Tinubu @Three: Between Reform, Reality And The Restless Nigerian Street

BY ORTAMEN MANZ DENGA

NEWSDAILYNIGERIA: President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s third anniversary address was, by every intellectual standard, one of the most structured and economically literate speeches delivered by a Nigerian leader in recent years. It was not merely a political speech; it was an attempt to construct a governing philosophy and a historical justification for one of the most painful economic transitions in Nigeria’s democratic era.

At its core, the President’s message was clear: Nigeria in 2023 stood dangerously close to fiscal and structural breakdown, and only painful but courageous reforms could avert national collapse.

That proposition is not entirely without merit.

The subsidy regime had become fiscally unsustainable. Foreign exchange distortions had created a rentier economy benefiting speculators rather than producers. Public revenues were constrained, debt service obligations were ballooning, and investor confidence was fading. Few serious economists dispute that reform was necessary.

The question, however, is not whether reform was needed.

The question is whether the reforms were intelligently sequenced, socially protected, and sufficiently inclusive.

This is where the administration’s narrative encounters the harsh tribunal of public reality.

The President spoke confidently about rising stock market capitalization, expanding infrastructure, telecom sector recovery, investor confidence, rail modernization, domestic refining, LNG expansion, and agricultural interventions. These are important macroeconomic indicators and, in some sectors, genuine achievements.

But ordinary Nigerians do not experience the economy through the All Share Index. They experience it through food prices, transport fares, electricity bills, school fees, rent, medication costs, and the rapidly shrinking purchasing power of their income.

The average citizen is not asking whether investor sentiment has improved. The citizen is asking why a salary that sustained a family in 2023 now struggles to survive two weeks in 2026.

This is the central contradiction in the administration’s messaging.

The government is communicating macroeconomic stabilization, while citizens are experiencing microeconomic distress.

To be fair, the President acknowledged sacrifice and hardship more directly than many previous administrations would have done. Yet the speech still felt more technocratic than empathetic. It explained suffering, but did not fully connect emotionally with the psychological exhaustion of Nigerians confronting inflation, insecurity, unemployment, and economic uncertainty simultaneously.

More importantly, the speech glossed over a major policy critique increasingly raised by economists across ideological lines: sequencing.

Subsidy removal without sufficient public transportation alternatives, robust social cushioning, stable local refining, or adequate wage adjustments amplified inflationary shocks. Exchange-rate liberalization before export diversification and industrial productivity deepened imported inflation and weakened household purchasing power.

In essence, reforms that may have been economically inevitable were implemented in a manner many believe socially intensified the pain.

Still, the administration can point to one undeniable political advantage: visible state activity.

Across the federation, roads are under construction, housing projects are advancing, rail corridors are expanding, and energy infrastructure investments are ongoing. In political communication, visibility matters. Citizens may dispute prosperity, but they cannot entirely dispute the existence of physical projects.

Yet infrastructure alone cannot substitute for welfare stabilization.

The speech’s assertion that food prices have “largely come down” may prove especially controversial because it conflicts sharply with everyday market experience across much of the country. For many households, affordability remains deeply strained despite relative stabilization in certain commodities.

Similarly, the security section of the speech appeared cautious and defensive rather than triumphant. Nigerians living in conflict-prone regions may struggle to reconcile official optimism with continuing kidnappings, banditry, communal violence, and widespread insecurity.

Politically, President Tinubu appears increasingly focused on how history will judge his presidency. The speech repeatedly positioned him as a leader willing to make difficult decisions others avoided — a reformist rather than a populist.

That is a legitimate historical ambition.

But democratic legitimacy ultimately rests not only on economic theory, but on lived experience.

The administration’s challenge going forward is therefore no longer merely stabilization. It is transmission.

Can macroeconomic gains translate into lower inflation, stronger purchasing power, better wages, safer communities, more affordable living conditions, and broader inclusion?

Can growth become visible not only in boardrooms and markets, but in kitchens, farms, campuses, factories, and small businesses?

These are the questions that will define the second half of this administration.

For now, the President has successfully argued that Nigeria may have avoided collapse. He has not yet fully convinced many Nigerians that they are genuinely recovering.

…Ortamen Manz Denga, a Financial Sector Expert, writes from Makurdi.