As Nigeria grapples with soaring inflation, declining purchasing power, and rising poverty, one question looms large: Is the Tinubu administration truly on the path of reform, or are Nigerians being forced to endure pain without a plan?
Supporters of the current administration argue that economic hardship is a necessary byproduct of bold structural reforms, such as removing fuel subsidies and floating the naira. They insist that these steps, while painful, are vital for long-term economic recovery. But this line of reasoning falls apart under serious scrutiny, especially when these policies are executed without foresight, cushioning, or empathy.
Let’s start with the twin policies that have become the hallmark of Tinubu’s economic agenda: subsidy removal and naira floatation. Both are, on paper, important steps toward correcting Nigeria’s historically distorted economy. However, how they were implemented raises critical questions about competence and planning. The subsidy was removed virtually overnight, with no phased structure, robust transportation alternatives, or meaningful palliatives. Similarly, floating the naira without a stabilized forex regime or export-oriented buffers was akin to throwing the economy into the deep end without a life jacket.
The result? Fuel prices tripled. The naira collapsed. Food prices skyrocketed. And inflation, particularly food inflation, is now at levels not seen in decades. Millions more Nigerians have slipped below the poverty line, with no end in sight.
It’s one thing to introduce painful reforms. It’s another to do so without cushioning the blow. What is deeply troubling is the absence of a people-centered policy approach. Rather than roll out targeted interventions—like mass transit subsidies, local food production support, or income transfers for the most vulnerable—the government chose to watch and wait, assuming the market would magically correct itself.
Meanwhile, political elites continued business as usual: bloated entourages, luxury travels, and a budget that favors administrative excess over real sector investments. At a time when sacrifice is being preached, the leadership continues to operate in a bubble, far removed from the lived experiences of ordinary Nigerians.
Many of the same analysts and citizens who hailed Tinubu’s supposed competence are urging Nigerians to “give him time” until 2026. But this move of the goalpost is disingenuous. Previous administrations, like Goodluck Jonathan’s, were not afforded such luxury. In fact, Jonathan was relentlessly criticized—and in many cases rightly so—but the same standards must apply across the board.
We must be clear: governance is not about personalities. It is about outcomes. And so far, the outcomes of this administration’s economic policies have been disastrous. Nigeria’s GDP per capita has fallen to levels lower than in 1960, as pointed out by the outgoing President of the African Development Bank, Akinwumi Adesina. Whether one agrees with his exact figures or not, the broader picture is undeniable — Nigerians are worse off today in real terms.
Some ask, “What could anyone else have done differently?” But this is a flawed question. It shifts the burden of responsibility from those in power to a hypothetical alternative. A better framing would be: “What should a competent government have done?”
For one, reforms should have been sequenced. Subsidy removal and currency floatation should not happen simultaneously without safeguards. A responsible administration would have first increased local refining capacity, incentivized food production, and stabilized foreign exchange inflows. Then, and only then, would the economic foundation be strong enough to absorb these reforms. Additionally, a competent government would have slashed wasteful expenditure and redirected funds into visible, pro-poor investments.
This is not rocket science — it’s Policy 101.
Furthermore, the Tinubu administration had months to plan between the 2023 elections and the inauguration. The country’s economic state was not surprising. If anything, this government campaigned on a platform of readiness and competence. What we’ve seen since May 2023, however, is improvisation, guesswork, and a disturbing lack of coordination between the fiscal and monetary arms of government.
To those still holding on to the Lagos development myth — the idea that Tinubu’s “Lagos legacy” is transferable to Nigeria — it’s time to confront the reality. Lagos’ growth was not exceptional leadership, but a combination of geography, federal support, and private sector momentum. The state still suffers from urban chaos, inequality, and poor public services — not a blueprint for national transformation.
Nigerians must stop romanticizing hardship in the name of reform. Yes, reforms are necessary. But reforms without direction, empathy, and proper execution are nothing more than economic brutality. This administration is not just failing because times are hard — it’s failing because it has not shown the competence, planning, or empathy required to navigate a difficult moment.
Nigerians deserve better than pain without progress. It’s time for the government and its defenders to accept this truth.
