Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has strongly criticised President Bola Tinubu over his defence of government borrowing, describing the claim that borrowing is not leprosy as “absolute nonsense”.
Obasanjo argued that excessive public debt could have consequences far beyond the present generation, warning that the burden of loans could affect Nigerians for years to come.
The former president made the remarks on Friday, October 30, 2026, while speaking at the Ajibosin Platform, a public forum held in Abeokuta, Ogun State. The event focused on leveraging artificial intelligence to solve grassroots problems and accelerate national development.
His comments come amid renewed debate over Nigeria’s borrowing plans after Tinubu asked the National Assembly to consider a fresh external borrowing programme worth billions of dollars and euros.
READ ALSO: Ogun Police Detain Pastor Over Alleged Abuse of 16-Year-Old Stepdaughter
1. Obasanjo Calls Tinubu’s Borrowing Remark ‘Absolute Nonsense’
Obasanjo directly challenged Tinubu’s earlier comparison of borrowing with leprosy, arguing that the consequences of accumulating public debt could extend across generations.
“And for anybody to say debt is no leprosy is absolute nonsense. Debt is worse than leprosy. Because leprosy destroys only one person. Debt destroys generations,” the former president said.
His remarks reflected his concern that the financial obligations created by successive governments could place a long-term burden on the country and its citizens.
The criticism has renewed public discussion about whether Nigeria’s borrowing is producing enough economic value to justify the cost of repayment.
2. Tinubu Previously Defended Government Borrowing
Tinubu defended his administration’s borrowing policy in April 2026, insisting that taking loans should not automatically be considered harmful if the government has a credible plan to repay them.
“If we have to borrow, we borrow. Borrowing is not leprosy; we just have to work hard to be able to pay for it,” the President said at the State House during a meeting with Plateau State leaders.
Tinubu’s position is that borrowing can be necessary when a country needs funds for major infrastructure projects and other development priorities.
However, Obasanjo’s response highlights a fundamental disagreement over the risks associated with borrowing and the consequences of allowing public debt to accumulate.
3. Tinubu Seeks Approval for Billions in External Loans
The disagreement comes days after Tinubu requested legislative approval for a supplementary external borrowing plan covering the 2026–2027 period.
According to reports, the proposal includes approximately $20.52 billion and €1.045 billion in external financing.
The request was conveyed in a letter read by Senate President Godswill Akpabio during a plenary session on Tuesday, October 27.
The proposal is significant because it could add to the government’s financial obligations if the loans are approved, obtained and drawn down.
However, the President’s request should not be confused with a completed borrowing transaction: legislative consideration and subsequent financing arrangements are separate steps.
Details of the proposed borrowing were reported by Premium Times.
4. Government Says the Loans Will Fund Development Projects
The Federal Government has said the proposed external financing would support projects and programmes across several sectors.
These include infrastructure, agriculture, healthcare, education, water supply, security, employment generation and financial management reforms.
The administration has argued that additional financing is needed to address infrastructure gaps and support its economic development agenda.
Supporters of development-focused borrowing generally argue that loans can be justified when they finance productive investments that improve economic activity, create jobs and generate benefits that outweigh repayment costs.
The central question, therefore, is not simply whether a government borrows, but whether the money is used effectively and whether the resulting economic benefits justify the financial burden.
5. Obasanjo Questions Nigeria’s Economic Progress
Obasanjo also raised questions about Nigeria’s economic performance over several decades, particularly the sharp depreciation of the naira.
Recalling when he established his farm nearly five decades ago, he compared the currency’s historical value with its much weaker position today.
He questioned what the country had achieved over that period and challenged Nigerian leaders to demonstrate their capacity to develop policies that improve citizens’ living conditions.
The exchange-rate comparison formed part of his broader criticism of the country’s economic management.
Currency movements, however, are influenced by several factors, including inflation, foreign-exchange supply and demand, productivity, trade balances and monetary policy. The exchange rate alone does not provide a complete assessment of a country’s economic performance.
Nevertheless, the depreciation of the naira remains a major concern for households and businesses because it can increase the cost of imported goods, machinery, medicines and other essential products.
6. Obasanjo Also Criticises Reliance on the World Bank and IMF
During his remarks, Obasanjo questioned Nigeria’s continued reliance on economic prescriptions from international financial institutions, particularly the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
He argued that Nigeria should develop economic policies suited to its own circumstances rather than adopt foreign recommendations without adequately considering local needs.
The former president’s comments touched on longstanding debates about economic sovereignty, agricultural support, industrial development and the role of international lenders in shaping national policy.
His position is that Nigerian leaders should take greater responsibility for designing strategies that address the country’s specific challenges.
The debate also raises a wider question: how can Nigeria attract investment and obtain financing while ensuring that economic decisions remain focused on domestic development priorities?
7. The Debate Raises Questions About Nigeria’s Debt and Future Generations
The disagreement between Obasanjo and Tinubu highlights a central issue facing Nigeria: how to finance development without creating unsustainable financial obligations.
Borrowing is not automatically harmful. Governments may use loans to build infrastructure, expand electricity supply, improve transport networks and finance projects that support long-term economic growth.
However, borrowing can become a serious problem when projects fail to deliver expected benefits, loan terms are unfavourable, funds are poorly managed or debt-servicing costs crowd out spending on essential public services.
For Nigerians, the key issues include transparency over how borrowed money is spent, the quality of projects financed by loans, the terms of repayment and the economic benefits delivered to citizens.
Obasanjo’s warning puts the long-term consequences at the centre of the discussion, while Tinubu’s defence rests on the argument that borrowing can support development when accompanied by the capacity to repay.
Ultimately, the impact of the proposed loans will depend not only on their size but also on how they are managed and whether they deliver measurable benefits to the country.
As the National Assembly considers the latest borrowing request, scrutiny of the proposed projects, financing terms and expected returns is likely to remain an important part of the national debate.
What is your view? Should Nigeria continue borrowing to fund development projects, or should the government focus more on reducing its debt burden? Share your opinion in the comments.
