By Peter B. Ogbobine Esq
9th July 2026
Three sayings capture the essence of this discussion:
“ Positive anything is better than negative nothing”
“ Waka for nothing better pass siddon for house”
“ Making something out of nothing”
Nigerians, particularly in these economically challenging times, have become increasingly vigilant and critical of public policy and official pronouncements. Widespread mobile phone access, cheap data, and the extensive reach of social media have given everyone the imprimatur to publish almost everything — from the mundane to the profound; from truth to falsehood; from conspiracy theories to established facts; from constructive commentary to destructive misinformation, etc. now competes for public attention in real time.
Furthermore, our democratic setting when functioning properly permits constructive and objective criticisms of almost anything except criminal defamation and national security matters. The vibrancy of such criticism, provided it is evidence-based, holds both individuals and institutions in power accountable for their actions or inactions. It is often said that ” eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” However, criticism loses its moral force when it degenerates into ridicule, insults, deliberate misrepresentation, or outright falsehood.
Following the Renewed Hope Initiative’s (RHI) – which provides grants and not loans to vulnerable women to enable them to commence small businesses – second-quarter meeting with wives of state governors on the 24th June 2026, the First Lady – Senator Remi Tinubu – told State House correspondents that starting a small akara, roasted corn, groundnut, or kuli kuli business does not require a great deal of capital. The remark came in the context of discussing grassroots empowerment interventions, encouraging Nigerians to remain hopeful and to consider small-scale ventures as one path forward.
To quote the First Lady “ to start akara business doesn’t take a lot of money; to start roasting corn, or somebody even said about groundnut, or kuli kuli doesn’t take much”.
Within hours, the backlash was fierce — nearly as overwhelming as the flooding that submerged part of the Lagos plains on 28 June 2026. Critics met the statement with angst for what they considered insensitive taking into account the realities of present-day economic challenges in Nigeria. Who could realistically start any business, however small, on ₦50,000? AI-generated videos, satirical memes and biting commentaries spread rapidly, portraying the First Lady and even the President as roadside akara vendors.” Commentators argued the money would be better spent elsewhere, and that ₦50,000 could not meaningfully dent or alleviate poverty. Whether these are objective criticism or not leaves a lot to be desired.
These concerns are not entirely without merit. Inflation has significantly eroded purchasing power. The costs of cooking materials and utensils have risen sharply. It is therefore understandable why many Nigerians considered the amount inadequate.
However, adequacy and usefulness are not necessarily synonymous
What many critics overlook is the context. The First Lady never presented the funds as a cure for poverty. She stated: ” We didn’t give them a loan; we gave it to them as a grant. So we’ve encouraged Nigerians as best as we could. What is within our hands, I have given, and I keep giving.” A grant, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is a sum of money given for a specific purpose and is not repayable. In this case, it is seed capital—a stepping stone to help small businesses get started. It is not a promise of instant transformation but a catalyst to lower the barrier to entrepreneurship. In microeconomics, the greatest obstacle for many informal businesses is often not infrastructure, but the lack of basic start-up capital.
In entrepreneurship, the concept of seed capital is well understood. Every successful enterprise begins somewhere – started small. As the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu famously observed, ” A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Likewise, the Bible reminds us in Zechariah 4:10: ” Do not despise these small beginnings .” The Qur’an similarly teaches in Surah Al-Zalzalah (99:7) that ” Whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it .” These timeless principles recognise that great achievements often begin with modest acts.
Aliko Dangote began as a trader before building what is today one of Africa’s largest industrial conglomerates. His journey illustrates a timeless economic principle: every great enterprise begins with capital that is small relative to what it eventually becomes – every mighty iroko tree was once a seed; not every seed needs to be large to be worth planting.
Critics often judge such interventions by their monetary value rather than by what they mean to someone with nothing to start a business. The critics ignore the profound psychological benefits RHI offers. As the saying goes, ” Positive anything is better than negative nothing .” Similarly, the Nigerian expression, ” Waka for nothing better pass siddon for house,” celebrates enterprise over idleness. A modest beginning, however imperfect, is better than no beginning at all. The First Lady’s intervention therefore addresses not only economic hardship but also social exclusion.
Poverty is not merely the absence of money; it is often the absence of opportunity.
The impact of the RHI amongst other includes:
Dignity of Engagement: Purpose and agency replace idleness, boosting mental well-being.
Breaking Dependency: Grants shift mindsets from “waiting for aid” to “running a business”—a key poverty-fighting step.
Community Resilience: Small businesses sustain local food and services, creating a self-reinforcing cycle that supports communities – economic multiplier effect.
Another criticism frequently advanced is the assumption that the grants originate entirely from public funds. Curiously, little evidence has been presented to substantiate this claim. Given the First Lady’s extensive political experience—as a former senator and now First Lady—it is entirely plausible that the RHI is able to attract donations from diverse sources. Until evidence suggests otherwise, assumptions should not be mistaken for facts.
Finally, the tone of the backlash, much of it insult and mockery rather than argument, does the public discourse no favours. There is a meaningful difference between holding a public figure accountable through evidence-based criticism and subjecting her to derision over remarks that are unfair in light of the intended substance.
Those who dismiss small start-up grants overlook one of the most successful poverty-reduction tools in the developing world. The RHI follows a proven economic model—most famously in Bangladesh, where Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus used microcredit (just $30 per person) via Grameen Bank to help rural women start small businesses like basket weaving, poultry, food vending, and tailoring. These ventures didn’t end poverty overnight but built a path from dependency to self-reliance. Similar efforts have succeeded in India, Kenya, Rwanda, and beyond.
One may disagree with elements of the programme without rejecting the initiative outright—or mocking an effort intended to aid the most economically disadvantaged. Public policy matures through constructive engagement, not cynical derision. As the saying goes, ‘ The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago; the second-best time is today.’ Likewise, the best way to fight poverty is to create opportunities—however modest—from which bigger successes can grow.
That said, communication surrounding the programme could have been far better. Public policy is judged as much by perception as by substance. The First Lady’s media and public relations team failed to properly contextualise RHI to the public before the controversy gained traction. They should have clarified that the grants were intended as seed capital for carefully selected beneficiaries, supported by success stories and empirical evidence of their impact. In politics, perception often becomes reality long before facts catch up.
The RHI, is a good and positive one: modest, targeted support intended to help people take a first step, towards poverty alleviation. It is a leap of faith in the Nigerian spirit. In a world where we are quick to critique the size of the seed, we must not forget that without someone (the First Lady) brave enough to plant it, there is no harvest at all. It alleviates the immediate financial burden, elevating the status of the informal worker, and aiming to eradicate poverty in the long-term.
Me, myself and I – for what it is worth – support the RHI wholeheartedly. Let us support the First Lady in planting, even as we watch for thej growth.
The RHI embodies a simple but enduring truth: it is often better to make something out of nothing than to remain with nothing while waiting for everything.
Meanwhile I await the invectives for my support, otherwise we will not be Nigerians
Modokpe
Aka Yesuo
pbbine@gmail.com
Disclaimer
This essay reflects the my personal views and independent analysis, intended to support public discussion on economic empowerment, public policy, and poverty alleviation. References to the RHI, the First Lady, or any public office holder do not imply endorsement, partisanship, or affiliation. The views are based on publicly available information and offered in good faith for constructive, evidence-based debate.
