By Chief Akinwumi Akinfenwa
The State House’s response to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar makes an important contribution to Nigeria’s economic debate. However, while it correctly identifies some of the structural distortions inherited by the Tinubu administration, it repeatedly confuses macroeconomic stabilisation with improved living standards.
Nigeria’s economy is recovering in some respects. But recovery is not the same as prosperity, and selected favourable indicators cannot tell the whole story.
*1. GDP GROWTH DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN NIGERIANS ARE BETTER OFF*
The State House points to the rise in Nigeria’s dollar-denominated GDP and nominal naira GDP since 2024.
That comparison requires caution.
Exchange-rate movements and inflation can dramatically increase nominal GDP without producing a corresponding increase in real output or household income. The more meaningful indicators are real GDP per capita, real wages, household consumption, employment, productivity and poverty.
The IMF projects real GDP growth of about 4.1% in 2026. That is positive, but with Nigeria’s population growing at roughly 2.5% annually, per-capita gains remain modest.
The World Bank also warns that poverty remains widespread despite macroeconomic stabilisation.
Therefore, the correct conclusion is:
Nigeria’s macroeconomy is improving, but the household economy remains under severe pressure.
*2. DEBT-TO-GDP IS NOT THE WHOLE DEBT STORY*
The State House argues that Nigeria’s debt-to-GDP ratio, at roughly 35–40%, is modest compared with many countries.
Technically, that is true.
But debt sustainability is not determined by debt-to-GDP alone. It also depends on revenue, interest rates, maturity profiles, foreign-exchange exposure and debt-service costs.
The IMF estimates that federal interest payments will consume approximately 53.7% of federal revenue in 2026.
That remains an enormous fiscal burden.
Nigeria’s problem is therefore not simply how much it owes, but whether it can generate sufficient revenue to service its obligations while still funding infrastructure, education, healthcare, security and social protection.
Comparing Nigeria’s debt ratio with America’s or China’s does not answer that question.
*3. THE FALL IN DEBT-SERVICE PRESSURE DESERVES CREDIT — BUT NOT VICTORY DECLARATION*
If debt service-to-revenue has fallen substantially from previous peaks, that is welcome.
But improvement from an exceptionally difficult position does not mean the underlying problem has disappeared.
When more than half of federal revenue is still required for interest payments, Nigeria’s fiscal space remains constrained.
The government should therefore publish the full debt-service picture, including principal repayments, interest costs, borrowing rates and maturities.
*4. SUBSIDY REMOVAL WAS NECESSARY; ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE SAVINGS IS EQUALLY NECESSARY*
The State House is right that Nigeria’s petrol subsidy was expensive, distortionary and poorly targeted. Previous administrations, including the government in which Atiku served, repeatedly acknowledged the problem without permanently resolving it.
But removing the subsidy was only the first step.
The critical question is:
What happened to the savings?
The government should transparently disclose how much was saved, how much accrued to the Federation, how much went to infrastructure and social protection, and how much was absorbed by debt service and other expenditure.
Higher FAAC allocations are useful, but money transferred to governments is an input, not proof of improved welfare.
Citizens ultimately need better roads, schools, hospitals, security, electricity and jobs.
*5. TAX REFORM: GOOD INTENTION IS NOT THE SAME AS PROVEN OUTCOME*
The administration’s tax reforms seek to protect lower-income earners and small businesses while improving compliance among higher-income individuals and profitable enterprises.
That is a legitimate objective.
But calling the reforms “progressive” does not establish that they are progressive in practice.
The proper questions are:
– Who ultimately pays?
– How much additional revenue is generated?
– What is the effective burden on households and businesses?
– How much comes from large corporations and high-income earners?
– What public value do taxpayers receive in return?
Tax reform must increase government revenue without undermining investment, productivity and household purchasing power.
*6. HEALTHCARE: COUNTING PROJECTS IS NOT THE SAME AS MEASURING OUTCOMES*
The government’s reported revitalisation of more than 3,000 primary healthcare facilities and retraining of over 78,000 frontline workers are significant interventions.
They deserve acknowledgement.
But Nigeria’s health crisis cannot be measured merely by the number of facilities refurbished or personnel trained.
The real indicators are maternal mortality, infant mortality, medicine availability, health-worker retention, insurance coverage, out-of-pocket expenditure and access to quality treatment.
A refurbished hospital is an output.
A healthier population is an outcome.
Nigeria must measure both.
*7. EDUCATION: ACCESS IS IMPORTANT, BUT QUALITY AND EMPLOYABILITY MATTER MORE*
NELFUND is an important intervention because it expands access to tertiary education for students who might otherwise struggle financially.
However, a loan is not the same as a scholarship, and access is not the same as educational transformation.
The success of NELFUND should ultimately be measured by graduation rates, employment outcomes, graduate earnings and repayment sustainability.
Similarly, thousands of UBEC projects are welcome, but Nigeria’s education crisis extends beyond classrooms and buildings.
The country must improve literacy, numeracy, teacher quality, school completion, technical skills and employability.
A school building is infrastructure; education is what happens inside it.
*8. INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD BE MEASURED BY PRODUCTIVITY, NOT PROJECT COUNTS*
Roads, railways, bridges, airports, dry ports, gas infrastructure and digital connectivity are essential.
But the relevant question is their economic impact.
Have logistics costs fallen?
Has electricity supply improved?
Have travel times declined?
Has agricultural distribution become cheaper?
Has private investment increased?
Have productive jobs been created?
Infrastructure is successful when it reduces the cost of doing business and expands productive capacity, not merely when projects are announced or commissioned.
*9. FALLING INFLATION DOES NOT MEAN FALLING PRICES*
This distinction is fundamental.
If inflation falls from 30% to 15%, prices are still rising; they are simply rising more slowly.
Therefore, declining inflation does not reverse the enormous price increases Nigerians have already experienced in food, transport, rent, education and healthcare.
The State House should therefore distinguish between disinflation and restored purchasing power.
The former is occurring.
The latter remains a work in progress.
*10. THE ₦7.98 TRILLION OIL “WINDFALL”*
The State House is correct on one technical point: multiplying the difference between the budgeted oil price and actual market price by production does not automatically produce government revenue.
Actual government receipts depend on production, government lifting, royalties, taxes, contractual arrangements, production costs, crude-backed obligations and other deductions.
Therefore, Atiku’s ₦7.98 trillion estimate should not automatically be described as ₦7.98 trillion available government revenue.
But that does not end the argument.
It creates a more important question:
How much additional oil revenue actually accrued to the Federation, and where did it go?
The government can settle the matter by publishing the calculation.
Transparency is more persuasive than political rhetoric.
*11. THE CENTRAL ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER REFORM WAS NECESSARY*
Nigeria unquestionably needed major economic reform.
The subsidy regime was unsustainable.
The foreign-exchange system was distorted.
Revenue mobilisation was inadequate.
Public finances required restructuring.
But the necessity of reform does not automatically validate every policy choice, its timing or its implementation.
A reform can be economically necessary yet socially painful.
It can stabilise the macroeconomy while impoverishing households in the short term.
It can increase government revenue while imposing greater costs on businesses.
The real test is therefore whether the administration has managed the transition in a way that minimises avoidable hardship while maximising long-term productivity and opportunity.
*12. THE WORLD BANK’S POSITION IS MORE NUANCED THAN THE PRESIDENCY’S*
The World Bank recognises the importance of Nigeria’s reforms and the progress toward macroeconomic stabilisation.
But it also continues to identify poverty, inflation, infrastructure deficits, electricity constraints, weak job creation, insecurity and human-capital deficits as major obstacles.
That is the balanced position Nigeria needs.
The reforms are neither an unqualified disaster nor an unquestionable triumph.
They are a necessary but unfinished economic transformation whose ultimate success remains to be demonstrated through improved living standards.
*THE REAL TEST*
The Tinubu administration deserves credit for confronting structural distortions that previous governments repeatedly postponed.
But credit for taking difficult decisions is not proof that those decisions have already produced broad-based prosperity.
The government should therefore publish a comprehensive reform accountability dashboard covering:
subsidy savings; oil revenues; debt service; tax collections; infrastructure spending; social transfers; poverty; employment; real wages; inflation; healthcare; education and electricity.
Then Nigerians can judge the results for themselves.
The most honest conclusion is this:
«Nigeria’s macroeconomic stabilisation is real. Nigeria’s economic hardship is also real.»
GDP is growing, but poverty remains widespread.
Revenue is improving, but debt-service costs remain high.
Subsidy expenditure has fallen, but household purchasing power has been severely weakened.
Inflation is falling, but prices remain substantially higher.
Healthcare and education programmes are expanding, but human-capital deficits remain enormous.
These are not contradictions. They are the facts.
The ultimate measure of economic reform is therefore not the size of GDP, the number of projects announced or the number of government programmes launched.
It is whether Nigerians can increasingly afford food, housing, transport, electricity, education and healthcare; whether businesses can produce competitively; and whether young Nigerians can find productive employment.
*MACROECONOMIC STABILISATION IS THE MEANS — NOT THE DESTINATION.*
The destination is a Nigeria in which economic growth translates into higher incomes, greater productivity, better public services and a materially improved standard of living.
That is the standard by which the Tinubu reforms should ultimately be judged.
Not by government propaganda.
Not by opposition rhetoric.
But by transparent data and the lived economic reality of Nigerians.
*©️ Chief Akinwumi Akinfenwa*
*Political Scientist* • *Strategist* • *Public Affairs Analyst*
*07062986613 for Calls/SMS*
*09091700203 for WhatsApp*
Leave a comment