Banner Online News

By Chukwudi Abiandu

Delta State Commissioner for Works (Rural Roads) and Public Information, Charles Aniagwu, may have attempted again to sell a reassuring picture of Nigeria’s economy, but his claim that President Bola Tinubu’s reforms are boosting purchasing power runs headlong into the documented economic experience of millions of Nigerians.

The problem with Aniagwu’s argument is that he appears to confuse more money in government coffers with more purchasing power in the pockets of citizens. They are not the same thing.

Government revenue may increase while citizens simultaneously become poorer in real terms if food, transport, rent, electricity and other essential costs rise faster than incomes. That is precisely the distinction Aniagwu’s presentation fails to make.

The World Bank has acknowledged improvements in Nigeria’s macroeconomic indicators, including stronger government revenues, improved foreign reserves and progress towards macroeconomic stabilisation. But it has equally warned that these gains have yet to substantially improve Nigerians’ livelihoods, with household incomes still under pressure and poverty remaining high.

So the question Aniagwu must answer is simple: Where exactly is the purchasing power he says has returned? More revenue does not mean richer Nigerians

Aniagwu argues that improved government finances are giving states greater capacity to pay salaries, clear arrears, execute projects and empower citizens. There is nothing inherently wrong with that argument. What is wrong is presenting government expenditure as proof that the average Nigerian has become economically better off.

The World Bank reported that Federation revenues increased dramatically, but stressed that the challenge was to convert improved fiscal conditions into inclusive growth, better jobs and poverty reduction.

In other words, more government revenue creates an opportunity to improve welfare; it is not evidence that welfare has already improved. Salary arrears are not increased purchasing power

The example of a civil servant receiving 10 months’ salary is even more problematic.

Of course, a worker who receives money owed to him will have more cash temporarily available. But that does not mean his purchasing power has increased. If the worker was owed ₦1 million while food, transportation, rent, school fees and other necessities were rising dramatically, the crucial question is not how many naira he received. It is what that ₦1 million can buy today compared with what it could buy when the salary was earned. Nominal income is not real income.

The World Bank has documented the enormous increase in the cost of essential consumption in Nigeria. It reported that the cost of a basic food basket had risen several-fold since 2019 and that poor households could spend as much as 70 per cent of their income on food. That is hardly the picture of a population enjoying a meaningful restoration of purchasing power.

Inflation has eaten the wages

The World Bank reported that inflation surged following the removal of the petrol subsidy and foreign-exchange reforms, with the resulting price increases severely affecting household purchasing power. The IMF has similarly identified naira depreciation, food shortages, higher energy costs and subsidy removal among the factors behind Nigeria’s sharp inflationary pressures. There is an elementary economic fact that government propaganda cannot erase: A falling inflation rate does not mean falling prices.

If the price of a commodity rises from ₦30,000 to ₦70,000 and subsequently rises more slowly, the commodity has not become cheaper. Nigerians are simply experiencing a slower rate of price increases from an already painfully elevated base. That is why the announcement of improved inflation statistics does not automatically translate into improved household welfare. Ask the Nigerian at the market

For the ordinary Nigerian, the economy is not measured by macroeconomic jargon. It is measured at the market. It is the price of rice, beans, garri, tomatoes, meat and bread. It is rent. It is transport. It is school fees. It is medicine. It is electricity. It is cooking gas. It is the cost of keeping a small business alive. It is what remains of a worker’s salary after meeting basic needs. And on these fronts, Nigerians continue to face severe pressure.

The World Bank itself has said that although macroeconomic stabilisation is progressing, household incomes have not fully recovered and poverty remains high.

Businesses are voting with their feet

The business environment provides another uncomfortable counterpoint to Aniagwu’s narrative. Uber exited Nigeria in September 2026 after 12 years of operations. Reuters reported that rising fuel costs, inflation and currency volatility had contributed to mounting operating pressures, although Uber did not attribute its departure to a single factor.

Other major multinational companies have also restructured or exited the Nigerian market in recent years amid foreign-exchange difficulties, high energy costs and other operating challenges. These departures should not be simplistically blamed on one administration. But neither can they be ignored when assessing the condition of the Nigerian economy.

An economy supposedly experiencing broad-based purchasing-power expansion should be able to demonstrate stronger consumer demand and a business environment capable of retaining investment.

What about Delta’s roads and school projects? Government infrastructure spending can certainly generate economic activity. Road construction employs workers, contractors buy materials, suppliers earn money and communities can gain improved access to markets. But that is economic circulation, not necessarily increased purchasing power.

A government can spend billions while citizens remain unable to afford the goods and services they need. That is why Aniagwu must distinguish between money circulating in an economy and the real purchasing capacity of households.

The ‘pudding’ test

Aniagwu concluded that “the taste of the pudding is in the eating.” Exactly. Then let Nigerians be the judges of the pudding. Ask the commuter whose transport bill has multiplied. Ask the tenant facing a steep rent increase. Ask the trader whose customers now buy smaller quantities. Ask the manufacturer battling electricity, diesel, foreign-exchange and financing costs. Ask the family whose food budget consumes most of its income. Ask the worker whose increased salary disappears into increased living costs. These are the people who actually eat the pudding. The evidence therefore demands a more honest distinction.

Nigeria may be experiencing some macroeconomic stabilisation, as the World Bank and IMF acknowledge. But that is not the same as saying that Nigerians have regained purchasing power. Until government can demonstrate sustained improvements in real wages, food affordability, employment, household consumption, transport costs, housing affordability and living standards, Aniagwu’s sweeping claim remains unsupported by the very evidence that should inform public discussion.

The real measure of economic reform is not how much money government collects. It is what that money can actually buy for the people.

And for millions of Nigerians today, the answer is painfully clear: their naira buys less, their businesses struggle more, and their economic dignity remains under severe pressure.