The All Progressives Congress and opposition parties have disagreed over the Federal Government’s $1bn Household Prosperity and Empowerment Social Protection Project, with opposition groups alleging that the initiative is aimed at influencing voters ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The African Democratic Congress and National Democratic Congress raised questions about the timing of the programme, which was unveiled in Abuja on Wednesday as political activities intensify ahead of the elections.
The APC, however, dismissed the allegations, maintaining that the initiative was part of the Bola Tinubu administration’s genuine efforts to reduce poverty and establish sustainable economic support for vulnerable Nigerians.
According to the Federal Government, the programme is intended to transform Nigeria’s social protection framework from a system dominated by short-term palliatives to one focused on sustainable empowerment and self-reliance.
Launched with the theme, “From Palliatives to Pathways,” the project is designed to support vulnerable households by strengthening beneficiary identification, offering immediate assistance during economic shocks and creating opportunities for households to move out of poverty.
The initiative was unveiled by the First Lady, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, who said the economic reforms being implemented by the administration had made continued assistance for vulnerable Nigerians imperative.
“Under the leadership of His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, our nation is implementing far-reaching reforms to strengthen the economy, lay a solid foundation for sustainable growth, and shared prosperity,” she said.
She noted that despite the reforms, many families were still struggling, adding that the HOPE-SP project would provide “immediate stabilisation assistance” while helping vulnerable households move towards recovery, empowerment and self-reliance.
The Federal Government said approximately 7.6 million vulnerable households would be covered by the initiative, with qualified beneficiaries receiving a one-off digital shock-response payment of N40,000. Beneficiaries will be drawn from the National Social Register and verified through their National Identification Numbers.
Other elements of the government’s social protection framework were also unveiled during the launch. They include the One-Humanitarian-One Poverty Response System, the Emergency Cash Transfer Programme and a ministerial blueprint covering humanitarian affairs and poverty reduction.
The Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, Dr Bernard Doro, said the administration was replacing fragmented interventions and reactive palliatives with a coordinated system capable of identifying vulnerable households, determining their needs and monitoring their progress towards economic independence.
He revealed that more than N600bn had been distributed through cash transfers to vulnerable Nigerians during the past three years, benefiting slightly more than 10 million households.
ADC raises concerns
Opposition parties, however, questioned the timing of the latest intervention, especially with the 2027 elections less than a year away.
The African Democratic Congress described the $1bn project as a response to the economic difficulties Nigerians had faced under the Tinubu administration. The party also connected its unveiling to the growing acceptance of its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar’s proposal for a targeted production subsidy.
In a statement issued on Thursday by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC questioned why the government was only committing substantial resources to social protection at this stage, after years of complaints over the rising costs of food, transportation and energy.
The party recalled that the government had previously argued that it lacked sufficient resources to adequately cushion Nigerians from the effects of its economic reforms, but had now announced a $1bn intervention as the 2027 elections draw closer.
“Why did the poor only become visible when their votes become valuable?” the ADC asked.
The party also sought clarification on how the project would be financed and administered, particularly the decision for the First Lady to unveil the Federal Government initiative.
“Is this a Federal Government programme or a project of the First Lady?” the party asked, demanding clarification on the budget head or financing arrangement under which the money was approved, the institution responsible for accounting for the funds and who would ultimately answer to the Auditor-General and the National Assembly.
While expressing support for legitimate efforts to assist vulnerable Nigerians, the ADC argued that palliative measures could not replace policies capable of restoring purchasing power and creating wider economic opportunities.
The party further alleged that the administration was attempting to manage the consequences of its economic policies through what it described as a politically driven intervention ahead of the 2027 elections.
Timing wrong — NDC
The Nigeria Democratic Congress also said it would support any genuine measure aimed at improving Nigerians’ welfare but raised concerns about when the HOPE-SP initiative was launched.
The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Osa Director, told our correspondent that the closeness of the general elections could cause the programme to be viewed through a political lens.
“We welcome every move directed at addressing the challenges facing our people. However, with elections just a few months away, one may wonder why the government is just realising the need for this intervention.
“The timing will definitely elicit questions that the ruling party and the government in power may be unwilling to answer,” he said.
The Social Democratic Party took a more critical position, describing the programme as an empowerment initiative designed to induce voters.
Its spokesman, Rufus Aiyenigba, told The PUNCH that the intervention amounted to “a household votes prospecting outreach,” while noting that such an approach could not guarantee electoral success.
The opposition criticism comes amid the Tinubu administration’s broader social protection measures introduced after the removal of the petrol subsidy and the unification of the foreign exchange market, reforms the government has consistently defended as necessary to restore economic stability.
The Federal Government has maintained that its expanded social protection framework is intended to ensure that vulnerable Nigerians benefit from economic reforms rather than being left behind by them.
APC defends project
The ruling APC rejected the opposition’s claims, arguing that the approach of an election should not prevent the government from carrying out its responsibilities to citizens.
APC Director of Publicity, Bala Ibrahim, said the Federal Government was obligated to continue implementing policies and programmes designed to improve the living conditions of Nigerians regardless of the electoral timetable.
“Because an election is coming does not mean the government should fold its arms and shy away from its responsibilities. It is supposed to continue,” Ibrahim said.
He argued that implementing an intervention close to an election did not automatically make it an electoral inducement.
“Whether or not there is an election coming, the government is doing what it ought to continue doing. There is nothing wrong with extending the strategy in such a way that the dividends of democracy will come to the people as close as possible to the time of the election.
“That is strategic timing. It is not corruption. It is not anything that is done deliberately to change the hands of the clock,” he said.
Responding to the allegation that the programme was intended to attract voters, Ibrahim said government initiatives could legitimately win public support as long as they were implemented lawfully.
“If they say it is done with a view to wooing voters, what is wrong with wooing voters as long as what is done is legitimate?” he asked.
The APC spokesman maintained that the Federal Government’s intervention programmes had been under development before the 2027 election season and should therefore not be judged solely against the political calendar.
“Democratic dividends going to the people are works in progress. They have been in the plan, and the timing has just come at this material time when the election is close by. I don’t see anything wrong with that,” he added.
The dispute over HOPE-SP has placed the administration’s latest social protection initiative at the centre of competing political narratives.
While the government says the programme is intended to strengthen the social protection system and shield vulnerable households from economic shocks, opposition parties argue that its launch comes at a politically convenient period.
The administration will now face pressure to demonstrate that the $1bn project has a transparent funding structure, is fairly administered and delivers measurable benefits to the households it is designed to support.
Opposition parties are expected to maintain scrutiny of the programme as the country approaches the 2027 elections.
Atiku challenges Tinubu
Meanwhile, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has challenged the Tinubu administration to explain what he described as conflicting figures on the number of households reached through its expanded cash-transfer programme.
Atiku said the difference between the government’s earlier declaration that 15 million vulnerable households had benefited and the latest figure of “slightly over 10 million households” raised concerns about the programme’s implementation and the handling of public funds.
In a statement released on Thursday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the ADC presidential candidate demanded an explanation for what happened to the five million households that were no longer reflected in the latest figure.
“On July 16, 2026, the Presidency officially declared that expanded cash transfers had reached 15 million vulnerable households. It repeated essentially the same figure on August 2, 2026. Yet on August 26, 2026, the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs suddenly told Nigerians that only ‘slightly over 10 million households’ had been reached.
“So, where did five million households go? These are not opposition figures. They are Tinubu’s figures contradicting Tinubu’s figures,” the statement read in part.
Atiku also questioned the financial figures associated with the intervention, arguing that the reported expenditure did not appear to correspond with the number of beneficiaries and the payments each household was expected to receive.
He said eligible households were expected to receive ₦25,000 monthly for three months, bringing the total to ₦75,000 per household.
According to his calculation, paying 10 million households the full three-month amount would require approximately ₦750bn, while reaching 15 million households would push the total beyond ₦1.1tn.
Atiku therefore said the government’s claim that slightly more than ₦600bn had been disbursed required further clarification.
“How many received one tranche, two tranches or all three? How many payments failed or were reversed? How many names were merely lifted from an existing social register and presented as evidence of actual payment?” he asked.
The ADC presidential candidate argued that being listed on the social register should not be regarded as proof that government money had actually reached a beneficiary.
“A name on a social register is not a bank alert. Counting people in a database is not the same thing as proving money reached them,” he stated.
He called on the Federal Government to release detailed payment records, including verified beneficiary households, individual payment tranches, state-by-state figures, failed transactions and reversals.
Atiku also demanded an independent audit, arguing that Nigerians should have the ability to verify how hundreds of billions of naira reportedly spent on the programme were utilised.
“If ₦600bn truly moved, then government must show the trail: unique verified households, payment tranches, state-by-state distribution, failed transactions, reversals and an independent audit,” he said.
The former Vice President’s criticism followed the government’s broader expansion of social protection measures, which the Tinubu administration has presented as part of its response to the rising cost of living and the financial difficulties facing vulnerable households.
The cash-transfer scheme was expanded after the removal of the petrol subsidy, a policy that contributed to higher transportation, food and other household expenses.
The Federal Government has repeatedly maintained that targeted interventions are required to cushion the impact of its economic reforms on poor and vulnerable Nigerians.
Atiku, however, argued that the government should concentrate more on tackling the factors responsible for rising household expenses instead of increasing the number of people dependent on palliatives.
“Beyond the arithmetic lies a bigger indictment. A government boasting that tens of millions of households require emergency cash transfers should not be congratulating itself. It should be explaining why its economic policies pushed so many people into desperation,” he added.
He accused the administration of increasing financial pressure on households through higher fuel, transport, food and energy costs.
“Tinubu has turned poverty into a government programme: make fuel expensive, transport rises; transport rises, food rises; food rises, medicine becomes expensive; the family basket shrinks,” Atiku said.
He further argued that businesses were struggling with increased energy and logistics expenses, while workers had suffered declining purchasing power.
“When millions become poorer, government registers them as ‘vulnerable,’ gives some of them cash and calls it reform.
“That is not prosperity. It is the industrial production of poverty followed by the bureaucratic management of the poor,” he argued.
The ADC chieftain contrasted the government’s cash-transfer policy with his own proposal for reducing the cost of living, particularly through intervention in the domestic petroleum value chain.
He said his proposed approach would introduce a targeted, capped and transparent intervention aimed at reducing fuel and transportation expenses at their source.
“This is precisely why Atiku proposes a targeted, capped and transparent intervention in the domestic petroleum value chain. It is designed to reduce fuel and transportation costs at source,” he said.
According to him, lower fuel prices would have wider economic consequences by reducing transportation and logistics costs for farmers, traders, manufacturers and households.
“When petrol becomes cheaper, the bus driver spends less, the farmer moves produce more cheaply, the trader pays less for haulage, businesses face lower logistics costs and the savings travel through the economy to the family kitchen,” he said.
He said the key difference between his proposal and the Tinubu administration’s strategy was that his approach would address the factors driving household expenses instead of providing assistance after families had already been affected.
“Tinubu waits until poverty enters the home and arrives with a cash-transfer form. Atiku wants to reduce the cost pressures that drove the family into poverty in the first place,” he said.
The former vice president said an effective anti-poverty strategy should reduce dependence on government assistance rather than continually increase the number of beneficiaries.
“A serious anti-poverty policy should reduce the number of people needing palliatives, not celebrate how many millions have become vulnerable,” he said.
Atiku also accused the Federal Government of demanding greater accountability from opposition proposals while applying a different standard to its own spending.
“The same government that demands every kobo of Atiku’s proposed intervention cannot ask Nigerians to accept its own hundreds of billions on faith. That is not accountability. It is hypocrisy armed with a calculator,” Atiku said.
He consequently called on the government to reconcile the conflicting beneficiary figures and publish verifiable evidence showing how the payments were made.
“Until the Tinubu administration reconciles these figures and produces a verifiable payment trail, Nigerians are entitled to keep asking: where did the five million households disappear to?
“Did they graduate from poverty, vanish from the social register, or simply disappear because government propaganda ran ahead of the truth?,” he asked.
