SANUSI, TINUBU AND EVIDENCE-BASED GOVERNANCE

Government officials must distinguish between constructive criticism, political opposition and deliberate misinformation, writes ABIODUN OLUWADARE There are moments in the life of a nation when public discourse must rise above political affiliations, partisan calculations and the emotions that often dominate national conversations. Such moments demand intellectual honesty, a willingness to acknowledge facts and the courage to recognise progress, even when it comes from a political administration with which one may not necessarily agree. The recent intervention by the Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II, at the Oxford Global Think Tank Leadership Conference provides an important opportunity for Nigeria to reflect on the quality of its political discourse and the responsibility of public commentators in assessing government performance. Sanusi’s observations deserve attention, not simply because of his traditional position as Emir of Kano, but also because of his professional background as an economist and former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria. His understanding of monetary policy, fiscal management and the structural challenges of the Nigerian economy gives his assessment an important analytical dimension. More significantly, his remarks demonstrate that it is possible to acknowledge policy progress without abandoning critical scrutiny of government. At the conference, Sanusi acknowledged that the Tinubu administration deserved credit for helping to pull the Nigerian economy back from the brink. He pointed to improvements in economic growth, inflation, foreign reserves and export diversification, arguing that the reforms had begun laying foundations for economic stability. His assessment is particularly significant because it recognises that, notwithstanding the considerable difficulties Nigerians continue to experience, some important economic indicators have improved. The National Bureau of Statistics, for instance, reported that Nigeria’s real GDP grew by 4.43 per cent in the second quarter of 2026, compared with 3.89 per cent in the first quarter. The economy also recorded annual growth of 3.87 per cent in 2025, compared with 3.38 per cent in 2024. These figures suggest an improving growth trajectory, although the pace remains below what the country requires to generate sufficient employment and substantially improve living standards. The significance of Sanusi’s intervention goes beyond the acknowledgement of particular economic figures. It reinforces a fundamental principle of democratic governance: public assessment must be guided by evidence rather than political convenience. An administration’s policies should neither be condemned simply because they are unpopular nor celebrated merely because they are politically convenient. They must be evaluated against the circumstances that necessitated them, the objectives they seek to achieve, the outcomes they produce and the costs imposed on society. Nigeria’s economic difficulties did not begin with the inauguration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in May 2023. The country inherited longstanding structural weaknesses characterised by dependence on crude oil revenues, fiscal distortions, foreign exchange pressures, inadequate productive capacity, unsustainable subsidy arrangements and a growing public debt burden. These challenges accumulated over successive administrations and created an increasingly difficult environment for economic management. The decision to remove the petrol subsidy and reform the foreign exchange regime therefore represented a fundamental departure from established economic practices. Such decisions were bound to generate disruption, particularly in a country where millions of households and businesses had become accustomed to the previous arrangements. The resulting increase in transportation costs, food prices and the general cost of living has imposed considerable hardship on ordinary Nigerians. Nevertheless, the economic rationale behind reform cannot be assessed exclusively through its immediate consequences. Equally important is whether the reforms are correcting structural weaknesses, improving public revenue, restoring confidence, encouraging investment and creating a more sustainable foundation for economic growth. The International Monetary Fund, in its June 2026 Article IV assessment, acknowledged that reforms implemented over the preceding three years had improved Nigeria’s macroeconomic outcomes and strengthened resilience. However, it equally warned that poverty and food insecurity remained serious concerns. This independent assessment captures the two realities that should inform our national conversation: measurable progress in economic stabilisation and the continuing hardship experienced by a significant proportion of the population. There is another dimension of economic assessment that deserves greater attention in Nigeria’s public discourse: the relationship between the cost of living and the purchasing power of citizens across different economies. Comparisons between Nigeria and developed economies such as the United Kingdom and the United States are often made without sufficiently examining differences in income structures, living costs, taxation, public services and household expenditure. Consider, for instance, a middle-income household in Abuja or Lagos and a comparable household in London or New York. The latter may spend substantially more on accommodation, transportation, domestic services and several everyday necessities. Housing alone can consume a significant proportion of household income in these international cities. Certain services that remain relatively accessible in Nigeria can be considerably more expensive in those economies. This observation does not suggest that Nigerians necessarily enjoy greater purchasing power than their counterparts in London or New York. Such a conclusion would be economically misleading. Purchasing power is determined not merely by the prices of goods and services but also by the income available to purchase them. A Nigerian household earning a modest salary may find even locally produced food, transportation and accommodation increasingly unaffordable. Similarly, imported products, healthcare equipment, electronics and other internationally traded goods can be expensive in Nigeria. The point, therefore, is that economic comparisons must take account of local prices, income levels and the actual value of money in different economies. The World Bank’s International Comparison Programme provides an appropriate framework for this through purchasing power parities and price-level indices. It is not sufficient to convert a Nigerian salary into dollars and compare it with an American or British salary without considering what each income can purchase locally. Equally, the fact that certain goods and services are relatively cheaper in Nigeria should not obscure the difficulties created by low household incomes and rising domestic prices. For the Tinubu administration, the real challenge is to ensure that the benefits of economic stabilisation translate into stronger domestic purchasing power. Nigerians must eventually experience improvements not only in macroeconomic statistics but also in their ability to feed their families, educate their children, secure decent accommodation and meet their healthcare needs. The ultimate measure of economic recovery must be an improvement in the material circumstances of citizens. This brings us to another important consideration: the timeframe within which Nigerians expect an administration to produce comprehensive economic transformation. Three years is a relatively short period for restructuring an economy with Nigeria’s size, population, institutional complexities and deeply entrenched structural weaknesses. Economic transformation is rarely an instantaneous undertaking. Countries that have successfully restructured their economies have generally required sustained policy consistency, institutional reforms, investment in productive capacity and several years of implementation before the benefits became widely distributed. The removal of entrenched economic distortions may produce immediate adjustments, but the establishment of a productive, competitive and inclusive economy requires considerably more time. This is not an argument for granting the government immunity from accountability. Governments must be judged continuously, and citizens have every right to demand results. However, there is a fundamental difference between assessing whether an administration is making measurable progress and expecting it to have resolved every inherited structural problem within a relatively short period. The opposition, therefore, has an important responsibility to appreciate the distinction between the immediate discomfort associated with economic restructuring and the longer-term objectives of reform. It is perfectly legitimate to question the pace, sequencing, implementation and social consequences of government policies. Indeed, constructive opposition is indispensable to democracy. What is less helpful is an approach that treats every economic difficulty as proof that nothing has changed or that every policy initiative must necessarily fail. The more productive question is whether the government is creating the foundations for sustainable recovery, whether it is correcting policy weaknesses when they become evident and whether the benefits of reform are progressively reaching the wider population. These are measurable questions that should guide political debate. Recognising progress must not, however, be confused with declaring victory. Indeed, the Emir himself was careful to distinguish between macroeconomic stabilisation and the actual welfare of citizens. He drew attention to poverty, hunger, malnutrition, maternal mortality, education and healthcare. He also expressed concern about debt servicing, public expenditure and the need for more disciplined government spending. These observations are not peripheral to the reform agenda; they are central to its ultimate success. An economy cannot be considered genuinely recovered merely because selected macroeconomic indicators improve while a substantial proportion of its population continues to struggle with basic necessities. The administration must therefore consolidate the gains of economic stabilisation through policies that directly improve the productive capacity of the country. Fiscal savings must be translated into productive investments. Infrastructure development must be matched by improvements in electricity supply and industrial productivity. Agricultural interventions must produce measurable improvements in food availability and affordability. Social protection programmes must reach their intended beneficiaries, particularly low-income households and vulnerable communities. The country also needs sustained investment in education, healthcare, technology and industrialisation to ensure that economic growth generates employment and expands opportunities for its growing population. The government’s responsibility is also to communicate its policies more effectively. Sanusi made an important observation when he cautioned against interpreting every expression of public dissatisfaction as an attack on the President or the administration. In a democracy, criticism is neither treason nor necessarily evidence of political hostility. Citizens have a legitimate right to question policies, demand accountability and express dissatisfaction with economic conditions. Government officials must therefore distinguish between constructive criticism, political opposition and deliberate misinformation. These are not the same things. A government that listens to uncomfortable arguments is better positioned to identify policy weaknesses and make necessary adjustments. Equally, public commentators and opposition political actors have a responsibility to distinguish legitimate criticism from the distortion of facts for partisan advantage. The temptation to reduce every national development to a contest between political supporters and opponents is particularly damaging. It creates an atmosphere in which positive developments are dismissed because of their political origin, while genuine shortcomings are sometimes exaggerated to discredit an administration. Neither approach advances national development. The responsibility of an opposition is not merely to discredit the government of the day. It is to scrutinise policies, expose weaknesses, offer credible alternatives and contribute to the national search for solutions. Where measurable progress has occurred, acknowledging it does not amount to surrendering the responsibility of opposition. Rather, it demonstrates political maturity and respect for evidence. Similarly, supporters of the administration must understand that defending government should not require dismissing every critical observation. The President and his government would benefit more from constructive engagement than from an environment in which only favourable assessments are welcomed. National development is too important to be reduced to the emotional contests of political loyalists. The economic indicators cited by Sanusi should equally be subjected to continued scrutiny. Foreign reserves must be assessed in terms of their composition, sustainability and adequacy for supporting imports and external obligations. GDP growth must be considered alongside population growth, employment and household purchasing power. A reduction in the inflation rate, while welcome, does not mean that the general price level has returned to what Nigerians previously paid. These distinctions are essential to responsible economic commentary. They also reinforce the argument that economic performance should be assessed through a combination of macroeconomic indicators and the lived experiences of citizens. President Tinubu’s administration has an opportunity to demonstrate that the present phase of stabilisation can be consolidated into sustainable and inclusive development. This requires policy consistency, institutional discipline, improved security, investment in human capital, industrialisation, agricultural modernisation, technological innovation and energy security. The administration must also demonstrate that it can translate increased government revenue into visible improvements in public infrastructure and social services. Nigerians should be able to identify tangible benefits from the sacrifices associated with economic restructuring. This is not an unreasonable expectation; it is the foundation of public confidence in government. Ultimately, the significance of Sanusi’s intervention lies in the balance it introduces into an increasingly polarised national debate. His acknowledgement of economic progress, alongside his concerns about the human consequences of reform, reinforces an important truth: governments must be assessed neither by their promises nor by their opponents’ rhetoric alone, but by measurable outcomes and their impact on the people. Nigeria cannot expect economic transformation without some difficult adjustments, just as no administration should expect citizens to endure hardship indefinitely without demonstrable improvements in their circumstances. The responsibility of government is to make reform work for the people, while the responsibility of the opposition is to provide credible scrutiny and alternatives. Three years may not be sufficient to complete the restructuring of a complex national economy, but it is sufficient time to begin demonstrating whether the foundations for sustainable progress are being established. That distinction should inform the national conversation. Sanusi’s intervention at Oxford offers a timely reminder that acknowledging progress and demanding better governance are not contradictory positions. They are complementary responsibilities in a functioning democracy. What Nigeria needs is less political hostility, less selective outrage and more intellectual honesty. The future of the country should be determined by the quality of its policies, the strength of its institutions and the welfare of its people, rather than by the intensity of partisan arguments. Oluwadare is a Professor of Political Science, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna