Should Citizens Expect Prosperity in a Second Term?

Abba Dukawa

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s case for a second term rests on a promise of “second-time prosperity.” But Nigerians will not judge that promise by campaign rhetoric or explanations about who caused the country’s hardship. They will judge it by whether their lives improve: whether food becomes affordable, wages regain purchasing power, jobs become available, roads and farmlands become safe, and families can live without fear.

That is the central test of the President’s re-election bid. Leadership requires more than presenting achievements or blaming predecessors and opponents. It requires confronting uncomfortable realities, acknowledging suffering, explaining what is being done, and providing measurable evidence of progress. Nigerians need clear commitments to protect vulnerable communities, secure major transport routes, restore safe access to farmlands, support displaced families, and hold perpetrators accountable.

Those stakes were sharply illustrated on Saturday, October 24, 2026, when Tinubu stood before supporters at Ranchers Bees Stadium in Kaduna to make his case for another four years in office. At a time when millions of Nigerians are struggling to afford food, pay rent, and keep their families afloat, the President did not begin with a detailed account of how his administration had eased those pressures. Instead, he turned the conversation towards the opposition, declaring:

“I have an argument. I hear my opponent talking about hunger, poverty. Who created it? They did! They created the hunger, they created the poverty. We are trying to eradicate it,” he declared.

It was a politically calculated move. By assigning responsibility for hunger to his opponents, Tinubu sought to recast 2027 as a choice between the architects of the crisis and the government working to fix it. But this framing exposes the central vulnerability of his re-election bid: incumbents may explain a crisis, but they are still judged by what citizens endure under their watch.

The opposition does not cause economic hardship. Such a claim has no sound economic basis. President Tinubu approves major policy decisions, including fuel subsidy removal, foreign exchange liberalisation, new taxes, and borrowing. Under Section 5 of the Constitution, executive power is vested in the President.

The institutions responsible for managing the Nigerian economy have distinct roles. The Ministry of Finance manages fiscal policy, including revenue, expenditure, and debt, while the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) manages monetary policy, including interest rates, inflation, and the value of the naira. The National Assembly approves budgets and loans. These are the institutions and officials with the authority to make and implement economic decisions. The opposition has no signature on these economic documents.

How, then, can the opposition be held responsible for the hardship? It does not control the CBN, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC), the Nigeria Customs Service, or the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS). It does not set interest rates, print money, prepare or implement the national budget, or negotiate fuel subsidies and palliatives.

The opposition’s role is to criticise government policies, propose alternatives, and alert the public to emerging problems. In a democracy, that is its responsibility. Economic hardship stems from policy choices, including how fuel subsidy removal was implemented without adequate cushioning measures, how the naira was floated, how debt continues to rise, and how insecurity prevents farmers from producing food. When the government blames the opposition for hardship, it evades accountability. Governance is about results, not excuses.

Economic hardship is not an abstract policy debate. It is felt in the market, at the bus park, and in the rent envelope at the end of the month. A family spending most of its income on food, a worker whose salary no longer covers basic expenses, and a young graduate without a job are not persuaded by arguments about who created the problem. They want proof that things are getting better and to know when that relief will reach them.

Blame-shifting fails at the ballot box because it does not answer the voter’s central question. Nigerians may accept that past governments contributed to today’s crisis, but responsibility follows power. A government that controls policy today cannot campaign indefinitely against the failures of yesterday.

Tinubu asked for another mandate, promising continuity, progress, and development. Addressing young Nigerians, he said: “To you, the children of our country, it’s a promise of second-time prosperity; you will not regret it.” The question is: how? This is why the promise of “second-time prosperity” struggles to resonate. For millions of Nigerians, there is no light at the end of the tunnel because the tunnel is measured in daily survival.

Public confidence must be earned through results, not rhetoric. If President Tinubu expects Nigerians to support another term on the promise of prosperity, he must show how the next phase will deliver tangible improvements in incomes, jobs, food affordability, and public services. Encouraging indicators may offer hope, but hope alone is not prosperity.

Until Nigerians can see and feel recovery in their daily lives, the promise of a more prosperous second term will remain unconvincing. For many, the fear that they will regret it again is entirely rational. The purpose of reform cannot be merely to stabilise markets; it must also improve people’s welfare. Where macroeconomic gains coexist with poverty affecting 63% of the population, celebrating statistics without addressing people’s lived realities is tone-deaf. Citizens are entitled to demand concrete, measurable commitments for a second term.

As 2027 approaches, the decisive measure will not be applause at rallies or the force of accusations against opponents. It will be whether ordinary Nigerians can feel a difference in their pockets and homes.

The President also said his administration pays salaries regularly and praised APC governors: “We pay salaries regularly. Our governors are working. I am proud of them. They are developing.” Paying salaries regularly is not an achievement; it is the minimum obligation of any government. In 2026, Nigerians are not asking whether salaries are paid but whether those salaries can buy anything. When food inflation stands at 19.59% and a litre of petrol costs ₦1,400, regular salary payments without adequate purchasing power amount to regular impoverishment.

Praising the regular payment of salaries a constitutional duty, not a campaign achievement—is like campaigning in a hospital by talking about painting its fence while ignoring the dying patients inside.

One would expect the President to recognise insecurity in the North the crisis threatening lives and livelihoods across Northern Nigeria. What does salary payment mean to a farmer who cannot safely reach his fields, a traveller afraid to use the Birnin Gwari–Kaduna road, or families in parts of Zamfara, Katsina, and Plateau who do not know what each night may bring?

When farmers abandon their fields, food production suffers. When roads become dangerous, commerce and mobility decline. When villages face repeated attacks, families lose their sense of belonging and confidence in the institutions meant to protect them.

If insecurity was absent from, or inadequately addressed in, the President’s remarks, that omission deserves serious scrutiny. At a time when Northern communities continue to demand protection, citizens are entitled to ask why their most pressing concern did not receive the attention it deserves.

A second-term mandate cannot be secured by asking Nigerians to endure hardship indefinitely while pointing to improving reserves, slower inflation, or regular salary payments. Economic recovery that leaves families unable to afford food, workers unable to maintain their standard of living, and farmers unable to reach their fields is not prosperity. It is a promise deferred at the expense of those least able to bear it.

Voters should therefore demand a public, time-bound contract, not another general assurance. That contract must include specific targets for reducing food inflation and poverty, creating productive jobs, restoring purchasing power, lowering the cost of transport and energy, securing major roads and farming communities, restoring access to abandoned farmlands, assisting displaced families, and prosecuting those responsible for attacks. Each target should have a deadline, a budget, an accountable institution, and publicly verifiable progress reports.

The President may ask Nigerians to trust his promise of “second-time prosperity,” but trust must now be earned through measurable results. By 2027, citizens should judge the government not by its explanations or campaign slogans, but by whether families can afford food, workers can live on their wages, farmers can safely produce, and communities can sleep without fear. If those conditions do not improve, voters will be justified in concluding that the promise was not a plan for prosperity but a request for more time without accountability. Before 2027, Nigerians must demand proof, not promises and at the ballot box, accountability must speak louder than applause.

Dukawa writes from Abuja. He can be reached at [email protected].