Nwokobia said this during a live programme on Arise News TV on Thursday, claiming that Tinubu’s style of governance showed he did not have any fresh ideas on how to solve the country’s lingering socioeconomic issues.
The Convener of Country First Movement, Prof Chris Nwokobia has accused President Bola Tinubu’s administration of copying all the policies planned by Peter Obi to run his administration since his inauguration in May.
Nwokobia said this during a live programme on Arise News TV on Thursday, claiming that Tinubu’s style of governance showed he did not have any fresh ideas on how to solve the country’s lingering socioeconomic issues.
Nwokobia, who was a member of the Labour Party/Obi-Datti Presidential Campaign Council for the 2023 election, opined that Peter Obi would have done better than Tinubu if given the chance to lead Nigeria due to his expertise in economics and politics.
He said, “All we have seen in the life span, one month of this administration is copycatting the policy programmes of Peter Gregory Obi. Clearly, Peter Gregory Obi would have done better. Clearly, he understands Nigerian politics. Clearly, he understands the economy. Clearly, he understands business and he is a trader.”
Nwokobia further contended that the favourable appraisal of Tinubu's performance over the last month by some sections of the public, claiming that the president is trying to move the country forward, is false. He claimed that President Muhammadu Buhari began in a similar manner, but that in the end, his administration was unable to deliver on his campaign promises to Nigerians.
He continued: “Regarding the pace of Mr President, I totally disagree with those who say he is moving so fast. Haven’t we seen since 1999, several administrations, some moved faster than this? At some point, it took Buhari about six months or five months to appoint ministers in 2015. He was moving at quite supersonic pace that Nigerians said, ‘Oh, the body language of the president could do so much.’
“He (Tinubu) exchanged services chiefs, he removed subsidy because there was no provision for subsidy beyond June. He had no option but to do that. But the question I always asked economists and those who had gone to this garment of the seat is where really was the subsidy?”