Peter Obi has moved to contain the fallout from his advice to Nigerians in the United Kingdom, insisting he never asked them to abandon relatives at home and that his message was distorted by political opponents. The Nigeria Democratic Congress presidential candidate made the clarification in a post on his X account on Tuesday, a day after his remarks at a town hall in Manchester drew sharp criticism.
At that meeting, Obi told the gathering that Nigerians abroad should stop automatically responding to financial demands from home. “You have people at home in Nigeria today who are begging you for money. Tell them no!” he said. He argued that continued financial assistance only cushioned the effects of poor governance without addressing the root causes, and urged the diaspora to encourage relatives to vote for productive leaders in 2027.
The remarks circulated widely and drew a backlash, with critics accusing him of placing his political ambition above the welfare of families who depend on remittances. On Tuesday, Obi said his media office had already issued a clarification, but he wanted to add his own voice. “I deeply appreciate Nigerians in the diaspora who work tirelessly and make enormous sacrifices to support their families back home,” he wrote. “Their remittances pay for school fees, hospital bills, rent, and feeding expenses. Their patriotism and sacrifices deserve our profound respect.”
He maintained that his concern was structural, not personal. “My concern is that Nigeria should not remain a country where millions depend on relatives abroad for basic survival,” he said. “Our goal must be to build a nation that provides jobs, affordable healthcare, quality education, and economic opportunities for its citizens.” He ended with a line that has become the centre of the dispute: “Political opponents may twist my message, but the truth remains clear: I am not asking Nigerians abroad to abandon their families. I am advocating for a Nigeria that will no longer abandon its own people.”
The figures behind the argument are substantial. Data from the Central Bank of Nigeria shows remittance inflows stood at $21.806 billion in 2025, almost unchanged from $21.811 billion in 2024, following a 13.16 per cent rise from $19.27 billion in 2023. The World Bank ranks Nigeria among the top recipients globally, and inflows have grown from about $17 billion during the COVID-19 period to more than $21 billion in each of the last two years. For many households, these transfers are not discretionary. They cover school fees, medical bills, rent and food, and in a economy where the national minimum wage is N70,000 a month, a single transfer from abroad can exceed a month’s legal wage.
The cost of sending that money is also high. The World Bank’s Remittance Prices Worldwide report for the third quarter of 2025 put the average cost of sending money to Sub-Saharan Africa at 8.46 per cent, well above the global average of 6.36 per cent. Banks remained the most expensive channel at 14.99 per cent, meaning that a significant share of every pound or dollar sent is lost before it reaches the recipient.
The political reaction has been swift. The Labour Party, the New Nigeria Peoples Party and the Social Democratic Party have criticised Obi’s original remarks, arguing that they misread the reality of families who rely on remittances to survive. Social media commentators have also weighed in, with some accusing Obi of linking financial support to voting behaviour. His campaign has rejected that interpretation, insisting that the message was about governance and self-reliance, not about withholding support from loved ones.
The dispute goes to the heart of a broader question about Nigeria’s economy. Remittances have become a more stable source of foreign exchange than oil in recent years, and the Central Bank has set a target of $1 billion in monthly inflows by the end of 2026. But the fact that millions of households depend on those inflows for basic needs is itself a measure of how far the domestic economy has fallen short of providing jobs, affordable healthcare and quality education. Obi’s clarification has not settled the political argument, but it has sharpened the data question: whether remittances are a bridge to development or a substitute for it.