By The Yoruba Times Editorial Board
Every nation eventually confronts an economic reality it can no longer postpone: the cost of maintaining an inefficient system may become greater than the political and social cost of changing it. For Nigeria, that reality developed over several decades. An economy heavily dependent on oil revenues, a costly petrol subsidy regime, persistent foreign exchange distortions, weak revenue mobilisation and excessive dependence on government spending created structural vulnerabilities that successive administrations struggled to resolve.
These problems did not emerge overnight, and they could not reasonably be expected to disappear overnight. Yet, for years, the political temptation was to preserve the existing arrangements, even when their economic consequences became increasingly difficult to sustain. The result was an economy in which public resources were committed to maintaining systems that did not necessarily produce corresponding improvements in productivity, infrastructure or the welfare of citizens.
When President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assumed office in May 2023, his administration confronted these long-standing challenges and embarked on a series of major economic reforms. The removal of the petrol subsidy and the reform of the foreign exchange market represented a significant departure from the previous approach to economic management. These decisions immediately altered the economic circumstances of households and businesses, but they also addressed distortions that had placed considerable pressure on public finances and weakened the country’s economic foundations.
The argument for reform is not uniquely Nigerian. Across the world, governments are confronting the consequences of rising public debt, expensive borrowing and increasing demands on national budgets. In its September 3, 2026 editorial, Debt, a New Challenge for Democracies, France’s Le Monde examined how the end of an era of relatively cheap borrowing was forcing governments to reconsider their fiscal commitments. Its central concern was the difficulty of persuading citizens to accept difficult economic choices when the immediate costs are visible but the benefits may take years to materialise.
That dilemma is particularly relevant to Nigeria. A government cannot indefinitely spend beyond its sustainable means, maintain expensive economic interventions or rely on borrowing without considering the obligations being transferred to future generations. Public spending must be matched by productive outcomes, and national economic policy must be evaluated against the resources available to finance it. The question is not whether difficult choices can be avoided, but whether those choices are properly designed, transparently implemented and directed towards long-term national development.
The Tinubu administration’s reform programme must therefore be examined within the context of the economic conditions it sought to address. Removing the petrol subsidy was intended to reduce a substantial fiscal burden and redirect public resources towards other national priorities. Reforming the foreign exchange market was intended to address the distortions associated with multiple exchange rates, improve market functioning and restore greater transparency to currency transactions. These were consequential policy decisions, and their significance extends beyond the immediate political debate surrounding their implementation.
The International Monetary Fund’s June 2026 assessment provides an important perspective on the results. The IMF acknowledged that reforms implemented since 2023 had strengthened macroeconomic stability, reduced fiscal vulnerabilities, rebuilt external buffers and improved the functioning of the foreign exchange market. It estimated economic growth at 4 per cent in 2025 and projected growth of 4.1 per cent in 2026. The institution also noted that conditions remained difficult for many Nigerians, with poverty and food insecurity continuing to present serious challenges. Both realities must be recognised in any serious assessment of the country’s economic direction.
The World Bank’s October 2026 Nigeria Development Update also recorded a recovery in economic activity. Nigeria’s real gross domestic product grew by 4.2 per cent in the first half of 2026, compared with 3.9 per cent in the corresponding period of 2025. The Bank reported that gross federation revenues increased by 69 per cent in real terms between 2023 and 2025, largely reflecting the effects of exchange-rate reforms, petrol subsidy removal and stronger revenue administration. It further observed that states were among the largest beneficiaries of the increased revenue flows. These developments demonstrate why the fiscal implications of reform deserve attention beyond the immediate controversy surrounding petrol prices and exchange rates.
However, increased revenue is not synonymous with national prosperity. A country can improve its fiscal position without automatically improving the living conditions of its citizens. The real significance of additional revenue lies in the public value it creates. If governments collect more money but citizens continue to experience inadequate healthcare, poor roads, unreliable electricity, overcrowded schools and limited employment opportunities, the promise of economic reform remains incomplete.
This is where the responsibilities of Nigeria’s subnational governments become especially important. The World Bank’s October report examined how increased federation revenues have affected state finances and spending priorities. It found that state revenues rose substantially between 2023 and 2025, accompanied by increased expenditure and capital investment. Yet the report also identified the need to improve spending efficiency, accountability and investment in human development. States must demonstrate that the additional resources available to them are producing measurable improvements in public services. Governors cannot treat increased allocations as an achievement in themselves; the quality of expenditure is what ultimately matters to citizens.
During the editorial deliberations, one of the contributing editors, Ademola Adekusibe, emphasised that Nigeria’s economic reform debate must move beyond the immediate pressure of rising prices to examine the structural weaknesses that made reform necessary in the first place. He argued that the country must consider the long-term implications of abandoning difficult economic adjustments without first addressing the conditions that created the need for them. He also stressed that the responsibility of government is to ensure that the gains associated with reform translate into tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary Nigerians. This distinction is central to the national conversation: the case for economic restructuring cannot be separated from the responsibility to deliver its benefits.
There is also a broader question about the kind of economy Nigeria intends to build. For too long, the country’s economic prospects have been closely tied to fluctuations in international oil prices. This dependence has limited fiscal predictability and exposed national planning to external shocks. A sustainable economic future requires stronger domestic production, agricultural modernisation, industrial expansion, improved infrastructure and a business environment capable of attracting long-term investment.
The private sector must occupy a central position in this transition. Government cannot be the principal employer, investor and economic engine in a country of Nigeria’s size. Its responsibility is to create the conditions under which businesses can operate, expand and compete. Predictable economic policies, a functional foreign exchange market, reliable infrastructure, accessible financing and an efficient regulatory environment are essential to that objective. The success of reform will therefore depend partly on whether Nigerian entrepreneurs and investors can convert greater economic stability into productive activity, employment and innovation.
The issue of public debt must also remain central to the conversation. Borrowing is not inherently destructive. Governments borrow to finance infrastructure, expand productive capacity and respond to national emergencies. The problem arises when borrowed resources fail to generate sufficient economic and social returns, leaving future administrations and generations with repayment obligations but inadequate assets. Nigeria must therefore become more disciplined about the purpose, terms and outcomes of public borrowing. Every major financing decision should be assessed against its contribution to national productivity and the country’s capacity to meet its obligations.
The IMF’s assessment also draws attention to the importance of fiscal transparency, stronger budget processes and the protection of priority social spending. These are not secondary concerns. They are essential to maintaining public confidence in economic reform. Citizens are more likely to understand the rationale for difficult decisions when government provides credible information about public revenue, expenditure, debt obligations and the results of its policies. Accountability should not be treated as an obstacle to reform; it is one of the conditions necessary for reform to endure.
Equally, the government must pay attention to the distribution of economic hardship. The pressure of rising prices is not experienced equally. Low-income households, informal workers, pensioners and small businesses often have fewer resources to absorb sudden increases in transportation, food and energy costs. Targeted social protection, agricultural productivity, accessible public services and employment opportunities must therefore accompany macroeconomic adjustment. A reform programme that strengthens national accounts but leaves vulnerable households without meaningful support risks weakening the public confidence required for its long-term success.
It is important, however, to distinguish between criticism of implementation and a wholesale rejection of the need for reform. Nigerians have every right to question the pace of economic recovery, the management of public resources and the effectiveness of government interventions. Such scrutiny is necessary in a democracy. But the debate must also confront the limitations of the economic arrangements that preceded the current reforms. Returning to a system of persistent distortions and unsustainable public commitments would not, by itself, resolve the country’s underlying problems.
The central challenge before Nigeria is to move from economic stabilisation to broad-based prosperity. The first phase of reform has focused on correcting major distortions and restoring greater fiscal and monetary discipline. The next phase must demonstrate how those changes can support stronger production, better public services, higher household incomes and more employment. This requires consistency in policy, discipline in public expenditure and cooperation across the three tiers of government.
President Tinubu’s economic programme has placed Nigeria on a different path from the system that prevailed before 2023. The policy changes have attracted debate, generated hardship and produced measurable macroeconomic developments. The national task now is to ensure that the gains are consolidated and that the costs of adjustment do not become a permanent burden on the population. The administration must sustain the discipline of reform while making its benefits increasingly visible in the everyday lives of Nigerians.
Reform is never simply a question of changing economic policies. It is a question of changing the foundations upon which a nation’s future is built. Nigeria’s challenge is to ensure that the difficult decisions of the present create an economy capable of supporting future generations, rather than merely shifting today’s problems into tomorrow.
A new Nigeria will not be built by preserving every arrangement inherited from the past. It will be built by confronting structural weaknesses, making responsible economic choices and ensuring that national resources serve the wider public interest. The price of reform must ultimately be justified by the value it creates for the country.