Examining the PDP Candidate Employment Record Claims
Atiku Abubakar frequently claims credit for job creation and economic growth during the Obasanjo administration from 1999 to 2007, when he served as Vice President. His campaign cites this period as evidence of his economic management credentials and as grounds for confidence that he can replicate this performance as president. Our fact-check examines these claims against the available evidence.
The Verdict: Misleading
Nigeria did experience GDP growth during the Obasanjo years, partly driven by rising global oil prices rather than domestic policy interventions. However, attributing this growth to Atiku specific economic policies, or claiming that it represents a record of job creation, is misleading. The structural unemployment problems that plague Nigeria today were already developing during this period, and the growth that occurred did not translate into proportionate improvements in living standards for ordinary Nigerians.
The National Bureau of Statistics data from this period shows that while headline GDP numbers improved, poverty rates remained high and employment quality deteriorated in key sectors. The growth was primarily concentrated in oil and telecommunications, not in the labor-intensive sectors like agriculture and manufacturing that actually create jobs for ordinary Nigerians.
The Privatization Record
Atiku role as chair of the National Council on Privatization is also frequently cited as a governance credential. However, independent reviews of the privatizations conducted under his tenure, particularly in the power sector, reveal serious flaws. Assets were sold at prices that were later questioned by the Bureau of Public Enterprises, and several of the privatized entities subsequently failed to improve their performance or access new investment as promised.
The electricity privatization in particular, while formally conducted after his tenure, was set up by processes initiated during his time in office, and the systemic failures of that exercise reflect design choices made during the period he supervised. Claiming credit for the economic growth of the Obasanjo era while not acknowledging responsibility for the governance failures of the same period is selective and misleading.
What Independent Sources Say
Economists who have studied the Obasanjo era economy generally attribute whatever improvements occurred to the commodity price cycle and the debt relief Nigeria obtained through the Paris Club negotiations led by Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, rather than to Atiku specific economic interventions. His role in the economic successes of that period has been significantly overstated in his campaign materials.
Overall Rating: MISLEADING. While Nigeria experienced some positive economic indicators during the Obasanjo years, Atiku claim to personal credit for this performance is not well-supported by the evidence. The causes of economic improvement were largely structural and external, and his specific governance record including the troubled privatizations he supervised presents a more complicated picture than his campaign narrative suggests.
