Nigeria’s Great Reset – Part 2

The Nigeria Tinubu Inherited: Separating Myth from Reality

By Gloria Fraser

History has a way of simplifying complex realities into convenient political slogans. Governments inherit praise for successes they did not create and blame for failures that began long before they took office. Yet serious nations resist such simplifications because meaningful reform begins with an honest diagnosis.

No physician can prescribe the right treatment without first understanding the illness. Likewise, no fair assessment of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s reforms can ignore the condition of Nigeria on 29 May 2023.

Whether one supports or opposes the present administration, one fact is difficult to dispute: Nigeria was already confronting deep structural challenges that had accumulated over several decades. The debate, therefore, should not merely be whether Nigerians are experiencing hardship today—they undoubtedly are—but whether those hardships were created entirely after May 2023 or whether many were inherited from years of postponed reforms.

The distinction matters because history judges leaders not only by the problems they face but by the choices they make in confronting them.

Nigeria entered independence with enormous promise. Rich in natural resources, blessed with a youthful population and strategically positioned as Africa’s largest economy, the country possessed many of the ingredients for sustained prosperity. Yet decades of policy inconsistency, dependence on crude oil, inadequate infrastructure, weak institutions and recurring fiscal pressures steadily eroded that promise.

By the time the current administration assumed office, public finances had become severely constrained. A substantial share of government revenue was being devoted to servicing debt, leaving limited fiscal space for investment in roads, schools, healthcare, security and other public services. This imbalance had evolved over many years rather than within a single administration.

The petroleum subsidy had become another major fiscal burden. While originally designed to cushion consumers, it increasingly absorbed vast public resources, encouraged smuggling into neighbouring countries and disproportionately benefited higher-income consumers who used more fuel. Numerous studies by international financial institutions and Nigerian policy experts had, for years, questioned its sustainability.

The foreign exchange market also reflected years of accumulated pressure. Multiple exchange-rate windows created distortions, encouraged arbitrage and discouraged investment. Businesses often struggled to obtain foreign currency, manufacturers faced production disruptions, and investors became increasingly cautious about bringing capital into Nigeria.

Oil production, traditionally the backbone of public revenue, was also under strain. Pipeline vandalism, crude theft and years of underinvestment reduced production below Nigeria’s potential, limiting government earnings at a time when expenditure needs continued to rise.

Electricity supply remained another significant constraint. Millions of households and businesses relied heavily on private generators, increasing production costs and reducing competitiveness. Manufacturers frequently identified unreliable power as one of the greatest obstacles to expansion.

Insecurity compounded these economic challenges. Terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, oil theft and communal conflicts disrupted agricultural production, discouraged investment and imposed enormous costs on government and ordinary citizens alike. Farmers abandoned fertile lands, transport costs increased and food inflation accelerated.

Youth unemployment and underemployment added further pressure. Every year, hundreds of thousands of young Nigerians entered the labour market, yet economic growth often failed to generate sufficient quality jobs. The result was growing frustration among many talented young people seeking opportunities at home.

These structural weaknesses were not hidden. Successive governments acknowledged many of them. International organisations repeatedly highlighted them. Nigerian economists wrote extensively about them. Business leaders warned about them. The challenge was rarely one of diagnosis; it was one of political execution.

Many reforms were widely recognised as necessary but repeatedly postponed because they carried immediate political costs.

President Tinubu chose a different path.

Within hours of assuming office, he announced the removal of the petrol subsidy. The decision immediately generated controversy because it exposed Nigerians to higher fuel prices and increased transportation costs. Yet it also addressed a policy that numerous experts had long described as fiscally unsustainable.

The administration subsequently moved toward exchange-rate liberalisation, another decision that generated significant short-term pain while aiming to reduce long-standing distortions in the foreign exchange market.

Reasonable people may disagree about the speed, sequencing or implementation of these reforms. Those debates are both legitimate and healthy in any democracy. However, it is more difficult to argue that the underlying structural problems did not exist before 2023.

Critics correctly point to persistent inflation, the rising cost of living and the hardship experienced by millions of households. These concerns deserve serious attention because economic reforms ultimately succeed only when they improve the lives of ordinary citizens.

At the same time, supporters argue that postponing difficult reforms would merely have delayed an even larger crisis. Countries that continually finance unsustainable subsidies, suppress market signals and postpone structural adjustments often face deeper fiscal instability in later years.

History offers numerous examples.

India’s economic liberalisation in 1991 followed a severe balance-of-payments crisis. Indonesia undertook painful subsidy reforms despite public resistance. Ghana has repeatedly implemented difficult fiscal adjustments under economic pressure. Even advanced economies have periodically introduced unpopular measures during periods of financial stress.

None of these reforms delivered immediate comfort. Most involved painful transitions before producing broader gains.

Nigeria’s experience should therefore be viewed within this wider historical context.

This does not mean every government policy has been perfect. No administration is beyond criticism, and constructive scrutiny remains essential to democratic governance. Questions surrounding implementation, social protection, inflation management, public communication and institutional efficiency deserve continuous examination.

Good governance requires both courage to reform and humility to adjust when necessary.

The more fundamental question is whether Nigeria could continue indefinitely with the economic model it had followed for decades.

Could subsidies continue expanding while infrastructure deteriorated?

Could exchange-rate distortions persist without discouraging investment?

Could public finances remain healthy while debt-service obligations consumed increasing portions of government revenue?

Could insecurity continue unchecked without undermining agriculture, industry and commerce?

These are the questions history will ultimately ask.

Governments inherit circumstances they did not create, but they are judged by the decisions they make once responsibility becomes theirs.

Supporters of the administration believe today’s sacrifices are laying the foundation for tomorrow’s prosperity.

Critics remain unconvinced and argue that reforms must produce faster and broader improvements in living standards.

Both perspectives deserve respectful consideration.

Yet any balanced historical assessment must begin with intellectual honesty. Nigeria’s structural challenges did not suddenly emerge on inauguration day in May 2023. They were the cumulative result of decades of policy choices, deferred reforms and institutional weaknesses.

Understanding that reality does not excuse present shortcomings.

Neither does it justify ignoring inherited constraints.

It simply provides the factual foundation required for a fair national conversation.

Only by separating inherited problems from present responsibilities can Nigerians objectively evaluate whether the country’s current reform programme ultimately succeeds or fails.

History is rarely written in the language of political slogans.

It is written in evidence.

And evidence always demands context.

The Final Word

The easiest political argument is to blame today’s leaders for yesterday’s problems or yesterday’s leaders for today’s difficulties. Neither approach builds a nation. Nigeria’s future depends on something more demanding: the courage to distinguish between inheritance and responsibility. Only then can citizens fairly judge whether difficult reforms were necessary, whether they were wisely implemented and whether they ultimately delivered the stronger, more prosperous nation they promised. Great nations are built not on convenient narratives, but on uncomfortable truths honestly confronted.

NATIONAL PATRIOTS

Nigeria’s economic realities did not begin in 2023. Any fair assessment of today’s reforms must first acknowledge decades of accumulated fiscal, structural and institutional challenges. Separating inherited problems from present responsibilities is essential for informed national discourse. History demands evidence, context and objectivity—not political slogans. Nigeria deserves honest conversations that place national interest above partisan narratives.

•Princess Gloria Adebajo-Fraser MFR.

Special Adviser to Former President Goodluck Jonathan.

President, The National Patriots.