Former Vice President and ADC presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar has accused President Bola Tinubu of presiding over a collapse in agricultural export earnings while farmers struggle with insecurity and manufacturers confront punishing production costs. He said an administration that promised to build a productive economy has left Nigeria selling crops abroad without capturing enough of the processing jobs and value they can generate at home.

“Tinubu cannot call this reform when the people who grow our food and the businesses that should process it are being squeezed from both sides,” Atiku said.

In a statement issued by Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council, Atiku said the trade figures expose the scale of the failure. Nigeria’s agricultural trade swung from a ₦740.27 billion surplus in the first half of 2025 to a ₦56.13 billion deficit in the first half of 2026—a ₦796.40 billion reversal in one year. Agricultural exports fell by 33.3 per cent, far faster than imports, which also declined.

“The excuse that Nigerians simply imported too much will not stand. Tinubu’s government must answer for the collapse in what Nigeria sold to the world. The country is losing export earnings, and the President owes farmers, workers and businesses more than another speech about prosperity.

“What has his administration done to make it safer to farm, cheaper to move produce, easier to keep a processing plant running or more profitable to sell a finished Nigerian product abroad? Farmers cannot cultivate promises. Manufacturers cannot power factories with speeches. Workers cannot feed their families on assurances that prosperity is coming.”

Atiku said Nigeria’s leading agricultural exports still include cashew nuts in shell and cocoa beans, illustrating the value the country could retain by expanding domestic processing.

“We grow the crop. Someone else does more of the processing, builds a business around it and earns the larger return. Then Tinubu speaks of jobs while Nigerian factories struggle to compete. He has made production expensive and called the resulting hardship reform.

“A trade deficit alone does not explain every problem on our farms. But after more than three years in office, the President owns the decisions that have left farmers exposed and producers burdened. He cannot claim credit for every favourable statistic and disown a ₦796.40 billion reversal when the figures turn against him.”

Atiku said his proposed production subsidy for petroleum products refined in Nigeria follows the same principle: keep more production, work and value at home. The support would cover qualifying products from Nigerian refineries, including modular refineries. Imported products would not qualify. It would be capped, budgeted and independently audited, with measures to track whether savings reach consumers and businesses.

He said the Tinubu administration’s CNG initiative had failed abysmally as a relief measure: the cost of converting vehicles is beyond the reach of many poor Nigerians, conversion kits are difficult to access, and the buses presented as palliatives remain unavailable to many of the people who need them.

“Local refining is about more than the price at the petrol pump. Aviation fuel affects fares. LPG affects the cost of cooking. Petroleum products and feedstocks affect industries and the people they employ. Nigerians need practical relief they can actually access—not schemes whose costs and shortages put the promised benefits out of reach. The value of our resources must reach Nigerians beyond the refinery gate.

“My administration will begin restoring a transparent production subsidy from Day One. We will back farmers and processors with the same determination. Grow it here. Process it here. Refine it here. Create the jobs here. Make life affordable here.

“Tinubu’s record is becoming painfully clear: Nigeria supplies raw crops and crude oil while Nigerians pay dearly for finished goods. A government that cannot turn our resources into affordable products and decent jobs has failed the people it was elected to serve.”

The long drawn legal tussle between FirstBank of Nigeria Limited and General Hydrocarbons Limited over the ownership of the crude oil aboard the FPSO Tamara Tokoni, may have come to a conclusive end as the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered its judgment.

The Apex Court, on Friday, ordered the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal and the Admiralty Marshal to immediately hand over the crude oil aboard the FPSO Tamara Tokoni to General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), bringing to an end a legal dispute over the asset.

In a unanimous judgment delivered by a five-member panel of justices, the apex court held that the suit instituted by First Bank of Nigeria (FBN) was contractual in nature and not an admiralty matter.

The court consequently ruled that both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case.

The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal filed by General Hydrocarbons Limited and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, describing it as perverse.

Justice Abiru, who read the lead judgment, announced the unanimous decision of the panel comprising Justices Uwani Aba-Aji, Salawa, Agim, Uwa and Abiru.

The Attorney-General of the Federation has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, arguing that their continued existence violates constitutional provisions and undermines Nigeria’s electoral integrity.

In court filings, the Attorney General contended that unless the court intervenes, INEC would “continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty” by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

The filing stressed that the right to associate as a political party is not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional limits. It further argued that it is in the interest of justice for the court to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 and filed at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, lists the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators as the plaintiff.

The defendants include INEC as the first defendant and the Attorney General of the Federation as the second defendant, alongside five political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord (A), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

At the center of the issue in the case is whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s own regulations.

The plaintiffs argue that the affected parties have persistently failed to satisfy the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration. These include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state or local government level.

They contend that the parties performed poorly in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections, failing to win seats across key tiers of government, yet continue to be recognised by INEC as eligible political platforms.

The plaintiffs maintain that this continued recognition is unlawful and undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.

In the affidavit supporting the suit, the forum’s national coordinator, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, states that allowing parties that have not met constitutional requirements to remain on the register “is unconstitutional, illegal and a violation” of the governing legal framework.

The suit asks the court to declare that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties and to compel the commission to do so before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.

Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiffs are also seeking far-reaching orders that would bar the affected parties from participating in the next general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies and primaries. They further request injunctions restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless and until they comply strictly with constitutional provisions.

Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is their interpretation of the law as imposing a mandatory duty on INEC. They argue that the use of the word “shall” in the Constitution leaves no room for discretion once a party fails to meet the stipulated thresholds.

In their written address, they rely on statutory provisions and judicial precedents to contend that electoral performance is an objective condition that must be enforced to maintain discipline, transparency, and accountability in the political system.

Tribune