The Presidency, on Monday, reacted to the criticism of 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.
Special Adviser to the President on Policy Communication, Daniel Bwala, disclosed this in a statement posted via his official X account.
While stating that he was surprised Obi could agree with the economic policies of President Bola Tinubu, especially on fuel subsidy removal and the unification of foreign exchange, Bwala emphasised that it was obvious the former Anambra governor and other opposition figures were simply after taking over power, all the while.
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.”
On Monday, Obi challenged Tinubu to account for how his administration expended the billions of revenue reportedly saved from the removal of fuel subsidy.
He made the demand when he was featured as a guest on Arise Television.
While admitting that there was nothing wrong with the removal of the controversial petroleum subsidy and floating of the naira, Obi conceded that he would have done the same if he were to be elected president.
The former Anambra governor, however, argued that he would have implemented the policies gradually and in a more ‘organised’ way than the ‘haphazard’ way the Federal Government went about it.
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?”
PUNCH.
