Kí ni ìwádìí náà fihàn nípa bí owó epo ṣe ń kan àwọn ènìyàn ní onírúurú apá orílẹ̀-èdè náà?
Ìwádìí kan tí mo tẹnumọ́ rí i pé epo rọ̀bì ni ohun tó ń dààmú jùlọ fún 32.4 nínú ọgọ́rùn-ún àwọn èèyàn tó wà ní agbègbè ìgbèríko, ní ìfiwéra pẹ̀lú 11.7 nínú ọgọ́rùn-ún ní agbègbè ìlú ńlá. Ó tún jẹ́ ìdààmú tó ga jùlọ ní Gúúsù Ìwọ̀-Oòrùn, ní 30.5 nínú ọgọ́rùn-ún, àti Gúúsù-Gúúsù, ní 29.1 nínú ọgọ́rùn-ún. Èyí fihàn pé ìyà tí iye owó epo tó ga ń fà kan gbogbo àgbègbè, ẹ̀yà, àti ìfọwọ́sowọ́pọ̀ ìṣèlú láì fi ẹnì kankan sílẹ̀.
Àwọn ìdáhùn tó wà lórí ojú-ìwé yìí ni a túmọ̀ láti èdè Gẹ̀ẹ́sì nípasẹ̀ ẹ̀rọ, kò sì tíì ṣàyẹ̀wò rẹ̀ láti ọwọ́ atúmọ̀-èdè kan.
Ibi tí èyí ti wá
Article on X Article by @atiku on X · https://x.com/atiku/status/2102445684846694501 2026-09-22 ›
He described the survey as particularly revealing because 32.4 per cent of rural respondents identified petrol as their primary concern, compared with 11.7 per cent in urban areas. Petrol also emerged as the leading concern in the Southwest, at 30.5 per cent, and the South-South, at 29.1 per cent—clear evidence that the suffering caused by Tinubu’s fuel policy cuts across geography, ethnicity and political affiliation. According to Atiku, “President Tinubu removed subsidy with a slogan, not a strategy. He had no credible plan for domestic refining, mass transportation, wage protection or the millions of small businesses that depend on affordable energy. “He was warned that this reckless approach would destroy purchasing power, increase transportation costs, worsen food inflation and push more Nigerians into poverty. He ignored those warnings.