by Mohammed Bello Doka
If poverty is not the responsibility of the Federal Government, then what exactly is?
If over 130 million Nigerians are multidimensionally poor and the centre claims innocence, who then caused the suffering?
If a government controls money, security, fuel prices, exchange rates, and taxes, but denies responsibility for hardship, is it a government at all—or a spectator?
And if this is truly the position of the Tinubu administration, why should Nigerians expect relief, reform, or even concern from Aso Rock?
When Bayo Onanuga, spokesperson to President Bola Tinubu, shared and endorsed a presentation on Nigeria’s multidimensional poverty crisis, he did not merely circulate data. He adopted its conclusions. He owned its assumptions. And by implication, he projected the position of the Federal Government on one of the gravest social emergencies in Nigeria’s history.
Let us state the uncontested fact plainly: Onanuga accepted—without argument or hesitation—that over 130 million Nigerians are multidimensionally poor. That figure was not disputed. It was acknowledged. What followed, however, was not empathy, urgency, or responsibility. What followed was far more dangerous: a deliberate attempt to rewrite who should be blamed—and who should be absolved.
By shifting responsibility almost entirely to state governments and the 774 local councils, Onanuga’s intervention effectively argues that Tinubu’s government bears no responsibility for poverty, has no obligation to address it, and should not be judged by the worsening conditions of ordinary Nigerians. This implication is not hidden. It is direct. And it is damning.
Poverty Is Not Federal Business? A Dangerous Claim
The core claim endorsed by Onanuga is simple and shocking: that states and local governments are constitutionally empowered to provide “all the facilities” required to lift Nigerians out of poverty—and therefore the Federal Government should not be held responsible.
This claim is constitutionally false, economically dishonest, and politically reckless.
Under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Federal Government controls the most powerful levers of economic life:
Monetary and exchange-rate policy
Customs, trade, and ports
Fuel pricing and subsidy policy
National taxation frameworks
Debt accumulation
Security and territorial control
These are not minor or secondary matters. They are the primary drivers of poverty in any modern state.
Inflation is not set by local governments.
Currency devaluation is not decided by governors.
Fuel price hikes are not approved by local council chairmen.
Insecurity that empties farms, markets, and highways is not controlled by states.
To argue that the Federal Government has no responsibility for multidimensional poverty is to deny the very structure of the Nigerian state.
The Abuse of the Multidimensional Poverty Index
Onanuga leaned heavily on the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), first released nationally in 2022 under the supervision of the then Ministry of National Planning, with data produced by the National Bureau of Statistics.
This is where intellectual dishonesty becomes policy.
The MPI measures deprivation.
It does not assign constitutional blame.
It does not exonerate the Federal Government.
Using MPI figures to argue that poverty is solely a state and local government failure is a political distortion of a statistical tool. The data does not say that. The authors did not say that. The methodology does not support that conclusion.
What Onanuga endorsed was not evidence-based reasoning. It was policy laundering—using statistics to wash away accountability.
A Centralised State That Refuses Responsibility
Nigeria runs one of the most centralised federal systems in the world:
The Federal Government controls over half of national revenue
States depend almost entirely on monthly FAAC allocations
Local governments do not receive funds directly
Fiscal autonomy is routinely undermined by federal design
Yet in the face of this extreme centralisation, Onanuga insists that the same Federal Government should not be blamed for poverty.
This contradiction cannot survive serious scrutiny.
You cannot centralise power, revenue, security, and economic policy—and then decentralise blame when the outcomes are disastrous.
Two Scenarios, Both an Indictment
There are only two possible explanations for Onanuga’s argument, and both indict the Tinubu government.
Scenario One: Onanuga accurately reflects the thinking of the Presidency.
If so, then Tinubu’s government has openly admitted that it does not see poverty reduction as its responsibility. In that case, Nigerians should stop expecting relief from fuel price hikes, currency collapse, food inflation, or joblessness—because the government has declared itself irrelevant to their suffering.
Scenario Two: Onanuga does not reflect government thinking.
If so, then Nigeria has a presidential spokesperson who is reckless, unserious, and dangerously out of sync with the responsibilities of his office—causing reputational damage to the government he claims to defend.
Either way, the result is failure.
Security Failure and Poverty: The Truth Onanuga Avoided
Millions of Nigerians are poor today because:
Farmers have been driven off their land
Communities have been displaced by banditry and insurgency
Food production has collapsed
Prices have exploded nationwide
Security is an exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government.
Any serious discussion of poverty that ignores federal security failure is not incomplete by accident—it is incomplete by design.
Taxing the Poor, Then Blaming Others
Since May 29, 2023, Nigerians have endured:
Fuel subsidy removal
VAT pressure
Multiple levies
Currency collapse
Transport and food inflation
These are Federal Government decisions.
The poor have been taxed through higher fuel prices, higher food costs, higher transport fares, and shrinking purchasing power. To extract wealth from the poor through federal policy and then shift responsibility for their suffering to governors is not reform. It is cruel governance dressed up as analysis.
Why Onanuga Is Unfit to Be the Voice of Government
A government spokesperson is not merely a defender-in-chief. He is the bridge between state power and public trust. Onanuga has failed on multiple fronts:
He communicates contempt where empathy is required
He shifts blame instead of explaining policy
He inflames public anger instead of calming it
He exposes government irresponsibility instead of mitigating it
Globally, serious governments understand that public communication matters. In times of hardship, leaders acknowledge pain, accept responsibility, and explain difficult choices carefully. They do not tell suffering citizens that their misery is someone else’s problem.
Public relations is not decoration. It is governance.
What Onanuga Has Really Revealed
By endorsing this narrative, Onanuga has—perhaps unintentionally—said something more devastating than any opposition critic:
That Tinubu’s government is detached from the suffering of Nigerians.
That it does not feel responsible for worsening living conditions.
That it does not see poverty alleviation as its duty.
If poverty is not the Federal Government’s responsibility, then what exactly is the Federal Government for?
This is not a defence of Tinubu’s administration. It is an indictment of it.
Conclusion
By endorsing this narrative, Bayo Onanuga has:
Accepted that over 130 million Nigerians are multidimensionally poor
Attempted to absolve the Federal Government of responsibility
Contradicted constitutional reality
Distorted statistical evidence
Reduced the presidency to ceremonial irrelevance
Poverty on this scale is not a local accident. It is the cumulative outcome of national policy choices—especially those made at the centre.
History will not accept this rewriting.
Data does not support it.
The Constitution does not allow it.
And Nigerians, living with the consequences every day, know better.
Mohammed Bello Doka can be reached via [email protected]
Abuja Network News
Tags
opinion