Why Nigerians Still Feel the Pain Despite Tinubu’s Optimistic Economic Narrative
By Matthew Eloyi
When governments feel compelled to publish lengthy point-by-point rebuttals defending their economic policies, they often reveal more than they intend. The latest State House press statement responding to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s criticism of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s economic reforms is one such document. While it presents impressive statistics on GDP growth, debt sustainability, healthcare, education, taxation, and infrastructure, it also raises an uncomfortable question: if the reforms are working as spectacularly as claimed, why do millions of Nigerians continue to struggle with the highest cost of living in decades?
The Presidency insists that critics are relying on outdated 2024 data and ignoring the “new Nigeria” emerging from painful reforms. It argues that Nigeria’s GDP has recovered significantly, debt remains manageable, subsidy removal has strengthened state finances, tax reforms are progressive, healthcare facilities have expanded, and education is receiving unprecedented investment.
On paper, the narrative is persuasive. On the streets, however, many Nigerians tell a different story.
One recurring weakness in official government communication is the tendency to measure success almost exclusively through macroeconomic indicators. GDP growth, debt-to-GDP ratios, tax collections and fiscal balances undoubtedly matter to economists, but they mean little to ordinary citizens who judge economic performance by the prices they encounter in markets every day.
The Presidency acknowledges that the reforms were painful but argues that the worst is over. It maintains that inflation is declining and projects further improvement.
Yet for many families, daily life remains defined by soaring food prices, expensive transportation, rising electricity costs and shrinking purchasing power. Even where inflation slows, prices often remain permanently elevated. A slower rate of increase does not restore what households have already lost. Government statistics alone cannot erase lived experience.
Perhaps no policy better illustrates the gap between official optimism and public sentiment than fuel subsidy removal. The Presidency celebrates the decision as a courageous reform that previous administrations avoided, arguing that it has significantly increased allocations to states and local governments for development projects. But Nigerians continue to ask a straightforward question that remains politically potent: where are the visible dividends?
State governments may indeed be receiving more money, yet many communities still grapple with poor roads, inadequate hospitals, underfunded schools and unpaid salaries. Transparency over how these additional revenues are spent varies widely across states. Without measurable improvements in public services, citizens are unlikely to be convinced that subsidy savings are transforming their lives.
The Presidency argues that Nigeria’s debt is far from excessive and should be judged alongside economic capacity rather than absolute figures. It notes improvements in the debt service-to-revenue ratio and maintains that borrowed funds support productive investments.
That may be fiscally defensible.
Yet Nigerians are less interested in theoretical debt sustainability than in tangible outcomes.
If borrowing finances infrastructure that improves productivity, creates jobs, reduces transportation costs and stimulates businesses, it can be justified. But if citizens continue to endure unemployment, unreliable electricity, poor healthcare and inadequate public services, questions about the efficiency of public borrowing remain entirely legitimate. Fiscal prudence should ultimately be measured by public benefit, not merely by ratios.
The statement highlights thousands of upgraded primary healthcare centres, expanded cancer treatment facilities, free caesarean programmes and millions of beneficiaries of the Nigerian Education Loan Fund.
These initiatives, if fully implemented and effectively managed, represent meaningful investments in human capital. However, infrastructure announcements are only the beginning.
Healthcare facilities require trained personnel, reliable equipment, medicines and consistent funding. Education loans expand access to universities, but they do not automatically solve concerns over graduate unemployment, quality of instruction or institutional funding.
One striking feature of the Presidency’s response is its increasingly combative tone. Rather than simply presenting evidence, the statement repeatedly dismisses critics as uninformed, alarmist or analytically deficient.
While political exchanges naturally involve sharp rhetoric, governments strengthen public confidence by responding with transparency rather than confrontation.
Healthy democracies benefit from rigorous scrutiny of economic policy. Dismissing criticism risks creating the perception that government is more interested in winning political arguments than listening to public concerns.
The Presidency is correct that structural reforms often take years to produce lasting benefits. Economic transformation rarely happens overnight. It is also true that previous administrations left difficult policy choices unresolved.
However, those realities do not exempt the current government from accountability. The ultimate test of any reform programme is not the number of pages devoted to defending it, nor the volume of economic indicators cited in its favour. It is whether ordinary Nigerians can afford food without skipping meals, businesses can operate profitably without crippling energy costs, graduates can find decent jobs, hospitals can provide quality care, and families can look to the future with confidence rather than anxiety.
Until those everyday realities improve substantially, official declarations that “the worst is over” will continue to compete with a far more powerful narrative: the one being written daily in Nigerian homes, markets and workplaces.
Economic reforms require patience. But public trust requires evidence that sacrifice is producing visible, measurable improvements in people’s lives. That remains the government’s greatest challenge.
