The Presidency has blamed Nigeria’s alarming multidimensional poverty figures on failures by state and local governments, insisting that the Federal Government should not be held responsible for the 133 million Nigerians classified as multidimensionally poor.
The position was made public on Wednesday by President Bola Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, in a post on his verified X (formerly Twitter) account.
Onanuga argued that under the Nigerian Constitution, responsibility for providing basic social services rests primarily with state governments and the 774 local government councils.
“Who should be blamed for the 133m Nigerians, multidimensionally poor? The Federal Government? No,” Onanuga wrote.
“The states? Yes. The 774 local councils? Yes. They are constitutionally empowered to provide all the facilities that will take our people out of that crushing poverty bracket. Not the Federal Government.”
His comments have sparked renewed debate over accountability for poverty reduction amid worsening living conditions across the country.
Backing the Presidency’s stance, former Minister of State for Budget and National Planning, Prince Clement Agba, also argued that multidimensional poverty in Nigeria is largely the result of governance failures at subnational levels.
Agba spoke at a public policy forum, where he addressed what he described as widespread misconceptions surrounding Nigeria’s poverty statistics, particularly the frequently cited figure of 133 million multidimensionally poor Nigerians.
“I released the survey information that showed that multi-dimensionally, 133 million Nigerians are poor, and that has been misrepresented,” Agba said.
He clarified that multidimensional poverty is different from income poverty.
“Financially, about 69.5 million Nigerians are poor, living below the two-dollar-a-day benchmark. But multi-dimensionally, 133 million Nigerians are poor,” he explained.
According to Agba, multidimensional poverty measures lack of access to essential services such as education, healthcare, clean water, and sanitation, rather than income alone.
“What is multidimensional poverty? It addresses lack of access—access to basic education, basic health, potable drinking water, and sanitation,” he said.
He argued that these services fall squarely under the responsibilities of state and local governments, not the Federal Government.
“Who is responsible for basic education? Sub-national government. Who is responsible for basic health? Sub-national government. Who provides potable drinking water and sanitation? Sub-national government,” Agba said.
“So why are we blaming the federal government of Nigeria?”
Agba also dismissed claims that successive administrations, including those of former President Muhammadu Buhari and President Tinubu, were directly responsible for the rise in multidimensional poverty.
“I’ve seen people say Buhari increased poverty or Tinubu increased poverty. It has nothing whatsoever to do with that,” he stated.
He further criticised state governors for concentrating development projects in state capitals while neglecting rural communities.
“When they need office, they remember the entire state,” Agba said. “But once they win, about 80 per cent of resources are concentrated in the state capitals. We forget the communities and the local governments.”
According to him, this imbalance has significantly worsened multidimensional poverty in rural areas.
Agba illustrated the concept with examples, noting that even wealthy individuals can be classified as multidimensionally poor if they lack access to essential services.
“If you have all the money in the world but fall ill at night in your community and there is no hospital or healthcare worker available, you are multi-dimensionally poor,” he said.
“If your children have to travel 10 or 20 kilometres to attend school, you are multi-dimensionally poor, regardless of how much money you have.”
The comments from the Presidency and former minister have reignited public debate over fiscal responsibility, governance priorities, and the effectiveness of Nigeria’s federal structure in addressing widespread poverty.