₦airaland Forum

Kukutente23:
You failed to tell us how much of the Afreximbank loan has been liquidated more so since it's been paid back with crude oil
Let's not forget $9bn loan from World Bank since 2023. Where's the loan?
There's also a $300m loan from Japan. Where did it enter?
What is the point of removing subsidy and devaluing the naira amidst high interest rates when you still can't fund the budget. Budgets are failing and rolling over in an unprecedented manner that they are no longer worth the paper they are written on.
Even Buhari wasn't this reckless!!

My brother, accountability is good. But accountability must start with accurate figures, not throwing every loan headline into one political basket and shouting “reckless.”

On the Afreximbank facility, the documented transaction is the **NNPC-backed $3.3bn crude-oil prepayment loan**, not some mysterious “$6bn” ghost money. Reuters reported that Afreximbank disbursed **$925m** in June 2024, bringing total disbursement to about **$3.175bn**. The facility was tied to naira stabilisation and was structured as a crude-backed prepayment. If you want to ask how much has been liquidated, fair enough. That is a legitimate transparency question. But do not first inflate or blur the facility, then demand accountability from your own confusion.

On World Bank loans, again, let us be precise. Since 2023, Nigeria has received or secured World Bank support for specific reform and development programmes, not one warehouse where “$9bn” was dumped for Tinubu to share. For example, the World Bank approved **$2.25bn** in June 2024: **$1.5bn** to support economic stabilisation reforms and **$750m** for revenue mobilisation and fiscal sustainability. There was also the **$800m** facility for cash transfers to cushion subsidy-removal pain.

On the so-called Japan loan, the approved borrowing plan included **¥15bn**, about **$102m**, not $300m. Reuters reported that this formed part of the 2025 external borrowing plan, with funds earmarked for infrastructure, healthcare, education, security and housing. So again, if there is a $300m Japan figure, bring the exact facility, lender, approval date and purpose. Otherwise, it is just another number thrown into the air.

You also asked what the point of subsidy removal and naira adjustment is if government still borrows. That question sounds clever, but it misunderstands reform. Removing subsidy does not magically erase inherited deficits, debt service, infrastructure gaps, security costs, salary obligations and capital needs overnight. What it does is stop one major leak, improve fiscal space, reduce distortions and allow government to redirect resources. The World Bank’s position has consistently been that subsidy removal and FX reforms were necessary for macroeconomic stability, even though they created hardship in the short term.

On budget rollovers, you are partly right: Nigeria’s budget cycle has been messy. But again, Tinubu has acknowledged the problem and proposed a budget reset to end overlapping fiscal years and restore a January-to-December framework. Reuters reported that the reset was designed to end the inefficiencies caused by concurrent budgets and improve capital project execution. That is not denial; that is correction.

Now compare that with Buhari. Buhari left behind a deeply distorted economy: fuel subsidy bleeding public finances, Ways and Means abuse, FX backlog, weak revenue, high debt service and broken investor confidence. Tinubu’s reforms are painful because he removed the bandage from a rotten wound. You may criticise the pain management, but pretending the wound was created in 2023 is dishonest.

Even the 2026 budget shows where the money is meant to go: ₦58.18trn expenditure, ₦26.08trn for capital projects, and focus areas including security, infrastructure, education and health. The same report noted inflation falling sharply from March to November and reserves rising to about $47bn, the highest in seven years. That is not proof that everything is perfect, but it is evidence that the economy is not simply being “destroyed” in the cartoonish way you describe.

So yes, ask questions. Ask how much of the Afreximbank crude-backed facility has been repaid. Ask for disbursement schedules. Ask for project-level tracking. Ask for budget implementation reports.

But do not mix wrong figures, half-truths and inherited problems, then call it research.

The real debate is not whether Tinubu should be scrutinised. He should. The real debate is whether you are scrutinising with facts or merely decorating political anger with loan figures.

mrvitalis:
You obviously have deficiencies in economics as an area of knowledge

Lol do we spend dollar in Nigeria ? Lmao what’s backing the naira ?
Do you even know what 1 naira means ?
Do you know what foreign reserves means ?

My brother, you are mixing issues.

The article was not a lecture on exchange rates, foreign reserves or macroeconomics. It was about **grassroots empowerment** and why some people deliberately twisted the First Lady’s akara/corn example.

The point remains simple: she did not present akara as Nigeria’s industrial policy. She was speaking within the context of small grants, vulnerable women, low-capital businesses and immediate livelihood support.

A poor woman who receives a small grant is not going to build a factory overnight. But she can start food vending, akara, roasted corn, petty trading or another micro-business that gives her daily income.

That does not cancel the need for manufacturing, technology, agriculture, power, infrastructure and serious job creation. Both conversations can exist at the same time.

So the issue is not whether Nigeria spends dollars or what backs the naira. That is a different debate entirely.

The issue here is that some people took a simple grassroots empowerment message and turned it into a political circus because Remi Tinubu said it.

Kukutente23:
I'm yet to see your input on the akara assignment Madam Remi gave out to you guys over the weekend.

But I hope you'll not be like the other jester who instead of making a case for akara and corn microeconomics prevaricated between diffusing the message by specifying an audience and glorifying the message by embedding it in a broader spectrum of age long interventions by Nigeria’s "Mamas"

It might also be that the mods find your intervention too boring to burden the first page with.
Since you're now into accountability, what was the $6bn Afreximbank loan for? What about the $5bn Abu Dhabi loan?

Nelfund is being funded with 1% deduction from FIRS revenue. I don't know why you're tying it to loans. Lagos-Calabar is supposed to be an EPC project. Same with Sokoto-Badagry Expressway. So seeing them as line items in your loan accounting is an anomaly.

A country whose gdp per capita has shrunk to $1500 from $5000 can't be rejoicing at a gdp rate of 4%. I thought Tinubu says he wants to achieve $1trn gdp by 2030. How does he get to that at 4% growth?

Tinubu is not repairing anything. That's just propaganda

He's rather destroying the economy at an alarming pace and Nigeria needs to be rescued from his shriveled hands

YOU WROTE

I'm yet to see your input on the akara assignment Madam Remi gave out to you guys over the weekend.

But I hope you'll not be like the other jester who instead of making a case for akara and corn microeconomics prevaricated between diffusing the message by specifying an audience and glorifying the message by embedding it in a broader spectrum of age long interventions by Nigeria’s "Mamas"

It might also be that the mods find your intervention too boring to burden the first page with.

MY RESPONSE
My brother, I have already done more than “akara assignment.” In fact, I opened a full thread on it: “The Akara Economy: Why The Elite Often Misunderstand Grassroots Empowerment.”

But as usual, some people have decided to turn one statement into a travelling circus.

The First Lady did not say akara and corn roasting are Nigeria’s industrial policy. She did not say graduates should abandon engineering, technology, agriculture, manufacturing or innovation and queue up beside frying pans. She was speaking in the context of small grants, vulnerable women, low-capital entry businesses and immediate livelihood support.

That distinction matters.

A woman who receives a small grant may not be able to start a factory, import machinery or build a fintech platform. But she may be able to start akara, roasted corn, kuli-kuli, food vending, petty trading or another micro-business that puts daily cash in her hand. That is not macroeconomic transformation. It is survival economics. And in a country where many households live from hand to mouth, survival economics is not a joke.

The problem with some Obidients is that they pretend to love the poor until the poor man’s business becomes politically inconvenient. Suddenly akara is beneath them. Corn roasting is an insult. Kuli-kuli is backwardness. But these same small businesses have trained children, paid school fees, sustained widows, fed families and built quiet dignity in communities long before Twitter economists discovered GDP per capita.

Nobody is saying akara will replace industrialisation. Nobody is saying micro-business is a substitute for manufacturing. The argument is simple: grassroots empowerment has layers. At the bottom layer, people need immediate income. At the higher layer, government must build roads, power, credit access, agriculture, skills, manufacturing and technology.

A serious person can discuss both. A partisan clown will pretend one cancels the other.

So when you ask for my input, here it is: the akara economy is not the national destination; it is an entry point for survival, dignity and micro-capital formation.

The real joke is not akara. The real joke is elite mockery of the poor by people who claim to speak for them.

Kukutente23:
I'm yet to see your input on the akara assignment Madam Remi gave out to you guys over the weekend.

But I hope you'll not be like the other jester who instead of making a case for akara and corn microeconomics prevaricated between diffusing the message by specifying an audience and glorifying the message by embedding it in a broader spectrum of age long interventions by Nigeria’s "Mamas"

It might also be that the mods find your intervention too boring to burden the first page with.
Since you're now into accountability, what was the $6bn Afreximbank loan for? What about the $5bn Abu Dhabi loan?

Nelfund is being funded with 1% deduction from FIRS revenue. I don't know why you're tying it to loans. Lagos-Calabar is supposed to be an EPC project. Same with Sokoto-Badagry Expressway. So seeing them as line items in your loan accounting is an anomaly.

A country whose gdp per capita has shrunk to $1500 from $5000 can't be rejoicing at a gdp rate of 4%. I thought Tinubu says he wants to achieve $1trn gdp by 2030. How does he get to that at 4% growth?

Tinubu is not repairing anything. That's just propaganda

He's rather destroying the economy at an alarming pace and Nigeria needs to be rescued from his shriveled hands

My brother, you made some fair technical corrections, but then spoiled them with the usual Obidient seasoning of exaggeration, insult and selective economics.

First, on NELFUND, you are right that the student loan scheme is not funded from the Afreximbank or Abu Dhabi loans. The 2024 Student Loan Act created NELFUND as a sustainable education-financing institution to provide loans for tuition, charges and upkeep. So yes, it should not be lumped casually into external-loan accounting. But that does not erase the fact that NELFUND is a Tinubu-era social investment reform. A good policy does not become invisible because it is not funded by the particular loan you want to discuss.

Second, on the Afreximbank facility, let us be accurate. The well-documented facility was the NNPCL-backed $3.3 billion crude-oil prepayment facility, not some vague “where is $6bn?” slogan. Reuters reported that NNPC secured the facility to support reforms and stabilise the FX market, while Afreximbank said the first $2.25bn was disbursed, with another $1.05bn expected, and later Reuters reported total disbursement had reached about $3.175bn. So if you want accountability, ask for the structure, repayment and transparency — don’t just throw “$6bn” into the air like campaign confetti.
Third, the **$5bn First Abu Dhabi Bank arrangement** is also not something to be defended blindly. The IMF itself warned that such TRS/derivative-style borrowing can be opaque and risky. Fair point. But the same Reuters report says the proceeds are intended to refinance expensive debt and fund infrastructure. So the serious argument is transparency and debt-risk management, not “Tinubu is destroying everything.”

Fourth, Lagos-Calabar and Sokoto-Badagry being EPC projects does not mean money is not involved. EPC is a contract delivery model, not Father Christmas. Someone still finances design, engineering, procurement, construction, guarantees, counterpart obligations and repayment. You can question the financing model, but pretending EPC means “no fiscal implication” is economics by moonlight.

Fifth, on GDP per capita, let us not play with numbers. Nigeria’s GDP per capita has fallen badly in dollar terms, yes, partly because of naira depreciation and weak productivity. But the claim that it fell from **$5,000** is not supported by World Bank data; World Bank data shows Nigeria’s recent GDP per capita much lower, with 2024 at about **$1,084**. So again, there is a real problem, but you do not need inflated figures to make it.

Sixth, you asked how 4% growth gets Nigeria to a $1 trillion economy. On real GDP growth alone, it does not. That target requires higher real growth, exchange-rate stability, investment expansion, productivity, exports, oil output recovery, tax reform, infrastructure and possibly statistical rebasing. So yes, $1 trillion by 2030 is extremely ambitious. But dismissing 4% growth as useless is unserious. You do not jump from crisis to miracle; you stabilise first, then accelerate.

And that is where your “Tinubu is not repairing anything” line collapses. The World Bank says subsidy removal and FX reforms are crucial to rebuilding fiscal space and restoring macroeconomic stability. It projected growth improving from 3.3% in 2023 to 3.7% in 2024 and 4.1% in 2025 if reforms are sustained. NBS also reported Q1 2026 GDP growth of **3.89%**, higher than **3.13%** in Q1 2025, with manufacturing, trade, construction and oil sector improvements.
Even Reuters reported that the 2026 budget allocated **₦26.08 trillion to capital projects**, focusing on security, infrastructure, education and health, while inflation had fallen from **24.23% in March to 14.45% in November**, and reserves had risen to about **$47bn**. Those are not signs of an economy magically fixed, but they are signs of stabilisation.

So let us be honest: Nigerians are suffering, and government must do more. Borrowing must be transparent. Waste must be cut. Debt must be managed. The benefits of reform must reach ordinary people faster.

But saying “nothing is being repaired” is not analysis. It is frustration pretending to be research.

Tinubu inherited a distorted economy built on subsidy fraud, FX illusion, weak revenue and debt pressure. He may be criticised for the pain of the surgery, but do not pretend there was no disease before the doctor entered the theatre.

The honest debate is not whether reform was necessary. It was. The real debate is speed, sequencing, cushioning, transparency and delivery.

That is where serious people should argue — not with akara jokes and economic hysteria.

One of the oldest tricks in Nigerian politics is to dismiss support for a politician as tribalism rather than engage the reasons for that support.

Curiously, this accusation is not applied equally.

In 1979 and 1983, many Yorubas who supported Chief Obafemi Awolowo were routinely dismissed as tribalists. Yet supporters of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and the NPP were rarely subjected to the same blanket judgment.

In 1998 and 2003, Yorubas who rallied behind Chief Olusegun Obasanjo were accused of ethnic solidarity. Yet when many Igbos supported Dr. Alex Ekwueme in the PDP primaries, few described it as tribalism.

The double standard persists today.

If a Yoruba commentator criticizes Tinubu, he is praised as objective and courageous. If another Yoruba supports Tinubu, he is immediately branded a tribalist.

If a Yoruba elder supports Peter Obi, he is celebrated as detribalized and enlightened. But if an Igbo politician supports Tinubu, he is often denounced as a traitor to his people.

One is left wondering whether this reflects a subtle superiority complex: support for one candidate is assumed to be principled, while support for another must be explained by ethnicity.

The truth is simpler.

People support politicians for many reasons—ideology, performance, policy preferences, personal conviction, or sometimes ethnicity. But it is intellectually dishonest to assume tribal motives only when the support benefits the candidate you oppose.

The real question is not whether Tinubu is Yoruba.

The real question is whether the arguments for or against his policies are sound.

For when a man cannot answer your argument, he often settles for explaining your ancestry.

And when facts become inconvenient, ethnicity becomes the emergency exit.

aswani:
Is there a Nairaland law against that?

My brother, I wonder o!

These people called Obidients often preach tolerance until someone scrutinises Peter Obi. The moment you question his record, you're suddenly a "paid agent," "BMC," "data boy," or every other label except someone making an argument.

Your response to that poster who complained that most of my thread is about Peter obi is so apt.
Is there now a Nairaland law that says Peter Obi cannot be discussed?

He is a presidential aspirant, not a sacred cow.

Presidential hopefuls are supposed to be scrutinised—their record, consistency, alliances, policies and judgment. That's how democracy works.

What I find interesting is that many of these obidients hardly challenge the facts I present. Instead, they complain that I'm writing about Peter Obi.

Think about that.

They are less concerned with whether the criticism is true than with the fact that the criticism exists.

That is not confidence in a candidate. That is intolerance of scrutiny.

I keep telling them , If you believe my facts are wrong, correct them.

If you believe my reasoning is flawed, dismantle it.

But demanding that people stop discussing a presidential candidate simply because you support him is not democratic. It is an attempt to place one politician beyond criticism.

No serious democracy works that way.

[quote author=chidiokay post=139861712][/quote]This is probably your strongest response so far because you've moved beyond slogans.

But I still think you're arguing against a position I never took.

First, you said ₦50,000 is only surface treatment.

I agree.

A micro-grant is not a substitute for industrialisation, manufacturing, agricultural expansion or large-scale job creation.

It was never presented as one.

A bandage is not open-heart surgery. That does not make a bandage useless.

Second, you insist the First Lady was referring to people starting businesses from scratch.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your interpretation is correct.

Even then, my article was not a transcript analysis of her speech. It was about a broader economic principle: that small amounts of productive capital can matter at the grassroots. Whether someone is starting a tiny venture or strengthening an existing one, the underlying point remains the same—micro-capital has a role in poverty reduction.

Third, you raised manufacturing, agriculture and productive jobs.

I agree completely.

In fact, I would go further than you.

Nigeria will never become prosperous by relying solely on petty trading. We need factories, agro-processing, mining, technology, exports, electricity, logistics and a stronger manufacturing base.

But here is where we differ.

You treat these as alternatives.

I see them as complements.

The economy has different layers.

A manufacturer employing 2,000 people needs industrial policy.

A graduate needs investment and job creation.

A farmer needs inputs and security.

A widow selling food needs working capital.

Good government does not choose one group and ignore the rest.

Fourth, you argued that previous governments promised long-term transformation—Vision 2010, Vision 2020, the Seven-Point Agenda—and many Nigerians were disappointed.

That is a fair historical observation.

But the failure of previous long-term plans does not logically mean every future reform should be abandoned.

If that were true, we would never reform anything again.

Each administration should be judged on its own policies and outcomes.

Tinubu did not inherit the same economy that Obasanjo inherited in 1999. He inherited an economy burdened by years of structural distortions: petrol subsidy, multiple exchange rates, mounting fiscal pressures and declining investor confidence.

There is also a difference between the Buhari administration and the Tinubu administration, just as there was a difference between the Obasanjo and Jonathan administrations, even though they belonged to the same political party.

Leadership should be judged by the choices it makes, not merely by party labels.

Finally, you made perhaps your most important point: people need relief now.

I couldn't agree more.

That is precisely why I support both immediate support[b] and[/b] long-term reform.

The patient with a broken leg needs pain relief today.

He also needs surgery if the bone is to heal properly.

Providing pain relief does not mean cancelling the surgery.

Likewise, pursuing structural reforms does not mean abandoning people who need immediate help.

The mistake, in my view, is believing Nigeria must choose between macroeconomic reform and grassroots support.

A serious government should do both.

That is not "Tinubu boiz" translating English into English.

That is simply recognising that a nation of over 200 million people cannot be governed with a one-dimensional economic philosophy.

mrvitalis:
You think someone given 50k in a political party can use it to start a business ? In Nigeria ? $30 dollars ?

Are you guys serious ? $30 ? Can start a business? Not even support an existing businesses ? Lmao

Local frying pan is 30k plus even lmao u guys are funny

What's actually funny is that after all these exchanges, you are still arguing against a position nobody has taken.

Who said ₦50,000 is enough to establish every business from scratch?

Who said it will buy a frying pan, gas cylinder, table, shop rent and inventory all at once?

You keep debating **start-up capital**.

I keep talking about **working capital**.

Those are two completely different economic concepts.

A trader who already has a stall doesn't need another stall.

A woman who already has a frying pan doesn't need another frying pan.

A hawker who already has a customer base doesn't need another customer base.

Many micro-businesses fail or stagnate not because they lack equipment, but because they cannot buy enough stock or they rely on expensive daily credit.

For that person, ₦50,000 is not the entire business.

It is additional working capital.

You also converted ₦50,000 into "$30" as though businesses in Nigeria buy beans, pepper, onions and groundnut in dollars.

The widow buying stock in Bodija, Mile 12, Ariaria or Ogbete pays in naira—not dollars.

The relevant question is not what ₦50,000 converts to in New York.

The relevant question is what ₦50,000 can do for an existing micro-business in Nigeria.

That is the discussion.

Everything else is simply arguing with an imaginary opponent.

EmpressTitan:
I gotta give it to ya for taking your time to educate "us" on this administration and their policies. However, would anyone in their right mind say N50,000 is as sufficient an amount for buying stock by a petty trader in today's economic reality? This same administration plunged the economy into depression and turns around to bring relief of N50,000 and you say this is not some bread and circus? Everyone understands the value of the micro/ macro trading in real time...what you have failed to address is the "value" of such a contribution and how it will help indeed to empower these same folks and lift them out of the poverty margin? Again, i ask...is this not some bread and circus charade? We have not even begun to focus and discuss the margin of Nigerians who were doing well, well,let's say barely average but not in the class of petty trading who can barely hold together their businesses for sake of the same structural reforms that's got the nation bleeding from massive brain drain?There's nothing personal but folks needing to feed which is luxury nowadays... there was a thread of a frustrated man barely 3months in his marriage thinking of quits because all he can afford for his new family is as he called it "rubbish" ...that is a working man, trying to put food on his table; that is how personal it has gotten? How about the insecurity? Is what the Nation going through with fear of kidnappings here and there not personal enough? Then you talk about dislike? I hear folks now, at Nigerian weddings barely get up and spray apart from the EFFC but because of fear of kidnappings? I've heard of someone who had to travel a distance they had to look for near rags to wear to disguise any form of comfort from their looks/ visage...but the aura of such a person giving them up you have to depend on prayers for safety or employ the services of personnel for protection ( which by the way how many Nigerians can afford?) and you talk about dislike of this administration? You are comfortable? All your relatives are comfortable? You've got staffs? Extended Families? Look around you...Soon, these same class of people in all their humanity are good enough by your "economic maladjustment" as you and your likes disdainfully equate as good enough for them, there will come a day the 1780s will just be child's play. Look, there are already places where bandits who kidnapped victims have their own relatives also kidnapped. Now what do you make of this administration and the fate of this Great Nation?

I appreciate the tone of your response, but I think you are collapsing too many different issues into one argument.

First, nobody is denying that Nigerians are suffering. Inflation, insecurity, food prices, business pressure and brain drain are real. Any honest supporter of government must admit that.

But where I disagree is your claim that “this administration plunged the economy” into the crisis. That is historically incomplete.

Tinubu did not inherit a healthy economy. He inherited years of subsidy distortion, multiple exchange rates, weak public finances, low investor confidence, high debt-service pressure, insecurity, and an economy already bleeding from bad policy choices made over many years.

There is also a difference between the Buhari administration and the Tinubu administration, just as there was a difference between Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan, even though both were PDP. Same party does not mean same economic direction.

Buhari largely postponed the hard decisions. Tinubu confronted them.

Was the treatment painful? Absolutely.

Was the implementation perfect? No.

Have Nigerians suffered from the shock? Yes.

But the macro picture is not the same as when he came in.

GDP growth has improved. Foreign reserves have strengthened. The exchange-rate market is more transparent than before. Government revenue has improved. The fiscal bleeding from petrol subsidy has been reduced. The World Bank and IMF have both acknowledged macroeconomic stabilisation, even while warning that ordinary Nigerians have not yet felt enough relief.

That distinction matters.

The patient is not fully healed, but he is no longer in the same emergency condition.

You also asked whether ₦50,000 is enough to lift people out of poverty permanently. Of course not. I never argued that. My argument is that ₦50,000 can help an existing micro-trader restock, reduce dependence on daily credit, increase turnover, and keep a household economically active.

That is not a complete poverty-eradication strategy. It is immediate grassroots support.

A country can pursue macro reforms and still support petty traders. It can fight inflation and still give micro-capital. It can improve security and still help a widow restock her goods. These are not mutually exclusive.

On insecurity, I agree with you completely that it remains one of Nigeria’s biggest threats. Kidnapping, rural insecurity and fear of movement undermine farming, business, investment and ordinary life. No economic reform can fully succeed if people cannot farm, travel or trade safely.

But again, that does not invalidate the point about micro-enterprise support.

The fact that Nigeria needs serious security reform does not mean a market woman should be denied working capital.

The fact that middle-class Nigerians are struggling does not mean poorer Nigerians should be ignored.

The fact that structural reforms are painful does not mean every small intervention is “bread and circus.”

The honest position is this: Nigeria needs both immediate relief and long-term transformation.

My argument is not that all is well.

My argument is that we should not mock small interventions simply because they are small. For the person at the bottom, small capital can be the first step from helplessness to stability.

That is not propaganda.

That is grassroots economics.

Kukutente23:
Could it be that Tinubu's nursing a malignant and highly infectious STD that he doesn't want Remi Mama Alakara isonu to know about
How can you be borrowing so aggressively locally and internationally and yet precious little is seen to be going on?
You can't even fund the budget!!
Tinubu should come clean. Oko oloyun might have a cure for what he's wasting dollars on

This is what happens when someone runs out of argument and enters the gutter.

Instead of discussing fiscal policy, debt, budget execution or project delivery, you are talking about STD and “Oko Oloyun.” That is not economic analysis; that is motor-park gossip wearing political perfume.

Now to the serious point: you said “precious little is seen.” That is simply not true.

The borrowing and fiscal expansion are tied to budget deficits, capital projects, debt servicing, infrastructure, security, education, health and social interventions. You may criticise the size of borrowing, but do not pretend nothing is happening.

The 2026 budget framework presented by President Tinubu projected ₦58.18 trillion in expenditure, with ₦26.08 trillion for capital projects and ₦15.52 trillion for debt servicing. Reuters also reported that the budget prioritises security, infrastructure, education and health. So when you ask where the money is going, part of the answer is already in the budget structure: roads, security, education, health, debt obligations and national infrastructure.

On infrastructure, the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway is not a Facebook rumour. Nigeria secured a $747 million syndicated loan for the first phase, covering 47.47km, and Reuters reported that the 700km project is designed to improve connectivity between Lagos and Calabar. The Federal Ministry of Works also says the 750km corridor spans nine states and is expected to support tourism, jobs, regional integration, shoreline protection and economic activity.

There is also the Sokoto-Badagry highway corridor. Reuters reported that Tinubu requested a $516 million loan for the initial sections of the roughly 1,000km road linking Sokoto through Niger and Kwara to Badagry, with the stated aim of reducing travel and haulage costs, boosting trade, food security and national integration.

In education, NELFUND is not invisible. As of March 2026, Channels reported that the student loan scheme had disbursed ₦206.29 billion to 1,164,222 beneficiaries since launch. That is money going directly into human capital, not into anybody’s imaginary hospital bill.

On the broader economy, the reform story is also not empty. The World Bank projected Nigeria’s economy to grow by 4.2% in 2026 and noted that reforms helped improve external reserves, reduce the fiscal deficit to 3.1% of GDP in 2025, and lower the debt-to-GDP ratio for the first time in a decade. Reuters also reported that investor appetite was strong when Nigeria issued Eurobonds, with $10.65 billion in bids for a $2.35 billion issuance.

So yes, Nigerians are still under pressure. Nobody should pretend hardship has vanished. But to say “nothing is going on” is dishonest.

What is happening is that Tinubu is trying to repair a distorted economy: remove subsidy fraud, unify FX, raise revenue, fund infrastructure, support students, attract capital, and rebuild fiscal credibility. These reforms are painful because the old system was fake comfort built on debt, subsidy and exchange-rate illusion.

You can criticise borrowing. You can demand better budget discipline. You can question priorities. But if your argument begins with STD jokes and ends with “nothing is happening,” then you are not analysing government — you are advertising frustration.

Facts are stubborn things. Projects are ongoing. Reforms are showing early macro gains. The real debate is how to make those gains reach ordinary Nigerians faster.

Kukutente23:
https://nairametrics.com/2026/06/27/fgs-borrowing-jumps-75-6-what-it-means-for-the-naira-and-interest-rates/#google_vignette

This is a classic example of using correct figures to push a one-sided conclusion.

Yes, CBN data shows that credit to government rose sharply to about ₦40.38 trillion in May 2026. Nobody should dismiss that. Government borrowing must always be watched because excessive domestic borrowing can crowd out private-sector lending and keep interest rates high.

But the writer then smuggles in a lazy conclusion: that this automatically means reckless money-printing, inflation explosion and naira collapse. That is where the analysis becomes political propaganda wearing an economist’s coat.

First, CBN’s category is “Credit to Government (Net).” That is not the same as saying Tinubu printed ₦40 trillion and sprayed it into the economy. Net credit to government includes banking-system claims on government, netted against government deposits and other monetary items. It must be interpreted carefully.

Second, the same May 2026 monetary data shows that the rise in money supply was largely driven by improved Net Foreign Assets, not simply government borrowing. In fact, base money declined in May. So the claim that government borrowing automatically flooded the system with fresh naira is too simplistic.

Third, inflation has not risen in the dramatic direction his argument suggests. May 2026 headline inflation was far lower than May 2025, even if there was a mild month-on-month uptick. That means the story is more complex than “government borrowed, therefore prices exploded.”

Fourth, private-sector credit remains larger than government credit — about ₦81 trillion against ₦40 trillion. The real concern is not that banks have stopped lending entirely, but that high rates, credit risk, weak consumer demand, FX pressure and business uncertainty are making banks cautious.

So yes, government must reduce waste, improve revenue, widen tax efficiency, and borrow less. But let us not turn every CBN table into anti-Tinubu bedtime horror.

The honest conclusion is this: Nigeria has a fiscal pressure problem, but it also has a stabilisation story. Inflation has moderated year-on-year, the CBN is still tight, foreign assets improved, and private-sector credit remains substantial.

A serious analyst would present both sides. A partisan analyst picks one figure, adds panic, and calls it research.

If state police finally becomes law under President Tinubu, it may rank among his most historic achievements.

For decades, Nigerians have complained about insecurity while operating a policing system too centralised for a country of over 200 million people.

Kidnapping, banditry, communal violence and rural attacks are often local in origin, yet security response is controlled from afar.

That contradiction has cost lives.

What makes this moment important is not merely that the National Assembly is moving the bill forward. It is that a broad consensus is forming around an idea once considered politically dangerous.

Governors want it.

Many lawmakers support it.

Security realities now demand it.

And the bill attempts to answer the biggest fear: governors’ abuse of police powers.

If Tinubu can shepherd this reform through the National Assembly, secure the approval of at least 24 state legislatures, and help build safeguards against political misuse, he would have achieved something previous administrations discussed but failed to deliver.

State police will not solve insecurity overnight.

But it could transform Nigeria’s security architecture by bringing intelligence, response and accountability closer to communities.

Subsidy removal may define Tinubu’s economic courage.

Local government autonomy may define his federalist instinct.

But state police may become the reform that most directly touches the safety of ordinary Nigerians.

If done properly, it will not just be a policy win.

It will be a legacy.

Usmanovic95:
If not for poverty that's made us normalize some things that are abnormal in other climes. These road side junks like akara and roasted corns might not even be safe for human consumption based on certain standards. But this is Nigeria, it is our go-to option to avoid hunger from kpain person.Its just surprising we're still having this conversation in 2026, many countries have left us behind sadly.

This sounds polished, but it still misses the point.

Nobody is saying poverty should be normalised. Nobody is saying Nigeria should remain a roadside economy. Nobody is saying food safety standards do not matter.

In fact, your point about safety actually strengthens my argument.

If roadside food vendors need better hygiene, cleaner cooking methods, safer packaging, and improved equipment, then what do they need?

Support.

Capital.

Training.

Regulation that helps them improve—not contempt that dismisses their livelihood as “junk.”

Akara and roasted corn are not the problem. Poverty, poor infrastructure, weak regulation and lack of support are the problems.

In many developed countries, street food exists. Food trucks exist. Open markets exist. Small food vendors exist. The difference is that systems help them operate better, cleaner and safer.

So the serious argument is not: “Stop people from selling akara.”

The serious argument is: “How do we help small food vendors upgrade their processes, improve hygiene, earn more, and eventually grow?”

That is why micro-support matters.

You cannot claim to care about poor people while looking down on the honest work they use to survive. Development does not begin by insulting the poor man’s trade. It begins by improving it.

Ziggynation1990:
What I don’t understand is how hollow people think..you are writing this up and down in every thread but failed to understand that the system is failing us..where those this empowerment stand…is agricultural empowerment or stomach infrastructure? My opinion on this issue is not a must we live like kings but let’s define how human beings live..if in your village 100 people are empowered with 50k Akara money plus the once on ground we might be having a total of 250 or 200 akara sellers in a small village..then who buys from who? Won’t it be better if government who owns virtual every land in the country provide fertilizers and other basic farming materials for farming….we consume meat more than ur akara so why can’t poultry be setup and those people be employed..thereby killing two birds with one stone…there is meat and people are being paid

This is a thoughtful response, and I think we actually agree on more than you realise.

I completely agree that Nigeria needs more investment in agriculture, fertiliser, irrigation, mechanisation, livestock, agro-processing and manufacturing. I also agree that government should create an environment where businesses can expand and employ more people.

Where I disagree is your assumption that supporting a petty trader somehow prevents government from pursuing those objectives.

It is not an either-or proposition.

You asked whether a village should have 200 akara sellers.

Of course not.

But who said the intervention was to make every beneficiary an akara seller?

The akara example was illustrative, not prescriptive.

Some beneficiaries may be farmers needing seedlings.

Some may be tailors needing sewing machines.

Some may be welders needing tools.

Some may be poultry farmers needing feed.

Some may be traders needing working capital.

Targeted empowerment means matching the intervention to the person's existing economic activity—not giving everybody the same thing.

You also suggested poultry. Excellent idea. If a community has comparative advantage in poultry, supporting poultry makes economic sense. If another community is predominantly into petty trading, helping existing traders with working capital also makes sense.

That is exactly how development works.

Where I think you're overlooking something is the time dimension.

Large-scale agricultural transformation, industrialisation and job creation are medium- to long-term strategies. They are essential.

But what happens to the widow who must feed her children tomorrow morning?

Do we tell her to wait five years until the poultry sector matures?

Or do we help her strengthen the business she already operates while broader reforms take effect?

Those are not competing ideas. They are complementary policies.

The mistake many people are making is assuming that because I defended one form of targeted intervention, I somehow argued against agriculture, industry or manufacturing.

I did not.

My argument has always been simple: a serious government should pursue macroeconomic transformation **and** provide targeted microeconomic support.

A nation of over 200 million people cannot be helped with a one-size-fits-all solution. Different citizens have different needs, and good policy recognises that.

CodeTemplar:
Instead of data scientists and cyber expert empower them with what they lack. This is your sarcastic defence of stupidity is not befitting of dignified BMC agent.

The irony is that your first sentence completely agrees with my argument.

> "Empower them with what they lack."

Exactly.

That is precisely what I have been saying all along.

A petty trader lacks working capital.

A tailor lacks a sewing machine.

A welder lacks equipment.

A farmer may lack inputs.

A graduate may lack employable skills or access to finance.

Different people lack different things.

That is called[b] targeted intervention.[/b]

So I'm glad we've finally found common ground.

As for calling me a "BMC agent," that is usually where the conversation goes when people have exhausted their arguments.

Notice the pattern: instead of explaining why a ₦50,000 working-capital grant cannot help an existing petty trader, the discussion shifts to labels and slogans.

It is easy to dismiss. It is harder to propose.

You've criticised the intervention. Fine.
What is your alternative for the widow already selling akara tomorrow morning? What immediate intervention would you put in place for the trader who cannot restock because she has no working capital?

"Government should create jobs" is a long-term objective. I agree with it.

But what is your practical answer for the woman trying to feed her family this week?

Public policy is judged not only by criticism, but by credible alternatives. Criticism is easy. Designing workable interventions for different categories of citizens is the harder task.

That's the discussion we should be having.

Obaaderemi2:
Do you support northern governors doling out wheelbarrows as empowerment scheme?

That depends.

If a wheelbarrow is handed out merely for political optics, with no regard for the recipient's livelihood, then it deserves criticism.

But if it is given to someone whose daily income depends on transporting goods, then why should I mock it?

A wheelbarrow is not a trophy. It is a productive asset.

Ask a block moulder, a bricklayer's labourer, a market porter, a vegetable trader, a scrap collector, a sand carrier, a refuse recycler, or someone moving farm produce from the field to the roadside whether a wheelbarrow has economic value.

The mistake many people make is judging empowerment by how impressive it looks on television instead of asking whether it increases someone's productive capacity.

The same principle applies to my argument on ₦50,000.

The question is not whether you would like a wheelbarrow or a ₦50,000 grant.

The question is whether the intended beneficiary can use it to earn more income.

Empowerment should be judged by fitness for purpose, not by social media aesthetics.

If a tailor needs a sewing machine, give a sewing machine.

If a farmer needs a wheelbarrow to move harvested crops, give a wheelbarrow.

If a market woman needs working capital, provide working capital.

Good public policy is about matching the intervention to the beneficiary—not about making sure Twitter approves of the optics.

CodeTemplar:
Neither. It is incomplete chemo and excess wastage/looting.

“Neither. It is incomplete chemo and excess wastage/looting.”

Fair point to say the treatment is incomplete. I have never argued that the patient is fully healed.

But the honest assessment is this: Nigeria is no longer in the economic intensive care unit it was in before the reforms.

Before Tinubu, Nigeria was bleeding from petrol subsidy, multiple exchange rates, weak revenues, low investor confidence and a dangerous fiscal position. The old system was not sustainable.

Now look at the macro signs.

GDP growth has strengthened. NBS reported 3.89% real GDP growth in Q1 2026, higher than 3.13% in Q1 2025. Manufacturing also grew by 3.29% in real terms.

Foreign reserves have improved significantly. The IMF said gross reserves rose to about $46bn in 2025, while net international reserves rose from $23bn to $35bn. Reuters also reported that net FX reserves rose sharply to $34.8bn by end-2025, from $3.99bn two years earlier.

Government revenues have also improved. The World Bank noted that fiscal revenues rose, helped by subsidy removal, tax administration and stronger non-oil collections, though debt-service pressure remains.

So yes, the chemo is incomplete. Inflation, poverty, insecurity, food prices and wasteful public spending remain serious problems. Nobody should pretend otherwise.

But incomplete treatment is not the same as failed treatment.

The patient is not dancing yet, but he is no longer flatlining.

The task now is to complete the treatment: cut waste, punish looting, protect vulnerable Nigerians, drive food production, deepen power-sector reform, support industry and ensure the gains reach ordinary people.

That is the honest position: not “all is well,” but also not “nothing is working.”

HIGHESTPOPORI:
Omo all your thread is about Obi,nobody takes you paid agents serious

Interesting.

You say nobody takes me seriously, yet here you are—reading the thread and taking the time to reply.

More importantly, you still haven't addressed the argument.

Was Peter Obi in APGA? Yes.

Did he later join the PDP? Yes.

Did he subsequently move to the Labour Party? Yes.

Is he now associated with another political platform or alliance? That is the issue under discussion.

If you think my conclusion is wrong, then explain why those movements do **not** support the "weather vane" analogy.

Simply shouting "paid agent" is not a rebuttal.

Peter Obi is a leading presidential aspirant. Like every other serious contender, he should expect his record, decisions, alliances and consistency to be scrutinised. That is not persecution; it is democratic accountability.

The same standard should apply to every presidential hopeful—whether APC, PDP, Labour or any other platform.

You may not like criticism of Peter Obi, but disliking scrutiny does not make the scrutiny illegitimate. If my facts are wrong, correct them. If my reasoning is weak, dismantle it.

That's how serious political debate works.

RolexOfGeneva:
Do you think that the low income earner enjoy being trapped in that category? You APC urchins must accept that the first lady made a big mess of herself when she made that comment

Nobody said low-income earners enjoy being trapped there.

That is exactly why the discussion is about support, capital and gradual movement from survival to stability.

What you are doing is confusing recognition of reality with celebration of poverty.

If a woman is already selling akara, giving her working capital is not telling her to remain poor. It is helping her earn more from the economic activity she already understands.

You may dislike the First Lady. That is your right. But calling people “urchins” does not answer the point.

The real mess is pretending to defend poor people while treating their honest livelihoods as something too shameful to even mention.

mrvitalis:
You don’t give cash to small businesses as government it’s fails

You give it to established businesses to expand and go international creating jobs and increasing tax due to increased profit

The 7 billion dollars we loans dangote he has paid it back

SMEs you provide access to low credit to micro finance banks , set the criteria it’s their jobs to find and find starting businesses

How this is hard for you apc guys to get is beyond me

This is a false choice.

A serious economy does not choose between supporting big businesses and supporting micro-businesses. It does both.

Yes, established businesses need access to finance to expand, export, create jobs and pay more taxes. Nobody disputes that.

Yes, SMEs should have access to affordable credit through banks, microfinance institutions and development finance channels. Nobody disputes that either.

But that does not mean direct grants or small working-capital support to vulnerable micro-traders are useless.

You are mixing up different policy tools.

A factory owner needs expansion finance.

A growing SME may need low-interest credit.

A widow selling food in a market may need a small grant or revolving capital because she may not qualify for bank credit, may lack collateral, and may already be too financially fragile to take on debt.

Different economic actors require different interventions.

That is what seems hard for some of you to understand.

The Dangote example actually proves the point: government-backed finance can support large enterprise. But if you accept that big businesses can receive targeted support because of their economic role, why is it suddenly foolish when the smallest businesses receive targeted support according to their own scale?

Nobody said ₦50,000 will turn a petty trader into Dangote overnight. The point is that it can reduce daily borrowing, increase stock, improve turnover and keep a poor household economically active.

That is not bad economics. That is targeted grassroots support.

Didijiji:
nonsense rubbish long epistle

After una lord and savior first class accountant done make Naira worthless, worse than Cotonou money , u Dey write long epistle to justify mumu ish something

This is not a rebuttal. This is noise wearing slippers.

If you disagree, point to the specific argument you are challenging.

Did I say the naira is strong? No.

Did I say inflation is not painful? No.

Did I say government has solved all economic problems? No.

My argument was simple: small working capital can help existing micro-businesses. If you cannot respond to that point, just say so.

Throwing “mumu,” “epistle,” and “rubbish” around does not make you intelligent. It only shows that when the argument becomes too heavy, insult becomes your walking stick.

WriterX:
Dear Author,

Your post makes an emotional case, but it misses the larger economic issue.

No one is disputing that ₦30,000 or ₦50,000 can help a widow restock her goods or keep a small business afloat.

That has never been the point. The concern is the attempt to redefine economic survival as economic progress.

There is dignity in selling akara, roasted corn, or kuli-kuli. Honest labour should always be respected, I myself, have been there and I speak as a graduate as well.

What is unacceptable is presenting these subsistence businesses as the standard of hope in Africa's largest economy.

Nigeria has over 130 million people living in multidimensional poverty, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. The World Bank has also warned that millions more Nigerians have slipped into poverty in recent years as inflation and the cost of living have risen.

Against this backdrop, the aspiration of government should be to move citizens beyond survival—not simply make survival slightly easier.

You argue that "not everyone needs a laptop."

That is true but neither should everyone be expected to settle for roadside trading because the economy has failed to create enough productive jobs.

A nation develops when it expands manufacturing, agriculture, technology, healthcare, education, and industry—not when it celebrates the growth of subsistence enterprises born out of hardship.

Your example of helping five widows is commendable. It demonstrates compassion at a personal level. But public policy must be judged by a different standard.

Permit me to ask a few honest questions as follows

If roadside trading is the model of economic hope, why are political leaders not encouraging their own children to pursue it?

Why do those in government invest heavily in elite education, professional careers, and large-scale businesses for their families
while telling ordinary Nigerians that selling akara is enough?

Why has government revenue increased significantly since subsidy removal, yet millions still struggle with inflation,
insecurity, poor electricity, and declining purchasing power?

The issue has never been about looking down on akara sellers.

It is about refusing to lower the aspirations of over 200 million Nigerians.

There is a profound difference between helping people survive and creating conditions for them to prosper. Nigerians deserve policies that enable them to build businesses, create jobs, accumulate wealth, and improve their standard of living—not merely survive another day.

That is the debate. And that is the standard by which any serious economic policy should be judged.

Dear Sir,

This is a thoughtful response, but I think it still attacks a position I did not take.

First, I agree with you that Nigeria must aim higher than survival. No serious person should argue that selling akara or roasted corn is the ultimate destination for Africa’s largest economy. A nation must build manufacturing, agriculture, technology, healthcare, education, infrastructure and productive jobs.

But that was never my argument.

My point was that economic policy must operate at different levels. Macro reforms are necessary, but micro-support is also necessary. The fact that Nigeria needs factories does not mean the woman selling akara today should be ignored until those factories arrive.

You said ₦50,000 can help a widow restock her goods. That is exactly my point.

For that widow, restocking is not “lowering aspiration.” It is keeping her business alive, reducing dependence on credit, feeding her children and possibly growing from survival to stability.

No one is presenting roadside trading as the national development model. The argument is that, in a country where NBS reported 133 million people as multidimensionally poor, government interventions must recognise the immediate realities of poor households while broader reforms continue.

You also asked why leaders do not encourage their own children to sell akara. But that question misses the nature of targeted intervention. A scholarship is useful to a student. A tractor is useful to a farmer. Working capital is useful to a petty trader. Different people need different tools at different stages.

The real issue is not whether every Nigerian should sell akara. The real issue is whether a person already trading at that level can be strengthened by small capital. The answer is yes.

Even the World Bank’s recent analysis accepts that high inflation has eroded purchasing power and worsened poverty pressures, while also calling for both structural reforms and stronger social protection. That means Nigeria needs long-term growth and immediate cushioning at the same time.

So I agree with your larger aspiration. Nigeria must move people beyond survival. But people do not leap from poverty to prosperity in one jump. For many, the first step is stabilising the small livelihood they already have.

That is not celebrating poverty.

That is recognising reality while working toward something better.

mastermaestro:
Nigeria is neither an akara nor a corn republic. Before now it was rice for every problem. Is this how you and your paid masters plan to repair the economy you have torn apart? Is this how you folks plan to fix inflation? Is this how you folks plan to fix farming crisis occasion by insecurity in many rural agrarian communities?

I won't call the first lady's reckless statement a miscarriage of speech. It is actually their mission. Impoverish the people and render them useless. Then turn them into pliable tools for electoral benefits.

No wonder Nigeria has remained an underdeveloping country. With bought, biased or gullible people like you, this country has reached a dead end. It's an irredeemable entity. In this century, a nation's first lady boldly advocates petty corn and akara business as the pathway out of the damage her husband does to the country daily, and someone somewhere thinks it makes any sense! Omo!!!! Omo!!!

I spit!!!!!

The irony is that your entire response is built on a straw man.

Who said Nigeria should become an "akara republic"?

Who said petty trading is the only economic policy?

Who said micro-enterprise support replaces agricultural reform, industrialisation, infrastructure, security or inflation control?

You have spent several paragraphs attacking arguments that nobody made.

That is the hallmark of ideological intoxication—arguing with the version of your opponent that exists only in your head.

You accuse me of insulting Nigerians, yet your response insults millions of honest Nigerians who earn a living selling akara, roasted corn, vegetables, fruits, kuli-kuli and countless other micro-businesses. Those occupations are not a national disgrace. They are legitimate livelihoods.

You also accuse me of defending inflation. Kindly point out where I said inflation should not be tackled. My article explicitly distinguished between **macro-economic reforms** and **micro-economic interventions**. A serious government must pursue both. Supporting a petty trader with working capital does not mean abandoning structural reforms. Those are complementary policies, not mutually exclusive ones.

As for calling me "bought," "biased" or "gullible," that is usually what people resort to when they cannot dismantle the argument before them. It is easier to attack the person than to answer the economics.

The most revealing part of your comment is this: you seem to believe that because a business is small, it has no value. Yet across Nigeria, millions of households survive because of those very enterprises. Dismissing them does not make you intellectually superior; it simply shows how disconnected you are from the grassroots economy you claim to defend.

So before shouting "I spit!", perhaps spend more time addressing the actual argument instead of the imaginary one. Passion is not a substitute for reasoning, and outrage is not evidence.

EmpressTitan:
Thank you op for your micro and macro analogy of the Nigerian economy albeit image laundry of this failed administration... IMF Blueprint or should we call it the Bread and Circuses. What i don't get is the continued charade of your likes insulting the collective consciousness and sensitivity of Nigerians?

Thank you. But again, this response avoids the central argument.

Calling it “image laundry,” “IMF blueprint,” or “bread and circuses” may sound dramatic, but it does not answer the economic point I made.

My argument is simple: Nigeria’s economy has layers. Macro reforms matter, but micro-capital also matters. A government can pursue big structural reforms and still support petty traders, widows, hawkers and market women with small working capital.

That is not insulting Nigerians. What is insulting is pretending that small traders do not exist, or that their businesses are too beneath serious policy discussion.

If ₦50,000 helps a widow buy stock without borrowing, increases her daily turnover, or keeps her children feeding while bigger reforms take root, that is not “bread and circuses.” That is practical grassroots support.

You may dislike the administration. That is your right. But dislike should not make us deny basic economic reality.

henrybomb:
Use your head too
Ask that woman and come back here to tell us that it is 50k she use to start that business.

The space is free right?
She stole cylinder right?
The frying pan is free too?
The beans she planted in her backyard?

Abeg talk another thing

This is exactly where you are missing the point.

Nobody said ₦50,000 is enough to start every akara business from zero.

Nobody said the space is free.

Nobody said the cylinder, frying pan, table, tray, oil and beans cost nothing.

That is **start-up capital**.

What I am talking about is **working capital**.

If a woman already has her frying pan, small table, stove, customers and selling spot, ₦50,000 can help her buy more beans, oil, pepper, onions and packaging. It can help her stop buying inputs on credit. It can help her increase daily production and improve her turnover.

That is empowerment.

You are arguing as if every poor trader is starting from zero. Many are not. Many already have tiny businesses but are trapped because their capital is too small.

So the real question is not whether ₦50,000 can build a complete business from scratch.

The real question is whether ₦50,000 can strengthen an existing micro-business.

The answer is yes.

That is the difference between understanding grassroots economics and just shouting “use your head.”

BATified2023:
we know your type

Online billionaire

Nothing is ever enough, but people with less are making money with what u proud broke mofos look down on

The woman selling akara at my junction doesn't have up to 300k to start the business

There is a huge difference between start-up capital and working capital.

Take the akara seller you mentioned. Many already have a stove, frying pan, table and customer base. Their biggest daily challenge is often buying beans, oil, onions and other inputs. For someone in that position, additional working capital can increase production, reduce reliance on credit, or improve cash flow.
I interact with these people daily so i know what am talking about.

chidiokay:
@charlesCNG you and your likes are in no position to talk about The poor life, or school us 50k will give them a goodlife in these present economy 5k pepper can't last a family of 3 up to three 4 days

No matter how you guyz try to spin it or speak motivationally ior sweeten the narratives ..50k as falling short of what anyone can ascribe as capital

POS is a very snall busine, 50k dare not start it,how much is the machine
Grinding pepper for people is a very small business 50k can not start it

when last did you charles find kuli kuli .. or today kids that will cry mummy buy me kuli kuli

Now lets go to the feasibility study
1. Can 50k really setup a akara business fully ... 6kg gas with filled gas is already over 30k

she is left with 20k .. is it that 20k she will buy frying pot, gllon of oil, pepper, tray and big table to market

please lets be reasonable, you drive big cars, follow polticians enjoy goodies then you want to claim you know the struggles of the poor more than some of us

i have a place i buy akara, i know the woman, she can't change closes, i see her children one as started yahoo nd is that boy that is touching that family small smal @least the sisters now change clothes

iEverybody can not be rich we know, But if government or someone like the 1st lady will do an empower it should be giving people business that will lift them from the undesirable condition, not empowerment that resonate sustainability of theundesired condition

Lets no motivational speaker or suit boiz fool you, 50k capital what profit can cone of it max that can guarantee two standard meal a day from profit nd the business no go crumble ... i know these women selling akara, we have them around ..

With cost gas now, Most older women use firewood ...conern the health hazard to their eye n face

Govt should take people out of Poverty nii not coach people how to sustain in poverty.
do you know how mich hospital bill cost now? Trust Remi Tinubu, she will reply drink herb naw. They always have these responses to make poverty look good on you

This is one of the better responses because you've actually raised practical issues instead of simply throwing insults.

Where I think you've misunderstood my position is that you've argued against a claim I never made.

I never said ₦50,000 is enough to establish every business from scratch.

I never said it can fully equip a brand-new POS business.

I never said it will buy a grinding machine, a gas cylinder, fryer, table, trays and inventory all at once.

Those are your assumptions—not my argument.

My point was much narrower: **₦50,000 can be meaningful working capital for many existing micro-businesses.**

There is a huge difference between **start-up capital** and **working capital**.

Take the akara seller you mentioned. Many already have a stove, frying pan, table and customer base. Their biggest daily challenge is often buying beans, oil, onions and other inputs. For someone in that position, additional working capital can increase production, reduce reliance on credit, or improve cash flow.

The same applies to the five widows I referred to. I didn't give them ₦30,000 to build factories. They already knew how to trade. The money helped them buy stock, repackage it and sell. Within three months they repaid it, and the same money went to another five women.

You also said government should lift people out of poverty rather than sustain them in it.

I agree.

But lifting people out of poverty is usually a journey, not a single event.

Micro-enterprises are one of the oldest pathways out of poverty. Around the world, millions of families have improved their income through small businesses that gradually grew over time. Not every successful entrepreneur started with millions in capital.

Finally, you questioned whether I understand the struggles of the poor.

I'll simply refer you to my own experience. Years ago, I personally funded a revolving micro-loan for widows with ₦30,000 each. I didn't read about it in a policy paper—I watched it work. The same capital circulated from one group of women to another because small amounts of productive capital, when properly used, can have a real impact.

If your argument is that government should also pursue industrialisation, create graduate jobs, improve healthcare and reduce inflation, then we agree completely.

But that doesn't make micro-capital useless.

The mistake is treating these as mutually exclusive. A serious government should do both: pursue long-term economic reforms **and** provide targeted support for people whose businesses can genuinely benefit from relatively modest injections of working capital.

TenQ:
The problem not solved by the Government is the several million graduates living from hands to mouth.
N50k is not the kind of help they are looking for.

Government failed to realise that the Olodo Uprising is caused by them

This is exactly the false choice I have been talking about.

Who said helping a widow selling akara means abandoning unemployed graduates?

Who said a micro-enterprise grant is a substitute for graduate employment?

Nigeria has different categories of vulnerable people, and they require different interventions.

An unemployed graduate needs economic growth, investment, skills development and quality jobs.

A market woman needs affordable working capital.

A roadside food vendor needs inventory.

A farmer may need seedlings and fertilizer.

A transport operator may need cheaper fuel or vehicle finance.

Good governance is not about designing **one programme for everyone**. It is about matching solutions to different problems.

Ironically, your argument reinforces my point. You have focused entirely on graduates while overlooking the millions of Nigerians who are not graduates but are struggling to survive through micro-businesses.

Should government ignore them because they do not have university degrees?

The poor are not a homogeneous group.

The woman frying akara is not competing with the graduate looking for a software engineering job. They have different challenges, and sensible public policy recognises that.

That is why I said Nigeria's economy is layered. Recognising the needs of one group does not amount to neglecting another.

Achor1111:
Trash.
Billions will be wasted in vain, and you advise people you tax to finance your government to start akara business, are you okay?
Data boy, are you okay?

My brother, calm down. Abuse is not an economic argument.

Calling someone “data boy” does not change the reality that millions of Nigerians operate micro-businesses with very small capital.

You are still responding emotionally, not analytically.

Nobody said every Nigerian should abandon education and start selling akara. Nobody said government should stop building infrastructure, creating jobs or supporting industry. The point is simple: for a poor trader, widow or hawker, ₦50,000 can be productive working capital.

If that basic point annoys you, then the problem is not akara. The problem is your disconnect from the grassroots economy.

You are angry because “akara” was mentioned, but the woman selling akara is not ashamed of her business. It is people like you, pretending to defend her, who are treating her livelihood like an insult.

That is the real trash here: confusing outrage with intelligence and insult with argument.

playapayaski:
No explanation can replace or correct what has been said. It's bad
Government: motivate and reassure you people, encourage them, little and humble beginnings is good, YES. but going into specifics " akara and corn " that's mockery!!!
Especially coming from a failed government that just rewarded APC women leaders hundreds of millions worth vehicles for what now
I don't have an issue with motivation or encouragement but it should never be used as a tool for insult or mockery.. that statement right there is OUTRIGHT DISRESPECTFUL TO NIGERIANS.
reminds me of the song by the GOAT, THE ICON, MJ "all I wanna say is that, they don't really care about us".

Again, you are responding to your interpretation, not necessarily to what was actually said.

You have concluded that mentioning akara and corn is "mockery." But why? Is there something inherently degrading about honest, small-scale businesses?

Millions of hardworking Nigerians feed their families every day by selling akara, roasted corn, roasted yam, kuli-kuli, fruits, vegetables and other low-capital products. These are dignified livelihoods. Calling attention to them is not automatically an insult.

The irony is that many critics who claim to be defending the poor often end up belittling the very occupations they say they are protecting.

You also shifted the discussion to government spending on party leaders. Whether that criticism is valid or not is a separate issue. It does not answer the point I made about micro-capital and grassroots enterprise.

My article was not about whether every government policy has succeeded. It was about a simple economic reality: for someone operating with very little capital, ₦50,000 can genuinely make a meaningful difference.

If you disagree with that proposition, explain why.

But simply asserting that the words "akara" and "corn" amount to mockery does not make it so. Sometimes people hear contempt because they have already assumed contempt was intended.

We can and should debate policies robustly. But we should be careful not to confuse our interpretation of a statement with the only possible meaning of that statement.

mactoni91:
You guys are trying to do Damage control.

What Remi Tinubu said was very irresponsible, reckless and insensitive.

You can see the disconnect between our useless politicians and the people they govern.

No wonder they keep rolling out policies that keeps harming the mass.

Very useless sets.

The real disconnect is not between government and the grassroots. It is between your interpretation of the remarks and what was actually being argued.

You call the comments "irresponsible, reckless and insensitive," yet you have not addressed a single point I made.

Did you dispute that many petty traders operate with less than ₦20,000 worth of stock?

Did you dispute that thousands of roadside food vendors buy goods on credit every morning because they lack working capital?

Did you dispute my real-life example of widows who turned ₦30,000 into sustainable micro-businesses?

No. Instead, you responded to a narrative you had already formed in your head.

Ironically, that is what is truly irresponsible.

An irresponsible response is one that condemns without first understanding. A reckless response is one that substitutes outrage for analysis. An insensitive response is one that dismisses the economic reality of millions of Nigerians because it does not fit a preferred political narrative.

You may disagree with the First Lady's approach, and that is perfectly legitimate. But don't pretend that micro-capital cannot transform lives simply because it is politically inconvenient to admit it.

The grassroots economy does not operate on hashtags. It operates on working capital, inventory turnover and daily cash flow. That is the reality I addressed. If you disagree, challenge those facts—not an imaginary argument.

Nigeria Needs a Compass, Not a Weather Vane

A compass points in one direction regardless of the wind.

A weather vane points wherever the wind is blowing.

That, increasingly, is Peter Obi's political dilemma.

Throughout his political career, he has moved across parties and alliances as Nigeria's political winds have shifted. From APGA to PDP, from PDP to the Labour Party, and now to another political platform, the pattern raises a legitimate question: is there a fixed political philosophy, or merely a search for the most favourable platform?

A leader is tested not when the crowd applauds, but when conviction demands consistency.

Supporters often describe Peter Obi as principled. Yet principles should be identifiable beyond campaign slogans. They should be reflected in stable political commitments, coherent alliances and a consistent governing philosophy.

Political parties are not taxis to be boarded and abandoned whenever a faster route appears.

They are supposed to embody ideas.

Nigeria faces problems that require leaders with enduring convictions, not politicians who appear to adjust their political direction to the prevailing mood.

This is not a criticism of changing one's mind when facts change. Every serious leader should be capable of growth.

It is a call for something deeper: a discernible compass.

Because a weather vane is useful for measuring the direction of the wind.

A compass is useful for leading people through the storm.

Nigeria needs the latter.