ADC Lacks Grounds To Fault Shettima Over Tinubu’s Reforms, Says TDF

The Democratic Front (TDF) has faulted the African Democratic Congress (ADC) over its criticism of remarks by the Vice President Kashim Shettima on President Bola Tinubu’s economic reforms, arguing that the opposition party should reflect on the country’s economic challenges before the All Progressives Congress (APC) assumed power.

The group accused Kola Ologbondiyan, an ADC campaign spokesperson and former National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), of overlooking the economic difficulties that characterised the party’s 16 years in government.

In a statement signed by its Chairman, Mallam Danjuma Muhammad, and Secretary, Chief Wale Adedayo, TDF said Shettima was justified in acknowledging Tinubu’s efforts to address the country’s economic challenges.

The group argued that the administration inherited deep-rooted economic and security problems, which it said contributed to the need for far-reaching policy changes.

“We are particularly surprised by the realisation that Mr Kola Ologbondiyan forgot so soon that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s economic rescue mission saved Nigeria from the accumulated consequences of the 16 years of misgovernance under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), a political party he served as National Publicity Secretary,” the statement said.

TDF accused Ologbondiyan of ignoring the circumstances that led to the PDP’s defeat in the 2015 general election. It also faulted his criticism of the APC government, citing corruption allegations, administrative shortcomings and economic hardship during the PDP’s years in power.

The group recalled that several state governments struggled to pay workers’ salaries, pensions and gratuities before the APC took over. It attributed the financial difficulties partly to shortfalls in revenue allocations from the Federation Account.

It also cited the security challenges confronting the country at the time, arguing that inadequate funding affected the military’s capacity to combat Boko Haram insurgents.

According to TDF, the federal government struggled to provide sufficient military equipment and support for security personnel during the period.

The group further criticised the PDP administration’s record in infrastructure development, particularly in roads, railways, waterways and the blue economy. It also argued that the government failed to create the conditions needed to encourage private investment in petroleum refining.

TDF said the economic and security challenges contributed to Nigerians’ decision to vote the PDP out of power in 2015.

The group, however, defended the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, arguing that it made progress in critical infrastructure and the fight against terrorism despite the collapse in global crude oil prices between 2015 and 2017.

It maintained that the circumstances surrounding the APC’s emergence in government should inform assessments of the economic policies introduced by subsequent administrations.

TDF said it agreed with Shettima’s assessment that Tinubu’s decisions were necessary to prevent a further deterioration of the economy.

“Contrary to Ologbondiyan’s postulations, TDF aligns with Vice President Kashim Shettima’s commendation for President Tinubu’s sacrifice that pulled Nigeria back from the brink of total economic collapse,” the statement added.

The group also defended the removal of the petrol subsidy, acknowledging that the policy had imposed hardship on Nigerians but arguing that it created room for economic reforms.

“We equally agree with Vice President Kashim Shettima that President Bola Tinubu’s decision to remove the subsidy on petroleum may truly have caused discomfort for the people, but it was the saving grace that has facilitated the current drive towards Nigeria’s economic prosperity,” TDF said.

The group maintained that the ADC should consider the country’s economic history when assessing Tinubu’s policies, insisting that Shettima’s remarks reflected the administration’s position on the need for difficult reforms.