President Bola Tinubu marked his third year in office recently, on May 29. The presidency rolled out the drums, placing a front-page advert in all the national newspapers to celebrate the president’s “achievements”. The advert was audaciously titled “Promises Delivered” and listed eight “promises” that President Tinubu supposedly “delivered”.
Perversely, by proclaiming “promises delivered”, the Tinubu administration chose to be the judge and the jury in its own case. Of course, the ultimate verdict on President Tinubu’s performance will be pronounced by Nigerians in next year’s presidential poll when he seeks re-election. In the meantime, individual citizens would pass their own judgements as I do in this intervention.
The “promises delivered” claims about the “achievements” of the Tinubu presidency can be analysed along the input/output or effort/outcome nexus. Let’s consider a few of the claims. Take the following: “Improve governance for effective service delivery”; “reform the economy for sustained inclusive growth”; “strengthen the national security for peace and prosperity”; “boosting agriculture to achieve food security”. Basically, the Presidency claims that President Tinubu has “delivered” on the above “promises”!
But what’s the reality? For instance, where is the evidence of “effective service delivery”? Have economic reforms produced “sustained inclusive growth”? Has “boosting agriculture” achieved “food security” in Nigeria? And what about national security? Are Nigerians enjoying “peace and prosperity”? Truth is, none of the Presidency’s claims stands up to scrutiny. To echo George Orwell, the “promises delivered” claims gave an appearance of solidity to pure wind; they are vacuous, lacking substance and evidential base.
President Tinubu has now done three years in a four-year term. Yet, it is utterly hard to see the justification for a braggadocious, chest-beating claim of “promises delivered” when, three years into his four-year presidency, Nigeria is gripped by grinding and deepening poverty and misery, ever-widening inequality, debilitating insecurity which has turned Nigeria into a Hobbesian state of nature where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short; and a lack of social cohesion, political stability and national unity. Tinubu promised “renewed hope”, but Nigeria is still dogged by multifaceted problems three years after he became president. Sadly, the problems have worsened under his administration. Think about it: Are ordinary Nigerians better off today than they were before Tinubu came to power? No! Are Nigerians more secure now than they were before Tinubu became president? No! The litany goes on!
Paradoxically, President Tinubu has carved out a reputation for himself as a reformer, as a leader with a reformist zeal. But having a reformist zeal is not the same thing as being able to craft a good reform, it’s not the same thing as having the true grit, analytical rigour and intellectual power to develop reforms that work in the sense of having tangible results and beneficial impacts without unintended adverse consequences. But President Tinubu’s reforms have not produced results and impacts that are beneficial to ordinary Nigerians and even to the wider economy because the reforms were either half-baked or badly crafted.
Indeed, some of Tinubu’s “reforms” are not reforms in the true sense of the term. For instance, declaring that “subsidy is gone” at his inauguration is not a reform but an abrupt policy declaration because no rigorous analysis preceded it. Tinubu later said that he was “possessed by courage” to make the off-the-cuff declaration. But courage is not enough for good reforms: you need a thorough analysis of the options, of the pros and cons, of the trade-offs and of any necessary mitigation. Similarly, scrapping the multiple exchange rate regime within weeks of coming into power is also not a reform but a stroke-of-the-pen policy decision that lacked rigorous analytical input.
In truth, it’s hard to disagree with the fundamental rationales for the economic “reforms” – removal of the fuel subsidy, scrapping of the pegged or multiple exchange rates and overhaul of the tax system. However, the reality is that the design and implementation of the “reforms” have produced adverse consequences that are entrenching structural imbalances in the Nigerian economy and the wider society, fuelling a deep distrust of the state.
For instance, while the removal of the fuel subsidy has hugely enriched the government and some privileged individuals, it has massively impoverished ordinary Nigerians, resulting in deepening poverty, misery and inequality. Yet, while the Federal and state governments share trillions of subsidy savings among themselves, they are doing virtually nothing to ensure that the savings benefit ordinary Nigerians. Even the IMF which repeatedly called for subsidy removal also called for “adequate compensatory measures for the poor.” But, alas, that has not happened. Nigeria makes its rich richer and its poor poorer. According to the IMF, over 129mn Nigerians now live below the poverty line, with poverty rising to 63 per cent in 2025, and expected to continue to rise. Yet, Nigeria has no social security or safety nets!
What about the scrapping of the fixed exchange rate system? Well, it was a good policy. But every economist knows that without a productive, high-value export-led economy, floating a currency would lead to its massive devaluation, which is what happened to the naira. Of course, the massive depreciation of the naira has made Nigeria’s low-value export products cheaper, leading to a trade surplus, But the naira’s acute devaluation has also led to imported inflation, which, coupled with the inflation induced by the subsidy removal, has raised input costs for businesses and living costs for citizens. However, what the Tinubu government talks about is the devaluation-induced trade surplus and foreign reserves increase, not about the adverse effects of naira’s massive devaluation on businesses and citizens. Yet, a good reform would consider all the trade-offs and adverse consequences and mitigate them.
Of course, President Tinubu’s economic reforms have made Nigeria attractive to some foreign investors. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, NBS, $10.37bn foreign capital flowed into Nigeria in the first quarter of 2026. But this is nothing to be overexcited about given that nearly 95 per cent of the total capital inflow is portfolio investment, which is called “hot money” precisely because the yield-chasing capital can fly out as quickly as it flew in. Real investor confidence is reflected in the inflow of foreign direct investment, known as “sticky money”. While every foreign investment should be welcomed, the aim of any good reform must be to attract quality FDI, which is a major source of jobs, technology transfer, innovation and productivity. But despite the much-trumpeted economic reforms of the Tinubu administration, they are not attracting long-term investment into Nigeria, with FDI hovering around just 1.3 per cent of total capital inflows.
But the real dampener on the reforms is the high debt and low revenue. Tell me, how can a government that spends 67.2 per cent of its revenue to service debt, as Nigeria did between January and September 2025, brag about the success of its reforms? How can a government that projected N30.67trn in revenue but mobilised only N18.63trn beat its chest about the ingenuity of its reforms? Of course, as the government fails to meet its revenue targets, as it borrows heavily to fund the deficits and as it uses nearly 70 per cent or even more of its revenue to service its burgeoning debt, it would trap the country in debt, poverty and decline simply because it can’t generate sufficient revenue to provide critical public goods.
Recently, the government celebrated the S&P Global Ratings’ upgrade of Nigeria’s long-term sovereign credit rating to “B” from “B-”. But that doesn’t change the fundamentals. S&P downgraded the US’s credit rating in 2011, Flitch in 2023 and Moody’s in 2025; yet America has always been the world’s largest economy, notable for its high productivity and innovative capacity. But despite S&P’s upgrade, Nigeria faces existential decline, unable to mobilise revenue, tackle ravaging insecurity and eradicate extreme poverty. Yet, three years in power, President Tinubu brazenly proclaims “promises delivered”. Three short words: Out of touch!
*Dr Fasan is the author of ‘In The National Interest: The Road to Nigeria’s Political, Economic and Social Transformation’, available at RovingHeights bookstores.
