Nigeria’s economic crisis is not simply a story of scarce resources. It is also a story of how a resource rich country has repeatedly failed to convert its wealth into better living conditions for its people. The question is whether the reforms introduced by President Bola Tinubu are correcting that failure or merely shifting its costs onto citizens.
Tinubu inherited serious structural problems. The petrol subsidy regime imposed a substantial fiscal burden, while weaknesses in foreign exchange management, petroleum supply and public finance had accumulated over successive administrations. Correcting these distortions was necessary. I do not consider the continuation of unsustainable policies a credible alternative to reform.
But accepting the need for reform does not require accepting every policy choice, implementation decision or claim of success made by the government.
The removal of petrol subsidy and changes to foreign exchange policy were intended to improve fiscal sustainability, reduce distortions and create conditions for investment. The administration has since reported substantial subsidy savings and additional resources. Yet fiscal gains are not the same as improved household welfare. The government itself must demonstrate how the resources were used and what measurable benefits followed.
The distinction is central to evaluating the reforms. A government can improve its fiscal position while citizens struggle with food, transport, rent and energy costs. It can attract investment while real incomes remain weak. These outcomes do not automatically prove that reform has failed, but they show why macroeconomic indicators cannot be the sole measure of success.
The administration should therefore publish regular, independently verifiable accounts linking additional revenue and subsidy savings to expenditure, completed projects and measurable public benefits. Federal, state and local governments must account for the resources they receive. Allocations alone are not evidence of development.
The petroleum sector requires the same scrutiny. Nigeria’s dependence on imported refined products, despite its crude oil resources, reflects decades of policy failure and inadequate investment. Domestic refining offers an opportunity to reduce supply vulnerabilities, but it does not automatically guarantee cheap petrol. Production costs, crude supply, distribution, exchange rates and market competition still matter. The test is whether the sector becomes more reliable and efficient, and whether consumers benefit from genuine improvements in supply and competition.
Economic recovery must also be judged against household experience. Government should report progress in food affordability, real wages, employment, electricity supply and access to essential services. Where vulnerable households face disproportionate costs, targeted support should be timely, transparent and independently assessed. Relief programmes must be measured by the people reached and the assistance actually received, not by budget announcements.
These demands are not arguments against reform. They are conditions for establishing whether reform is working.
Nigeria’s economic difficulties predate Tinubu, but history cannot absolve the present administration of responsibility for its decisions. Nor should the government be expected to reverse every structural weakness overnight. It should, however, establish clear targets, report progress against them and explain corrective action when results fall short. The same standard must apply to every tier of government.
The biblical journey from Egypt through the wilderness offers a useful metaphor, but Nigerians should not be asked to regard prolonged hardship as proof that prosperity lies ahead. Sacrifice is defensible when it is necessary, fairly distributed and connected to demonstrable progress. Without evidence of that connection, the promise of tomorrow becomes an inadequate answer to the difficulties of today.
My position is therefore clear: Nigeria needed economic correction, but the success of Tinubu’s reforms remains a question of evidence and delivery, not intention alone. The government deserves recognition where measurable improvements are established and criticism where implementation fails or the public bears costs without adequate protection.
The ultimate test is whether the reforms produce a more productive economy and a better standard of living for Nigerians. That requires more than fiscal savings or assurances of future growth. It requires accountable spending, reliable public services, stronger household purchasing power and opportunities that extend beyond a narrow section of society.
Nigeria has spent decades discussing its potential. The purpose of reform must be to make that potential tangible in the lives of its people.
The measure of economic reform is not how much sacrifice government can demand, but how convincingly it can demonstrate that the sacrifice is producing public benefit.
Lanre Ogundipe, Public Affairs Analyst, Former President Nigeria and Africa Union of Journalists writes from Abuja.
