By The Yoruba Times Editorial Board.
Nigeria is at a critical point in its economic journey. After years of mounting public debt, costly fuel subsidies, pressure on foreign exchange and persistent weaknesses in government revenue, the country has embarked on reforms intended to address problems that successive administrations struggled to resolve. The removal of the petrol subsidy and the unification of the foreign exchange market represent significant departures from previous economic arrangements. Yet, as the consequences of these decisions continue to shape daily life, Nigerians are confronting a question that goes beyond economic policy: how much hardship should citizens be expected to endure before they begin to experience the benefits of reform? Drawing on insights from Ademola Adekusibe, editor of The Yoruba Times and a contributor to this editorial, we examine the difficult balance between economic correction, government accountability and the welfare of ordinary Nigerians. The central argument is that reform may be necessary, but necessity alone does not make every decision effective, every implementation defensible or every sacrifice acceptable.
Nigeria’s economic difficulties did not begin with the administration of President Bola Tinubu. For decades, the country struggled with an economy heavily dependent on crude oil revenue, inadequate domestic refining capacity, inconsistent fiscal management, limited industrial productivity and a public sector that frequently spent beyond its sustainable means. Fuel subsidies became an expensive feature of the system, while the management of foreign exchange created distortions that affected businesses, investors and the government’s ability to plan. These problems accumulated across administrations, creating a situation in which postponing difficult decisions often meant transferring their costs to the future. Any serious discussion of the present reforms must begin with this history. It would be misleading to pretend that Nigeria entered 2023 with a healthy economy that required no major adjustments. It would be equally misleading, however, to suggest that the existence of long-standing problems automatically validates every measure introduced to address them.
The removal of the petrol subsidy was presented as a necessary step towards reducing the financial burden on the government and redirecting public resources towards other priorities. The previous arrangement required substantial expenditure to keep petrol prices below their market-related costs, creating questions about its sustainability and the opportunity cost of maintaining it. In principle, money no longer spent on an expensive subsidy could support infrastructure, education, healthcare, security and social protection. But the economic argument cannot end with the amount the government saves. Nigerians must also be able to examine what happens to the money after it is saved. A reform that reduces one category of public expenditure but fails to improve essential services or living conditions will remain incomplete in the eyes of citizens who were asked to bear its immediate consequences. The public is entitled to ask whether the savings are being managed transparently, whether they are reaching productive sectors and whether the benefits are being distributed fairly across the country.
The foreign exchange reforms raise a similar question. Nigeria’s previous exchange-rate arrangements created significant differences between official and parallel-market rates, encouraging distortions and making it difficult for businesses to plan with confidence. Unifying the market was intended to improve transparency, reduce opportunities for arbitrage and establish a more coherent system for determining the value of the naira. Yet the transition also exposed the economy to considerable adjustment pressures. The cost of imported goods and production inputs rose, affecting manufacturers, traders and households already struggling with declining purchasing power. A business that imports machinery, medicine, raw materials or components cannot simply absorb every increase without consequences for its operations. Some businesses pass higher costs to consumers; others reduce production, delay expansion or cut employment. Consequently, the effects of exchange-rate reform extend beyond financial markets into the prices Nigerians pay, the jobs available to them and the ability of local industries to remain competitive. A more transparent exchange-rate system may be an important objective, but its success must also be measured by whether it eventually supports productive investment, stable business planning and stronger domestic production.
The hardship confronting households cannot be dismissed as an unfortunate detail in an otherwise successful economic exercise. Food remains a major pressure point for families, while transport costs influence the price of almost every commodity in the market. When petrol becomes more expensive, the effect travels through commercial transport, farming, distribution, manufacturing and retail. A farmer pays more to move produce; a trader pays more to transport goods; a worker spends a larger share of income getting to work; and a family must decide which other expense to reduce to afford food. These pressures are especially difficult for people whose incomes do not adjust at the same pace as prices. A civil servant earning a fixed salary, a small trader operating with limited capital, an artisan dependent on daily jobs and a private-sector employee supporting an extended family do not experience inflation in the same way as someone whose income rises with the market. For many households, the economic debate is not about abstract indicators. It is about whether their earnings can still cover food, transport, rent, electricity, school expenses and medical bills.
According to Ademola Adekusibe, editor of The Yoruba Times, “Reform must never become an excuse for endless suffering. If Nigerians are being asked to endure the pain of change, the government must demonstrate that the sacrifice is building a better future. The true measure of reform is not how much hardship a people can tolerate, but how much better their lives become because of it.” This perspective underscores the need to measure economic reforms not only by their intended objectives but also by their consequences for ordinary Nigerians. The government cannot reasonably expect public patience to remain unlimited while families struggle to meet basic needs. Economic adjustments may take time, but citizens deserve a clear explanation of what is being done to reduce the burden, how progress will be measured and when they can reasonably expect to experience improvements.
Recent economic figures offer reasons for cautious assessment rather than grounds for complacency. Reuters reported in October 2026 that Nigeria’s headline inflation rate fell to 14.63 per cent in September, from 15.39 per cent in August, while food inflation remained at 19.59 per cent. The economy also recorded year-on-year growth of 4.4 per cent in the second quarter of 2026, according to the report. These figures matter because they provide evidence of changes in the broader economy. However, a fall in the inflation rate does not mean that prices have returned to their previous levels. It means the pace of price increases has slowed, not necessarily that the cost of living has become affordable again. A household that has spent months paying more for food and transport does not recover its lost purchasing power simply because the rate of inflation begins to decline. Economic growth, similarly, does not automatically translate into improved living standards for every citizen. The composition of that growth, the jobs it creates, the incomes it supports and the distribution of its benefits are just as important as the headline figure.
This is where the government’s responsibility becomes most visible. Reform requires more than announcing a policy and defending its economic logic. It requires careful implementation, credible communication, institutional discipline and a willingness to correct decisions that are not producing the intended results. If the government believes that the removal of subsidies and changes to the foreign exchange system are necessary, it must demonstrate how these measures are improving public finances and creating the conditions for sustainable growth. It must also explain the timetable, acknowledge the difficulties involved and provide evidence that the sacrifices demanded from citizens are producing measurable public benefits. Nigerians cannot be expected to accept hardship indefinitely on the strength of promises about a future that remains difficult to see. Public confidence is built when people can connect government decisions to visible improvements in their communities, workplaces, schools, hospitals and homes.
The World Bank’s October 2026 Nigeria Development Update provides a useful basis for examining both progress and remaining weaknesses. The report indicated that Nigeria’s economy grew by 4.2 per cent in the first half of 2026, compared with 3.9 per cent in 2025 and 3.5 per cent in 2024. It also noted that poverty had stabilised for the first time since 2019, alongside improvements in government revenue and changes in public spending. These developments suggest that some of the adjustments are occurring within a broader recovery in economic activity. Yet the same report highlighted an important concern about the priorities within government expenditure. While the share of capital spending increased, spending on health, education and social protection grew more slowly than expenditure on economic infrastructure. The share of expenditure allocated to education fell from 14.9 per cent in 2021 to 12.1 per cent in 2025, while the share allocated to social protection rose from 1.4 per cent to 4.4 per cent. These figures illustrate the distinction between improving the government’s financial position and improving the daily circumstances of its citizens. Infrastructure is essential to long-term development, but so are educated children, accessible healthcare and effective protection for households facing severe economic pressure.
The additional revenue generated by reforms must therefore be treated as a public responsibility, not simply as a fiscal achievement. If the government collects more revenue, citizens should be able to identify the public value created from it. Roads should improve movement and reduce the cost of transporting goods. Investments in electricity should help businesses operate more reliably. Better agricultural infrastructure should make it easier for farmers to produce, store and distribute food. Schools and hospitals should receive the resources necessary to provide meaningful services. Social protection should reach people who cannot reasonably absorb the immediate cost of economic adjustment. These are not competing demands that can be dismissed whenever the government invokes the importance of reform. They are among the reasons a government undertakes economic reform in the first place. The public does not expect every problem to disappear overnight, but it has a legitimate expectation that public resources will be used transparently and that the benefits will not remain concentrated in economic statistics while household hardship continues.
There is also a danger in treating social protection as a distraction from reform. When a government changes the economic conditions under which millions of people live and work, temporary assistance can help prevent the adjustment from pushing vulnerable households into deeper poverty. Targeted cash transfers, support for public transport, school feeding, affordable healthcare and measures that improve access to essential food can reduce the immediate pressure on families. Such interventions must be transparent, properly targeted and independently monitored to limit waste, political favouritism and diversion of public funds. They should also be designed to complement productive economic policies rather than replace them. The objective should be to help people survive the transition while creating opportunities for them to become less dependent on assistance over time. A reform programme that ignores the human cost of adjustment risks weakening the public confidence required to sustain it.
Government officials have argued that reversing the reforms would recreate some of the distortions they were intended to correct. The position is understandable: restoring expensive subsidies without a sustainable financing plan could place renewed pressure on public finances, while returning to multiple exchange rates could revive opportunities for arbitrage and undermine confidence in the market. Yet rejecting a return to previous arrangements should not mean rejecting scrutiny of current policies. There is a difference between abandoning a reform and improving its implementation. The government can maintain the objective of a more transparent foreign exchange market while addressing weaknesses in market operations. It can avoid restoring an unsustainable fuel subsidy while supporting public transport, encouraging competition in the downstream petroleum sector and reducing the cost of moving goods. It can pursue fiscal discipline while ensuring that essential public services are not neglected. The choice is not necessarily between preserving every existing policy exactly as it stands and returning wholesale to the past. A credible reform programme should have clear objectives, measurable outcomes and the flexibility to adjust the methods used to achieve them.
This distinction is important because economic policy is not a test of political loyalty. Supporting reform does not require citizens to approve of every decision taken in its name, just as criticising the consequences of a policy does not automatically make someone an opponent of economic change. A responsible public debate should examine evidence, identify failures and acknowledge improvements wherever they occur. When prices rise sharply, the government should explain the causes and what it is doing to address them. When inflation falls, officials should communicate the significance of that development without implying that the cost-of-living crisis has ended. When revenue increases, the public should be shown how the money is being spent. And when a policy fails to achieve its stated purpose, the government should be willing to change course where the evidence justifies it. Accountability is not an obstacle to reform. It is one of the conditions that makes reform credible and sustainable.
According to Ademola Adekusibe, editor of The Yoruba Times, “The question is not whether Nigerians should suffer quietly or demand that every difficult policy be reversed. The question is whether the government can turn economic adjustment into visible progress, and whether it is prepared to correct what is not working.” This argument places the responsibility on the government to demonstrate results, address implementation failures and ensure that economic policies remain responsive to the realities of the people. It also challenges political actors to move beyond slogans about reform and focus on practical questions: what has improved, what remains unresolved, who is bearing the greatest burden and what measures are available to reduce it? A government confident in its policies should be prepared to answer these questions with evidence rather than dismissing criticism as resistance to change.
The private sector also has a role in determining whether the benefits of economic adjustment become visible. Nigeria cannot build a productive economy through government policy alone. Businesses must be able to invest, expand operations, train workers and create employment. That requires a more reliable operating environment, including access to electricity, transport infrastructure, finance, predictable regulation and a stable framework for planning. If the cost of doing business remains prohibitively high, a more transparent exchange rate will not by itself generate the industrial expansion Nigeria needs. If manufacturers cannot compete with imported products because of unreliable power and expensive logistics, domestic production will remain constrained. If small businesses cannot obtain affordable financing, they may struggle to grow beyond subsistence operations. The government must therefore connect macroeconomic reforms to a wider programme of productivity, industrial development and employment creation. The purpose of stabilising the economy should be to make productive activity easier, not simply to produce more favourable numbers in official reports.
Nigeria’s large youth population makes this challenge particularly urgent. Economic growth that does not create opportunities for young people will struggle to command lasting public confidence. Many Nigerians are looking for stable work, viable businesses and a realistic path towards financial independence. They are not asking for a perfect economy overnight. They are asking for an environment in which effort can produce progress. A young graduate should be able to find opportunities that match their skills; an apprentice should have a reasonable prospect of establishing a business; and a small entrepreneur should not have to spend most of their earnings overcoming basic infrastructure failures. These outcomes require education, technical training, investment and a more productive private sector. They also require government policies that recognise employment creation as a central measure of economic success. A reform programme that improves fiscal balances while leaving millions of people without viable economic opportunities will face legitimate questions about its wider purpose.
Citizens, however, must also confront the difficult realities of economic reform. Nigeria cannot sustainably finance every public demand through borrowing, nor can government indefinitely postpone structural problems without consequences. Subsidies, tax arrangements, exchange-rate management and public spending all involve choices about who bears costs and who receives benefits. Demanding that the government correct the economy is reasonable, but the public debate must also recognise that many reforms involve trade-offs. The appropriate response is not to romanticise hardship or tell people to endure suffering without complaint. It is to insist on honesty about the available choices, the costs of each option and the safeguards required to protect those least able to absorb them. Citizens should judge policies through evidence, demand transparency and resist political arguments that reduce every economic question to support for or opposition to a particular administration. A mature debate should focus on whether a policy works, who benefits, who loses and what can be improved.
For the Tinubu administration, the challenge is to demonstrate that reform can move beyond economic correction into widespread prosperity. President Tinubu has argued that the government’s policies are improving economic fundamentals and creating a basis for growth, while acknowledging the need to reduce living costs and expand opportunities. The credibility of that position will depend on what Nigerians experience in the coming months and years. Lower inflation must eventually be accompanied by improved purchasing power. Higher public revenue must produce more effective public services. Investment must lead to productive capacity and employment. Agricultural reforms must help improve food availability and affordability. Infrastructure must reduce the costs that make Nigerian businesses less competitive. These outcomes will not all occur at the same pace, and government should not promise instant results. But it must provide clear milestones and report honestly on whether they are being achieved.
The wider lesson is that economic reform cannot be measured solely by the courage to introduce difficult policies. It must also be measured by the competence with which those policies are implemented and the fairness with which their consequences are managed. A government may be correct that an old arrangement is unsustainable, yet still fail if it does not prepare citizens for the transition or protect them from avoidable harm. Equally, political pressure to reverse every painful decision can prevent necessary corrections and leave the country trapped in a cycle of short-term relief followed by deeper problems. The task is to distinguish between pain that arises from a necessary adjustment and suffering made worse by poor planning, weak institutions, waste or a failure to provide support. That distinction requires credible data, independent scrutiny and a government willing to be judged by outcomes rather than intentions.
Ultimately, Nigeria must decide what it expects from reform and what standards it will use to assess progress. It is not enough to ask whether subsidy removal has reduced a particular category of expenditure or whether exchange-rate unification has changed the structure of the foreign exchange market. The more important questions concern the economy those policies are helping to create. Are Nigerian businesses becoming more productive? Are jobs becoming more accessible? Can families afford essential goods? Are public schools and hospitals improving? Is government spending more transparently? Are the poorest households better protected from economic shocks? And can citizens see a credible connection between the sacrifices they are making today and the opportunities they may enjoy tomorrow? These questions should guide public debate regardless of political affiliation.
According to Ademola Adekusibe, editor of The Yoruba Times, “A reform programme should not ask how long the people can endure hardship; it should show how soon their sacrifices can begin to produce dignity, opportunity and a better standard of living.” This is the standard by which the country’s economic direction should ultimately be judged. Reform is not an end in itself, nor is the ability to withstand hardship evidence that a policy is succeeding. Its purpose must be to create an economy in which people can work productively, businesses can expand, public services can improve and citizens can enjoy greater security in their daily lives. The government must therefore demonstrate that its policies are delivering more than fiscal adjustments and favourable projections. It must show how those changes are creating tangible benefits for the people whose patience and sacrifices sustain the reform process.
Nigeria cannot reform its way to prosperity through announcements alone, nor can it achieve sustainable progress by returning indefinitely to arrangements that have proved financially or economically difficult to maintain. The country needs reforms that correct structural weaknesses, institutions capable of implementing them and a social contract that recognises the dignity and welfare of the people expected to bear their costs. The government must resist the temptation to treat every criticism as hostility, while citizens must resist the temptation to assume that every painful adjustment is necessarily pointless. Both sides have responsibilities, but they do not carry equal power: the government controls public policy and public resources, and must therefore carry the greater responsibility for explaining its decisions, protecting vulnerable citizens and demonstrating results.
The final test of Nigeria’s reforms will not be the number of policies announced, the strength of official defences or the frequency with which economic indicators are presented. It will be whether the country becomes a place where work can provide a decent living, businesses can grow, essential services function and families can plan their futures with greater confidence. Reform may involve pain, but pain cannot be the objective, and endurance cannot be the only reward. The purpose of economic change is to build a better society. If the government wants Nigerians to remain patient, it must give them evidence that their patience is leading somewhere. The question is not simply whether Nigeria is ready to pay the price of change. It is whether those entrusted with leading that change are ready to prove that the price is producing a better future for the people.