Tinubu’s “Buhari Is Me” Remark: Continuity Of Leadership Or Ownership Of Failure?

By DANIEL NYONG

Two Statements, One Contradiction

WHEN President Bola Ahmed Tinubu declared in March 2025 that Nigeria was on the brink of bankruptcy before his administration’s reforms, the message was clear: he inherited a broken system.

Yet, barely a year later, his assertion that “the late Muhammadu Buhari is me” reframed that narrative entirely, suggesting continuity rather than rupture.

For observers, the tension between these statements is more than rhetorical—it raises fundamental questions about accountability, governance, and the political framing of Nigeria’s economic reality.

The Numbers Behind the Narrative

The economic backdrop lends weight to the debate. When Tinubu assumed office in 2023, Nigeria’s public debt hovered around ₦87 trillion, having risen sharply during Buhari’s tenure from roughly ₦12 trillion in 2015.

By early 2026, that figure has climbed significantly, with estimates placing total public debt well above ₦150 trillion. Debt servicing now consumes a substantial share of government revenue, limiting fiscal space for development.

While the administration points to reforms such as fuel subsidy removal and foreign exchange unification as necessary corrections, critics argue that the pace of borrowing raises concerns about long-term sustainability.

Reform Versus Reality

There is little dispute that Tinubu’s early policy decisions triggered economic shocks. Inflation surged, the naira depreciated sharply, and the cost of living rose for millions of Nigerians.

Supporters of the administration maintain that these are short-term pains associated with structural reforms. They point to improving foreign reserves and signs of macroeconomic stabilisation as evidence that the strategy is beginning to yield results.

However, for many citizens, the immediate reality remains defined by higher food prices, increased transport costs, and reduced purchasing power.

Continuity as Strength—or Liability?

Tinubu’s framing of his administration as a continuation of Buhari’s raises a strategic dilemma. On one hand, it signals political stability and alignment within the ruling party.

On the other, it complicates attempts to distance the current government from past policy failures. If the two administrations are indeed one continuum, then responsibility for economic challenges cannot be easily reassigned.

This dual messaging—simultaneously invoking inheritance and ownership—has become a focal point of criticism from opposition figures and policy analysts.

Public Trust and Political Messaging

The broader implication lies in public perception. Analysts warn that inconsistent messaging can erode trust, particularly when citizens experience persistent economic hardship.

“When leaders alternate between blaming the past and claiming continuity, it creates confusion about where responsibility truly lies,” notes a Lagos-based economist.

For many Nigerians, the debate is less about political semantics and more about tangible outcomes.

The Bigger Question: Progress or Prolonged Pain?

Ultimately, the discussion extends beyond Tinubu or Buhari. It touches on a larger question about governance in Nigeria: whether policy continuity has translated into meaningful progress or entrenched systemic challenges.

The country’s long-standing issues—overreliance on oil, weak revenue generation, and institutional inefficiencies—remain largely unresolved.

Beyond Soundbites

Tinubu’s contrasting statements may reflect political pragmatism, but they also expose the complexities of governing a struggling economy.

For Nigerians, the real measure of leadership will not be in competing narratives, but in whether reforms deliver sustained relief and long-term growth.

Until then, the debate over continuity versus change is likely to remain as contested as the economic realities it seeks to explain.