In the run-up to, and in the wake of, President Bola Tinubu’s three-year anniversary celebration in office, the administration highlighted what it presented as major economic progress—most notably an increase in government revenue. However, Peter Obi has publicly questioned the meaning and sustainability of these achievements, arguing that the gains being celebrated are being driven by borrowing and are therefore translating into hardship rather than relief for Nigerians.
The central point of Obi’s reaction is the dramatic change in the government’s revenue figures that Tinubu used in his anniversary remarks. According to the claims being circulated around the celebration, Tinubu pointed to an increase in revenue from N16.8 trillion in 2022 to N35 trillion by 2025. This is an enormous leap in a relatively short period, and it would ordinarily be interpreted as a sign of strengthening economic activity, improved compliance, better tax collection, or successful fiscal reforms.
Yet Obi’s critique centers on how that revenue increase is being achieved and what it is delivering for ordinary people. He suggests that the revenue growth is being accompanied by excessive borrowing—an approach that may inflate fiscal indicators in the short term while deepening economic strain over time. In this framing, the government’s improved revenue numbers may not automatically equal improved welfare for citizens if the state relies heavily on debt to fund spending, stabilize the economy, or manage shortfalls in other areas.
The phrase “exponential increase in revenue with excessive borrowing” captures Obi’s argument that the state’s fiscal position may be deteriorating even as headline revenue rises. In many economies, particularly those facing high costs of governance, limited productive investment, and weak public trust, increased revenue can be offset by equally or more rising debt servicing obligations. When borrowing is used to cover budget gaps or sustain expenditures, a larger share of future revenue can be diverted to paying interest and principal rather than funding critical services such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, and social support programs.
Therefore, Obi’s stance is not only about whether the revenue numbers are accurate, but about the broader fiscal context: whether the government’s strategy is sustainable and whether it is producing tangible benefits for households. The rhetorical emphasis on “yet more hardship for Nigerians” indicates that the administration’s celebrated revenue growth has not translated into a noticeable improvement in everyday living conditions. Even if government revenue has grown, Nigerians may still be experiencing pressure from inflation, currency instability, reduced purchasing power, rising cost of goods and services, and the general economic uncertainty that affects employment and business activity.
Obi’s critique also reflects a political and economic debate that often arises during anniversary assessments: how to measure success in public policy. Tinubu’s administration appears to have measured success using certain fiscal metrics, particularly revenue accumulation. Obi, by contrast, is implicitly advocating for a results-based approach that accounts for the lived reality of citizens. For him, the test of economic management is not just whether revenue is higher, but whether the economy is functioning in a way that improves living standards, protects jobs, and ensures that the benefits of growth—if any—reach ordinary Nigerians.
The structure of the claim suggests that Tinubu’s anniversary speech listed multiple achievements, with revenue growth presented as one of the standout outcomes. The excerpt provided begins: “In celebrating three years of his administration, President Bola Tinubu included, among his achievements, an increase in revenue from N16.8 trillion in 2022 to N35 trillion in 2025.” This statement frames revenue growth as a major accomplishment, likely linked to improved fiscal performance, increased tax collection, and enhanced government capacity to mobilize resources.
However, Obi’s response challenges the implications of that figure. By stressing that the revenue rise comes alongside “excessive borrowing,” he implies that the government may be relying on debt rather than durable structural improvements. Borrowing can be used for development, but excessive borrowing tends to increase vulnerability—especially for countries that depend on foreign financing. It can also create a cycle where governments face recurring fiscal stress: revenue targets may be met on paper, but debt servicing grows and reduces fiscal space, leaving less money for essential services or productivity-enhancing spending.
In addition to economic pressures, the critique suggests a governance and policy integrity issue. If revenue is rising sharply but Nigerians are not seeing relief, questions naturally arise regarding budget priorities, spending efficiency, and the extent to which the increased revenue is being used wisely. For example, critics typically examine whether higher revenue is consumed by recurrent expenditures, inefficient procurement, subsidy reforms without adequate cushioning, or large-scale programs that do not improve outcomes proportionately.
Obi’s message, as reflected in the input, appears to be a warning that the administration’s narrative may be incomplete. Tinubu’s revenue figures may be one component of fiscal performance, but they do not necessarily capture the cost of achieving those figures. Borrowing and debt obligations can neutralize the positive impact of increased revenue, meaning that the net effect on the economy and citizens may still be negative.
The phrase “Yet more hardship for Nigerians” indicates the political conclusion Obi draws from this analysis. Hardship may manifest in multiple ways, including higher living costs, slower business activity, or limited economic opportunities. When governments experience economic stress, they often implement measures—such as tightening spending, increasing taxes, or reducing subsidies—that may raise short-term economic pressure on citizens. Even if government revenue increases, households may still struggle if prices rise faster than incomes or if social supports are inadequate.
This context also clarifies why Obi’s critique is framed as a response to a specific public moment: Tinubu’s third anniversary celebration. Anniversary statements are often used to consolidate public perception and justify the administration’s approach. Obi’s intervention suggests that his camp wants to counterbalance the administration’s optimistic framing with an alternative narrative grounded in debt levels, borrowing practices, and the tangible experiences of citizens.
From a policy analysis standpoint, the argument implies that simply increasing revenue is not enough. The quality of revenue matters—whether it comes from sustainable sources like broad-based taxation and improved compliance, or from volatile areas that may not remain stable. The composition of spending matters as well—whether the revenue is used to expand productive investment that stimulates growth, or to finance consumption and debt servicing that may crowd out development.
Obi’s statement therefore encourages the public to look beyond headline numbers. It positions government borrowing as a key variable that determines whether revenue gains produce real economic improvement. Excessive borrowing can undermine long-term stability through higher future debt burdens and through the possibility that debt service absorbs government income that could otherwise be used for public goods.
While the excerpt does not provide the full details of Obi’s evidence, it clearly identifies his thesis: an “exponential increase” in revenue should not be celebrated without accounting for excessive borrowing and the ongoing suffering of Nigerians. The emphasis on exponential growth—from N16.8 trillion to N35 trillion within roughly three years—makes the revenue story attention-grabbing. But Obi’s addition of “excessive borrowing” reframes it as a potentially precarious fiscal situation. The conclusion “Yet more hardship for Nigerians” completes the argument by tying the macroeconomic debate to the human impact.
In summary, Peter Obi’s critique of President Bola Tinubu’s three-year anniversary claims centers on the mismatch between government revenue growth and citizens’ lived hardship. Tinubu’s administration celebrated a revenue jump from N16.8 trillion in 2022 to N35 trillion by 2025. Obi counters that such dramatic revenue growth is being achieved alongside excessive borrowing, which can create long-term fiscal vulnerability and reduce the benefits that citizens should experience. He argues that Nigerians are still facing worsening conditions rather than meaningful relief, implying that the government’s strategy may not be sustainable or may be misallocating increased revenue. According to the source of the news story provided.
Peter Obi: Exponential increase in revenue with excessive borrowing: Yet more hardship for Nigerians! In celebrating three years of his administration, President Bola Tinubu included, among his achievements, an increase in revenue from N16.8 trillion in 2022 to N35 trillion in 2025. An. #breaking
— @PeterObi May 1, 2026
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
