Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s presidential hopeful in the last general Electiona, criticizes the Federal Government, emphasizing its inadequate focus on economic management matters.
The Labour Party candidate conveyed this statement through his official X handle on Tuesday.
Obi raises objections to the National Assembly’s recent approval of President Bola Tinubu’s proposal to securitize the unresolved N7.3 trillion ways and means debt balance.
In financial practice, securitization entails aggregating various debt instruments into bonds for investor transactions, while Ways and Means, managed by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), serves as a temporary financing avenue to offset government budget shortfalls.
He stated, ‘This is the time when we need to go beyond politics and partisan grandstanding to address the fundamental issues of rational economic management.’
Read also: FG Destroying Nigeria’s Economy With Huge Debt – Peter Obi
‘I am afraid that the current administration is not paying sufficient attention to issues of rational economic management.’
Terming it as “illegal,” Obi questions the legality of the securitization process.
In addressing the issue, the Labour Party’s presidential contender revealed that the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari obtained Senate approval for N22.7 trillion in ways and means borrowing from the CBN, a scant 26 days before the conclusion of the eight-year tenure.
The former Anambra governor said, ‘In seven years, CBN lending to the Buhari government had climbed 2700% in flagrant violation of the CBN Act.’
‘Indifferent to the illegality of the excessive ways and means borrowing, the national assembly still approved the new Tinubu administration’s request for an N7.3 trn securitization of the existing ways and means facility just before considering the 2024 budget proposals.’
‘No questions asked. No explanations were sought as to the precise purpose of these borrowings all within the seven-month tenure of this government.’
‘Ordinarily, minimum public accountability should require that the president and his administration offer more specific explanations about the purpose of these borrowings.’
‘But so far, all we have been told is that these borrowings are meant to fund ‘capital’ expenditure,’ he said.