Daily Justice

Daniel Bwala’s article, "Tinubunomics: An Insight into Nigeria’s Remarkable Economic Consolidation under Tinubu," offers a glowing review of President Bola Tinubu’s economic policies as of April 2025. However, a serious view reveals significant flaws, including selective data presentation, insufficient depth in addressing systemic issues, and an overly optimistic tone that glosses over critical challenges. Below is a detailed analysis.

Bwala highlights economic indicators such as a 77.4 trillion naira value of exported goods, a budget deficit reduction to 18.86%, and foreign reserves at $23.1 billion, attributing these to Tinubu’s policies. While the 77.4 trillion naira in exports is a notable figure, the article lacks context to evaluate its significance. For instance, it does not specify the time frame (e.g., annual or quarterly), the composition of these exports (oil vs. non-oil), or how this compares to previous years. Nigeria’s exports have historically been dominated by oil, which accounted for over 80% of export earnings in recent years (per Nigerian Bureau of Statistics data up to 2023). Without disaggregating the data, it’s unclear whether this figure reflects genuine diversification or simply a spike in global oil prices.

Additionally, the budget deficit reduction to 18.86% is presented as a success, but Bwala does not discuss whether this was achieved through sustainable measures or short-term cuts that might harm social services. The lack of discussion on debt-to-GDP ratios, inflation trends beyond the cited 4.17%, or real wage growth undermines the article’s credibility. A serious analysis would compare these figures to pre-Tinubu levels and regional peers to provide a balanced perspective.

The article praises Tinubu’s decision to remove fuel subsidies as a "drastic step" that liberalized the foreign exchange market and reduced government expenditure. While this policy aligns with economic orthodoxy to reduce fiscal strain, Bwala glosses over its profound negative impacts on ordinary Nigerians. Fuel subsidy removal historically leads to sharp increases in transportation and food costs, exacerbating inflation and poverty in a country where over 40% of the population lives below the poverty line (as per World Bank data up to 2023). The article mentions a decline in inflation to 4.17%, but this figure is questionable given the ripple effects of subsidy removal, which typically drive double-digit inflation in the short term, as seen in 2023 when inflation hit 24% following initial reforms.

Bwala also fails to address the lack of robust social safety nets to cushion the impact on vulnerable populations. The article mentions "stabilizing food prices," but this claim is not supported by data on food inflation or purchasing power parity, which are critical for assessing the lived experiences of Nigerians. A more rigorous analysis would have explored the trade-offs of this policy, including its social costs and the government’s mitigation strategies, rather than presenting it as an unqualified success.

Bwala credits Tinubu with stabilizing the foreign exchange market, citing the Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN) efforts to clear a $7 billion forex backlog. However, the article oversimplifies the complexity of Nigeria’s forex crisis. The unification of exchange rates, while a step toward transparency, often leads to currency devaluation, which increases the cost of imports—a significant issue for a country reliant on imported goods. The article does not address how this devaluation has affected the cost of living or the manufacturing sector, which struggles with high input costs due to dollar-denominated imports.

Moreover, the claim that the CBN has "decluttered the monetary swamp" is vague and unsubstantiated. Nigeria’s monetary policy has long been criticized for inconsistency, with frequent interventions in the forex market creating distortions. Bwala does not discuss whether the CBN has adopted a truly floating exchange rate or if speculative attacks on the naira persist. The lack of engagement with these technical details suggests a superficial treatment of a critical issue.

The article focuses heavily on macroeconomic indicators but neglects Nigeria’s deep structural problems, such as unemployment, underemployment, and a heavy reliance on oil revenues. For instance, the youth unemployment rate, which was around 53% in 2023 (per Nigerian Bureau of Statistics), is not mentioned, despite Tinubu’s policies presumably being in place for nearly two years by 2025. Economic consolidation cannot be deemed "remarkable" without addressing job creation, especially in a country with a rapidly growing population.

While the 77.4 trillion naira in exports is highlighted, the article does not discuss diversification efforts beyond vague references to agriculture. Without evidence of significant growth in non-oil exports, Nigeria’s economy likely remains overly dependent on oil. Tinubu’s administration would need to show substantial progress in sectors like manufacturing or technology to claim a transformative economic agenda. Bwala’s failure to engage with these structural issues renders the article incomplete and overly optimistic.

Bwala portrays Tinubu’s policies as uniformly successful without critiquing their implementation. For example, the article mentions foreign investments as a "favorite destination," but there is no data on actual foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows or their sectoral distribution. Nigeria has historically struggled with FDI due to insecurity, corruption, and bureaucratic inefficiencies—issues that are not addressed in the article. The 2023 Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission report indicated a decline in FDI due to these factors, and Bwala does not explain how Tinubu’s policies have reversed this trend.

Similarly, the claim of "stabilizing food prices" through agricultural policies lacks detail on specific programs, their reach, or their impact. Programs like the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme have faced criticism for poor execution and limited impact on smallholder farmers. A serious analysis would evaluate the effectiveness of Tinubu’s agricultural interventions, including challenges like insecurity in farming regions (e.g., the North-West), which Bwala ignores.

The article’s tone is excessively laudatory, describing Tinubu’s policies as "remarkable" and "very unpopular but drastic steps" without providing a balanced view. This suggests a bias toward the administration, which undermines the article’s credibility as an objective analysis. For instance, Bwala does not acknowledge any failures or setbacks in Tinubu’s economic agenda, such as potential public discontent, policy reversals, or unmet targets. A more serious critique would have included voices of dissent, such as opinions from economists, opposition leaders, or civil society, to provide a holistic view of Tinubu’s economic record.

Several claims in the article lack supporting evidence. While the 77.4 trillion naira export value is a concrete figure, its significance is unclear without context, such as historical export trends or the share of non-oil exports. Additionally, the claim that inflation dropped to 4.17% after fuel subsidy removal contradicts economic logic, as such reforms typically drive inflation in the short term. Bwala does not explain this anomaly, nor does he provide sources for his data. The lack of citations or references to official reports (e.g., from the Nigerian Bureau of Statistics or the CBN) further weakens the article’s reliability.

Daniel Bwala’s article presents an overly optimistic and incomplete assessment of President Tinubu’s economic policies as of April 2025. While it highlights achievements like the 77.4 trillion naira in exports and forex backlog clearance, it fails to provide context, engage with structural challenges, or address the social costs of reforms like fuel subsidy removal. The article’s selective use of data, lack of critical analysis, and biased tone undermine its credibility as a serious economic critique. A more rigorous analysis would have balanced praise with acknowledgment of ongoing challenges, provided verifiable data, and engaged with the broader socioeconomic implications of Tinubu’s policies. As it stands, the article reads more like a piece of political advocacy than a substantive economic insight.