
Join our WhatsApp community
“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?”
