The All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) engaged in a heated exchange following a series of tragic stampedes during food distribution events in Ibadan, Abuja, and Anambra. The incidents, which resulted in numerous fatalities, prompted the PDP to criticize the APC-led government under President Bola Tinubu, attributing the stampedes to widespread “misery, poverty, starvation, and desperation for survival” purportedly caused by the current administration’s policies. The APC responded sharply, accusing the PDP of exploiting a national tragedy for political gain and engaging in “callous political chicanery” during a period of mourning.
The APC, through its National Publicity Secretary, Felix Morka, vehemently rejected the PDP’s allegations, reminding the opposition party of a similar stampede that occurred during a Nigerian Immigration Service recruitment exercise in 2014 under the PDP’s own governance. This incident, which also resulted in numerous deaths and injuries, served as a counterpoint to the PDP’s criticisms. Morka emphasized that the current tragedies should be a time for national unity and reflection on improving event planning and organization, rather than an opportunity for political point-scoring.
The APC further defended its economic policies, rejecting the PDP’s claims of a “ruptured” economy. Morka argued that the PDP’s accusations were either malicious or disconnected from reality, asserting that the APC administration has demonstrated a clear commitment to the welfare of Nigerians. He contrasted the current economic trajectory with what he described as the “phantom economy” of the PDP era, characterized by “complex distortions and suffocating corruption” masked by a false portrayal of economic health. The APC spokesperson maintained that the economy is now on a path of steady recovery thanks to ongoing reforms.
The core of the dispute revolves around the attribution of blame for the stampedes. The PDP framed the incidents as a direct consequence of the APC’s economic policies, alleging that these policies have plunged the nation into widespread poverty and desperation, driving people to extreme measures to secure basic necessities. The APC, in contrast, viewed the PDP’s statements as opportunistic and insensitive, arguing that exploiting a national tragedy for political gain is unacceptable. They underscored the need for unity and constructive dialogue on preventing future occurrences, rather than resorting to partisan attacks.
Beyond the immediate issue of the stampedes, the exchange highlighted a deeper ideological divide between the two parties regarding economic policy and governance. The PDP’s narrative centered on the claim that the APC’s policies have undermined the economy, leading to increased hardship for ordinary Nigerians. This narrative aligns with the PDP’s broader critique of the APC’s governance, often portraying it as incompetent and detrimental to the nation’s well-being. The APC, on the other hand, defended its economic record, emphasizing its commitment to reforms and the purported positive outcomes of these reforms. This counter-narrative seeks to portray the APC as a responsible and effective governing party working to improve the lives of Nigerians.
The clash between the two parties reflects the ongoing political competition in Nigeria, where opposing factions frequently engage in public disputes over policy and governance. These exchanges often involve accusations and counter-accusations, with each party attempting to frame the narrative in a way that favors their political agenda. In this particular instance, the tragic stampedes became a focal point for this broader political contest, highlighting the deeply ingrained partisan divisions within the Nigerian political landscape. The incident underscores the importance of responsible political discourse, especially in times of national tragedy, and the need for constructive engagement on critical issues affecting the nation’s well-being.
