As 2027 approaches, Nigeria’s political argument is narrowing to a clear question: how should voters assess the current reforms under President Bola Tinubu against the record of past administrations led or influenced by figures such as Atiku Abubakar?
In May 2023, the starting point was difficult to ignore. Public finances were strained, with most revenue going to debt service; fuel subsidies consumed vast resources; and a fragmented exchange rate system encouraged arbitrage while weakening investor confidence. Oil production had declined significantly, limiting the country’s main source of foreign exchange.
The Tinubu administration moved quickly to address these distortions by removing fuel subsidies and unifying exchange rates, decisions that align with standard economic correction tools in similar contexts. Institutions such as the World Bank and IMF have described these steps as necessary, drawing on comparative evidence rather than domestic politics. Still, the domestic impact has been immediate and visible.
Inflation has increased, transport and food costs have risen, and many households face tighter budgets. This tension between policy logic and lived experience sits at the centre of the current debate, and it explains why criticism remains strong.
To understand that criticism, it helps to look backwards.
During earlier administrations, including those in which Atiku played a senior role, structural issues such as subsidy dependence and exchange rate fragmentation were not fully resolved. Although these policies provided short-term stability, they also allowed deeper imbalances to build over time. But recent data is suggesting that there are some shifts worth nodding at.
Oil production has improved from previous lows, external reserves have strengthened, and the government continues to meet its debt obligations. Agricultural output projections, particularly in wheat production, also indicate targeted expansion. These are all incremental adjustments that signal stabilisation, though they fall short of full recovery.
Therefore, behind the comparisons of personalities and tribal sentiment should also be a contrast in approach. While in power, earlier governments typically delayed difficult corrections. What the current administration has done is implement them quickly, accepting immediate costs. Whether that trade-off is justified remains the central issue.
As campaigns take shape, voters are the ones who must still do the weighing: whether to stand by the administration defined by a gradual accumulation of structural strain, or the one defined by abrupt attempts to correct it under pressure.
