Tinubu govt dominated by looters, says APC Senator Ali Ndume

Senator Ali Ndume of the All Progressives Congress has again insisted that things are not working because President Bola Tinubu’s government is dominated by kakistocrats and kleptocrats—looters who are only focused on what they can get from being in government.

In an interview with Channels TV on Friday night, Mr Ndume said that although he was punished for making similar remarks months ago, he stands by his assertion that the Tinubu-led government is dominated by “thieves.”

Asked whether he believed Mr Tinubu would win reelection, Mr Ndume said yes—”if they work on it.” However, he admitted that things are not looking good at the moment.

“From the presidency itself being unable to carry people effectively, especially politicians. Also, I’ve said it before, even though I stand on it, that if you have kakistocrats and kleptocrats dominating the democratic space, you will be a problem,” Mr Ndume said.

When asked if he meant Mr Tinubu’s government is dominated by “kleptocrats,” Mr. Ndume said, “Yes. Because the democrats have been abandoned. I said it before; it cost me my job, and I don’t know if I will be expelled from the party for saying this now.”

Explaining what he meant by kleptocrats, the APC senator said Mr Tinubu cannot be solely blamed because “things are not working,” adding that the people around the president should be held responsible, as they are only in government for personal gain.

“When you say kleptocrats, it is not like they are stealing. No. They are in government to make money. So most of the time, they don’t care about what is actually going on. Their focus is what they can make,” Mr Ndume said.

Bayo Onanuga, spokesperson for Mr Tinubu, could not be reached for a response to Mr Ndume’s statement. A WhatsApp message sent to him requesting a comment has yet to be replied to.

However, last week, Mr Onanuga berated Mr Ndume, saying:
“As a politician, Ndume has proven time and time again that he is allergic to facts and addicted to theatrics. His habit of firing half-baked criticisms—only to be contradicted by facts—proves he’s more interested in headline-chasing, rabble-rousing, and stoking divisive narratives than offering constructive criticism.”