FACTS, NOT FEAR: A POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSE TO ATIKU ABUBAKAR ON NIGERIA’S REFORM JOURNEY

FACTS, NOT FEAR: A POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSE TO ATIKU ABUBAKAR ON NIGERIA’S REFORM JOURNEY

Politics thrives on disagreement. Democracy demands it. But disagreements must be rooted in facts, not frozen snapshots of history. When yesterday’s data are presented as today’s reality, the public deserves context.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, in his typical pastime, has accused the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of fiscal recklessness, citing excess borrowing in the 2024 budget, questioning the removal of fuel subsidy, criticising tax reforms, concocting an oil windfall of N7.98 trillion, and suggesting that Nigeria is drifting economically.

His concerns, though misplaced, deserve a response—not because criticisms should be silenced – but because Nigerians should have a fuller picture of where the country is today. Here are the real issues Atiku and his courtiers should apprise themselves of:

A Debate Anchored in 2024 Cannot Explain Nigeria in 2026

Perhaps the first observation is chronological. It is curious that in the middle of 2026, the opposition’s principal economic argument remains anchored to developments in the 2024 fiscal year. Economies are dynamic. Reforms are processes, not events. Judging a reform programme solely by its earliest and most painful phase is like judging chemotherapy by the nausea it induces while ignoring the remission it seeks to achieve.

The Nigerian economy that underwent painful adjustment in 2024 has evolved considerably. Following the exchange-rate reset, Nigeria’s dollar-denominated GDP fell to about $253 billion, reflecting the immediate effect of currency realignment. Since then, figures from statistics bodies and multilateral agencies like the IMF indicate that it has recovered significantly to approximately $377 billion, representing an increase of roughly 49 per cent from that post-adjustment trough. Likewise, Naira GDP has expanded from about ₦314 trillion in 2024 to around ₦530 trillion, a 69% increase reflecting both higher economic activity and price changes. These figures should continue to be assessed alongside real GDP growth, inflation, and household welfare. They do illustrate that the economy did not remain frozen at its most difficult moment.

The reforms were never advertised as painless. They were presented as necessary structural adjustments intended to correct long-standing distortions, including distortions created in the Obasanjo-Atiku years, 1999-2007.

Borrowing Must Be Judged Alongside Economic Capacity

On the matter of Nigeria’s debts, it is important to ask a broader question: What is Nigeria’s capacity to sustain her debt? For debt, in itself, is not the defining measure of fiscal health. What matters are the size of the economy; our revenue-generating capacity; debt servicing costs; the purposes for which funds are borrowed; and whether borrowed resources finance productive investments or recurrent consumption. Nigeria’s debts have been acquired for productive, long-term infrastructural and investment purposes – according to the law.

Nigeria’s debt-to-GDP ratio remains relatively modest (at barely 40%) compared with many peer economies and advanced countries (South Africa (85%), Egypt (80%), Ghana (60%), Kenya (75%), USA (130%), UK (110%), China (300% – unofficially), even though debt-service pressures have historically been significant. Still, the Tinubu Administration has seen a reduction in the debt service-to-revenue ratio, from a high of nearly 100% in December 2022 to less than 60% today. This is a remarkable achievement that shows that Nigeria’s revenue efficiency has improved, while debt management remains conservative and astute. All the same, the more meaningful question is whether borrowing finances investments that expand productive capacity and future revenues, rather than merely postponing difficult choices.

Where Did the Subsidy Savings Go?

For decades, economists across ideological divides criticised Nigeria’s fuel subsidy as fiscally costly and poorly targeted. Even befo