Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has condemned the recent surge in violent attacks across Nigeria, describing them as a threat to national peace and stability. In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, and shared on his official X account yesterday, Atiku denounced "continued acts of terrorism and brigandage," urging the federal government to act with urgency. He emphasized that the protection of lives and property is the primary duty of any government. Atiku extended condolences to victims of recent attacks, including the killing of soldiers of the 29 Task Force Brigade in a coordinated assault on a military base in Benisheikh, Borno State, where Brigadier-General O.O. Braimah was among those killed. Other deadly incidents occurred during the Easter period, with five worshippers killed and 31 abducted in Ariko village, Kaduna State, and 10 people killed in Gwer East, Benue State. In Kebbi and Kwara states, at least 49 villagers died in coordinated attacks, with 44 deaths recorded in Shanga Local Government Area of Kebbi. Renewed banditry in Katsina claimed the life of a policeman, while homes and shops were burnt in Awapul, Chibok LGA. Atiku welcomed U.S. support in counterterrorism efforts but stressed the need for sustained international cooperation.
Atiku's rebuke lands hardest not for its condemnation of violence—expected of any public figure—but for its direct challenge to President Tinubu's framing of economic reality. By zeroing in on Tinubu's comparison of Nigerian and Kenyan fuel prices, Atiku exposes a growing disconnect between official narratives and lived experience. The President's suggestion that Nigerians should be grateful for lower petrol prices rings hollow when, as Atiku notes, the cost of living in Nigeria exceeds Kenya's despite this apparent advantage. The critique gains force from specific data: declining income levels, stagnant wages, and rising household expenditures that render fuel price comparisons statistically convenient but practically meaningless.
The security situation compounds the economic argument. With attacks in Borno, Kaduna, Benue, Kebbi, and Katsina claiming dozens of lives and displacing communities, the state's failure to protect citizens undermines any economic messaging. Atiku's mention of Brigadier-General O.O. Braimah's death is not merely ceremonial; it underscores the toll on military personnel tasked with containing insurgencies that have outlasted multiple administrations. When rural communities are burned and worshippers targeted during Easter, the erosion of state authority becomes visible. These are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a deeper collapse in governance capacity.
Ordinary Nigerians, especially in rural and conflict-prone areas, bear the full weight of both economic strain and physical insecurity. Farmers in Benue, traders in Kebbi, and civil servants in Abuja all face a shrinking ability to afford basic goods, even as their safety is compromised. Atiku's point about wage structures ignoring regional disparities hits home for those earning the national minimum wage in high-inflation zones. Their purchasing power has not just declined—it has become irrelevant in daily survival.
This moment fits a pattern: Nigerian leaders increasingly rely on selective metrics to project progress while avoiding structural failures. Tinubu's fuel price argument mirrors past administrations that spotlighted GDP growth amid rising poverty. The danger lies not in the numbers themselves but in their use to obscure, rather than explain, reality.
