Opposition, Experts Knock Tinubu’s N50,000 Cash Relief, Question Vulnerability Criteria

By  Ademu Idakwo, Samson Elijah,  Abuja,  Sola Ojo, Kaduna,  Emmanuel Mgbeahurike, Owerri And Francis Okoye, Maiduguri

Opposition parties and development experts have questioned the federal government’s proposed N50,000 monthly cash transfer to vulnerable Nigerians, raising concerns over the timing of the intervention ahead of the 2027 general elections, the criteria for selecting beneficiaries and whether the amount is sufficient to cushion the effects of the economic hardship.

Reports said  beneficiaries for the cash relief must be vulnerable Nigerian households identified by the Federal Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction.

Ministry officials were not available for details on the eligibility procedure by press time yesterday, but checks by LEADERSHIP SUNDAY  showed that beneficiaries need not apply, or pay any fees, as selection is based on existing social protection frameworks without any clear cut criteria set or proper definition of vulnerability status.

The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC)  warned the federal government against turning its proposed  cash assistance into an instrument of political patronage and vote buying ahead of the 2027 general elections, while other civil society organisations have called for sustainable economic reforms to address the country’s hardship.

The organisations, while acknowledging the importance of financial assistance to struggling households, maintained that cash transfers alone cannot address the underlying causes of poverty. They urged the government to prioritise job creation, affordable food, agricultural investment, improved infrastructure and accessible public services.

All You Need To Know As Tinubu Govt Begins N50,000 Cash Relief  

In an exclusive interview with LEADERSHIP Weekend, CISLAC Executive Director, Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, questioned the timing of the proposed intervention, noting that millions of Nigerians had endured severe economic hardship for nearly three and a half years.

“After nearly three and a half years in office, during which millions of Nigerians have endured severe economic hardship without adequate relief, why is the government suddenly demonstrating this urgency as elections approach?” he asked.

Similarly, the Executive Director of Integrity Advocacy for Development Initiative, Comrade Ofomhi Christopher, questioned the sustainability of the proposed intervention, arguing that it could provide temporary relief without addressing the structural problems driving economic hardship.

“I am not convinced that the proposed ₦50,000 monthly payment to vulnerable Nigerians represents the kind of sustainable intervention required to address the economic hardship Nigerians are facing,” he said.

Christopher challenged the federal government to explain how resources generated from petrol subsidy removal had translated into tangible improvements in infrastructure, education, healthcare and employment.

Kaduna-based International Development Consultant, Hadiza Umar, questioned the rationale behind the development, asking why it is coming up at the eve of the 2027 elections.

“As much as we were happy to receive the news of the monthly pay of N50,000 to vulnerable Nigerians, a few questions came to mind. Why now, at the brink of elections? Who are the “vulnerable Nigerians”? How was the decision for N50,00 reached? How are we planning to reach them and identify genuine ” needy vulnerable Nigerians”? Who are the parties involved in the identification/disbursement? And importantly, what are the requirements (hope no PVC involved)?

“As a development practitioner, I ask these questions because I believe in need-based interventions based on evidence generated in a participatory manner with the participation of the beneficiaries, so we know we are addressing a need, and, when disbursed, it will be useful and utilised by the recipients.

“Today, N50,000 can do very little for the average Nigerian, and it is not enough to have a life-changing effect for the category of people described.

“So it is really worrisome because this money is taxpayers’ funds, and we pay for it, so it can be used meaningfully for the good of all, especially the poor and vulnerable,” she said.

Yusuf Goje, the executive director, Civic Impact for Sustainable Development Foundation, the announcement was a welcome development and an acknowledgement that millions of households are under severe pressure.

“Any attempt to provide direct relief at this time is important, and in principle, cash transfers remain one of the most effective social protection tools globally,” he said.

Yusuf Goje, Executive Director, Civic Impact for Sustainable Development Foundation, the announcement was a welcome development and an acknowledgement that millions of households are under severe pressure.

“Any attempt to provide direct relief at this time is important, and in principle, cash transfers remain one of the most effective social protection tools globally,” he said.

He, however, expressed concern about whether N50,000 is reasonable enough to cushion hardship, especially coming during the campaign season.

“With food inflation extremely high, with cost of transport and rent rising sharply, and the minimum wage at N70,000, N50,000 alone cannot restore purchasing power or meet household consumption demands.

Opposition parties described it as a desperate election gimmick which reflects panic in the President Bola Tinubu-led All Progressives Congress (APC) ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The African Democratic Congress (ADC); Allied Peoples Movement (APM); and the Tanimu Turaki-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), took turns to criticise the idea.

ADC accused the Tinubu administration of attempting to regain public goodwill through cash handouts after subjecting Nigerians to severe economic hardship through its policies.

In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC questioned the timing of the announcement, alleging that the intervention was a reaction to the party’s promise to reduce the cost of living and make life more affordable if elected into power in 2027.

According to the party, the government has recently announced several intervention programmes without delivering meaningful relief to Nigerians.

“President Tinubu is in full panic mode now. Since the ADC and our Presidential Candidate, Atiku Abubakar, have made affordability and reducing the cost of living the cardinal focus of our campaign, the government has been announcing one desperate intervention or another,” Abdullahi said.

A Maiduguri resident, Ahmadu Musa, noted that N50,000 cannot do anything in today’s Nigeria.

“Can it feed a family for a month? Can it pay house rent, school fees, transportation and medical bills? Even a bag of rice and a few other essential food items cannot be gotten with such amount, ” Musa noted.

He added that the government appears to be treating poverty as though it were a temporary inconvenience that can be solved with a token payment, saying that Nigerians are not merely asking for handouts.

” Nigerians are demanding policies that will make life affordable, create employment opportunities and restore their purchasing power”, the resident further said.

The federal government should show sincerity in its quest to empower the citizenry.

This was the view of  Ndubuisi Okoronta, while interacting with  LEADERSHIP. According to him, these  issue of vulnerable  Nigerians  looks like a scam as it is difficult to identify beneficiaries of the N50,000.

He advised the FG to look inwards and find  a better method to empower the citizenry. Speaking,  Aloma Iwundu, advised the FG to open deliberations with the  rural dwellers and work in accordance  with their needs assessment.

He said, “It is not decent for government to decide and give out N50,000 to the citizenry, without finding out the needs of the populace.

This is a wrong notion. He revealed that their are better ways to assist the citizens. He submitted that this method of giving handouts never helped and does not meet their needs and aspirations.