Chapter 1: The Paralysis

In May 2023, the Nigerian government removed fuel subsidies and floated the naira—policies every economist had recommended for two decades. Within twelve months, inflation hit 34.80%, poverty surged past 60%, and the Presidency approved a ₦10 billion project to take itself off the national grid. The problem was never a shortage of correct ideas.

A Consensus Without Consequence

Since 1986, every Nigerian administration has produced an economic blueprint. The Structural Adjustment Programme of 1986 devalued the naira, abolished commodity boards, and promised a shift from oil dependence. The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy of 2003, launched by the Obasanjo administration, targeted privatisation of state-owned enterprises, debt relief, and banking sector consolidation. Vision 20:2020, adopted under the Yar'Adua and Jonathan governments, aimed to make Nigeria one of the world's twenty largest economies by 2020. The Economic Recovery and Growth Plan of 2017, the Buhari administration's response to the 2016 recession, pledged to diversify away from oil, improve the ease of doing business, and invest in infrastructure. The National Development Plan 2021–2025 repeated many of the same commitments. Each document diagnosed the same ailments: a distorted exchange rate, a fuel subsidy the treasury could not afford, a dependence on oil revenue, and a public sector that consumed more than it produced. Each proposed remedies that were broadly similar. Almost none was fully implemented.

The failure was never in the diagnosis. It was in the institutional memory required to implement it. Structural Adjustment was derailed by political resistance to austerity and the annulment of the 1993 elections, which consumed the administration's attention. NEEDS delivered banking consolidation and some external debt relief but left the petroleum sector untouched. Vision 20:2020 expired without Nigeria entering the top twenty economies; by 2020, the country was in recession. The Economic Recovery and Growth Plan predicted a return to robust annual growth; instead, growth averaged roughly 2% before the 2020 crash. Each blueprint was launched at a ceremony, praised in editorials, and then starved of implementation funding, disrupted by political transitions, or shelved when the next administration arrived with its own document. The National Development Plan 2021–2025 remains technically in force, though its targets are rarely referenced in budget debates.

The consistency of the diagnosis over nearly four decades is remarkable. In 2005, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in its Article IV consultation, urged Nigeria to eliminate fuel subsidies, describing them as costly and regressive. In 2013, the World Bank's Nigeria Economic Report noted that the prevailing exchange rate regime was unsustainable and acted as a disincentive to non-oil exports. In 2019, the IMF repeated its call for a fully unified and market-reflective exchange rate. The World Bank's Nigeria Development Update of December 2022, titled "Nigeria's Post-COVID-19 Chance," warned that delaying the removal of fuel subsidies and exchange rate unification would only make adjustment more painful later. The knowledge was not missing. It was indexed, footnoted, and slide-decked into exhaustion.

What is striking about this consensus is how little it was contested on the merits. Even labour unions, which organised strikes against subsidy removal in 2012 and 2016, did not argue that the subsidy was economically sound. They argued that the savings would be diverted, that the government could not be trusted to redirect the funds to public goods, and that workers deserved compensation before bearing the cost. These were not arguments against reform. They were arguments against the state's capacity to execute reform honestly. The unions were wrong about the economics and right about the execution.

By the time President Bola Tinubu took office in May 2023, the policy consensus had hardened into conventional wisdom across institutions that rarely agree on anything else. The Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa, a Lagos-based think tank, had published multiple analyses quantifying the subsidy's fiscal drag. The Nigerian Economic Summit Group, representing the private sector, had called for its removal in every policy dialogue since 2016. Individual analysts at Lagos Business School, the University of Ibadan, and the African Development Bank had all produced papers arguing that the subsidy regime was regressive, costly, and increasingly unaffordable. Tinubu inherited a policy that had been researched, legislated, and recommended into consensus—and a treasury that could no longer pay for it.

What happened next should have surprised no one, yet it stunned everyone. On 29 May 2023, during his inaugural address, Tinubu announced that fuel subsidies were gone. The statement was direct: the subsidy had been removed. There was no phased withdrawal, no calibrated mitigation programme, no social safety net pre-positioned to catch the households that would be hit hardest. In June 2023, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) allowed the naira to float, collapsing the artificial gap between the official exchange rate of ₦461 to the United States dollar and the parallel market rate of ₦780. These were the correct policies, administered at last. And they detonated through the economy with a force that exposed how little correct policy means without the institutional architecture to absorb it.

The Shock and Its Arithmetic

The transmission mechanism was brutal and immediate. The removal of petrol subsidies eliminated a price floor that had masked the true cost of fuel for decades. The price of a litre of petrol more than tripled within weeks, sending ripples through every sector that depended on transport. Food prices rose not because harvests failed but because moving produce from farm to market suddenly cost several multiples more. The naira's collapse from ₦461 to the dollar in May 2023 to ₦907 by December 2023, and onward to roughly ₦1,535 by December 2024, drove up the landed cost of every imported good—from rice and pharmaceuticals to machinery and raw materials. The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) recorded headline inflation at 34.80% in December 2024. Food inflation, which affects the poorest households most directly, reached 39.84% in the same month. For households whose budgets are dominated by food costs, these were not statistics. They were a reckoning.

The exchange rate trajectory tells its own story. From ₦461 to the dollar in May 2023, the naira fell to ₦907 by December 2023, ₦1,535 by December 2024, and then recovered to roughly ₦1,386 by January 2026. A currency that loses two-thirds of its value in eighteen months and then recovers half the loss does not signal stability. It signals volatility that punishes anyone who holds naira savings, borrows in foreign currency, or imports essential goods. The manufacturers who import raw materials, the pharmacists who import active ingredients, the universities that import laboratory equipment—all were subjected to a currency roller coaster that made planning impossible.

The fiscal savings were substantial. The Buhari administration had spent an estimated ₦3 to ₦5 trillion annually on fuel subsidies in its final years, diverting resources that could have funded health, education, and infrastructure. Tinubu's removal of the subsidy freed those funds. The CBN's exchange rate unification, painful as it was, eliminated a parallel currency market that had enriched arbitrageurs and starved legitimate businesses of foreign exchange. These were real structural corrections. But corrections without cushioning produce casualties. The absence of a mitigation framework was not an oversight. It was a choice. The Buhari administration had commissioned a social register intended to target cash transfers to poor households, but the register was incomplete, politically contested, and never scaled to match the shock. When the subsidy disappeared, there was no bridge for the households that depended on cheap petrol to get to work, power their generators, or transport their goods.

The World Bank, in its Nigeria Development Update of April 2026—titled "Nigeria's Tomorrow Must Start Today"—estimated that poverty rose from 56% in 2023 to 61% in 2024 and reached 63% in 2025. That translates to approximately 140 million Nigerians living below the poverty line. The report noted that "household incomes have not grown fast enough to offset still-elevated inflation, and poverty has yet to begin declining." Growth in services and industry lagged agriculture, where most poor Nigerians work, constraining any poverty reduction that macroeconomic stabilisation might otherwise have produced. The same report emphasises that cash transfers must be paired with productive employment creation to reduce poverty sustainably. Nigeria removed the subsidy and then discovered it had no employment creation programme to pair with it.

The Tinubu administration's counter-narrative rests on disinflation. By December 2025, the NBS recorded headline inflation at 15.15%, with food inflation down to 10.84%. The naira appreciated from lows near ₦1,660 to the dollar to roughly ₦1,386 by January 2026, and external reserves climbed to $46.17 billion. S&P Global, in a forecast issued in late 2025, had predicted the naira would trade between ₦1,625 and ₦1,650 to the dollar over 2025–2026; the actual appreciation defied that pessimism. These are real achievements, and they should not be dismissed. But they coexist with a poverty rate of 63%. The state has learned to stabilise prices without stabilising lives. It has mastered the art of macroeconomic indicators that improve while human indicators deteriorate.

The Rebasing Caveat

Any discussion of Nigerian inflation in 2025 must carry a statistical health warning. In January 2025, the NBS rebased the Consumer Price Index (CPI), shifting the base year to November 2009 = 100. Rebasing is a standard statistical practice: it updates the basket of goods and services to reflect current consumption patterns and recalibrates the index to a new reference point. But it also breaks comparability with previous series. The sharp drop from 34.80% in December 2024 to 24.48% in January 2025 was partly a statistical artifact of rebasing, not purely a reflection of price stabilisation. The NBS continued publishing monthly figures under the new base: 23.18% in February 2025, 24.23% in March, and a steady deceleration to 15.15% by December 2025. The direction was genuine—currency stabilisation, tighter monetary policy by the CBN, and lower fuel prices contributed—but the magnitude of the initial drop was not. A reader comparing December 2024 to January 2025 without understanding the rebasing would conclude that prices had fallen by nearly a third. They had not.

The poverty data carries its own opacity. The NBS has not published a comprehensive monetary poverty survey since 2018/19. The World Bank's 63% figure for 2025 is a projection built on macroeconomic modelling, not a fresh household survey. The NBS Multidimensional Poverty Index of 2022 found 63% of Nigerians (133 million) multidimensionally poor, but that survey was conducted between November 2021 and February 2022. No updated comprehensive monetary poverty survey has been published since 2018/19— itself a measure of institutional opacity. The same void exists in labour statistics: no updated national labour force survey has been published since the fourth quarter of 2020, when unemployment stood at 33.3%. A state that cannot measure poverty accurately, that does not know how many of its citizens are unemployed, that cannot produce timely data on the dimensions of its own crisis, cannot be expected to reduce that crisis precisely. The opacity is not accidental. It is a governance choice that protects policymakers from accountability.

This data vacuum has consequences beyond accountability. It means that policymakers in Abuja are flying blind through the most consequential economic transition in a generation. They do not know, with statistical precision, how many Nigerians lost jobs in 2024. They do not know, with survey-backed confidence, how many households fell into poverty in 2025. They model, project, and estimate—useful tools, but no substitute for ground-truth data. A reform programme without timely data is not evidence-based policy. It is policy-based guesswork dressed in spreadsheets.

Exit as Governance

The most revealing decision of the period was not economic but symbolic. In late 2024, the Presidency approved a ₦10 billion solar power project to take Aso Rock Villa—the seat of government—off the national grid by March 2026. The grid to which the rest of the country remained tethered had suffered at least 222 partial or total collapses since 2010, according to data from the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC). On 23 January 2026, generation plummeted from 4,500 megawatts to 24 megawatts. Four days later, it collapsed again. While manufacturers in Lagos ran diesel generators at record cost and households in Kano spent evenings in darkness, the seat of power was installing solar panels to ensure its own uninterrupted supply.

The Aso Rock solar project is not an energy solution. It is an exit strategy. It signals that the governing class no longer trusts the system it governs and has chosen to insulate itself from it rather than repair it. This is the essence of the paralysis: not ignorance, but organised abandonment. The government knew what reforms to implement. It implemented them. When the consequences arrived—inflation, poverty, grid collapse—it responded not by fixing the systems that failed, but by removing itself from them.

The pattern is not new to anyone who watched the power sector closely. The Siemens Presidential Power Initiative, announced with fanfare in 2019, was supposed to rehabilitate transmission infrastructure and expand generation capacity through a phased roadmap. By 2025, it had produced little beyond photo opportunities and memoranda of understanding. The privatisation of electricity distribution companies, completed over a decade ago, transferred assets to investors who, in several documented cases, borrowed their licence fees from banks and lacked the capital to invest in metering, maintenance, or network expansion. More than a decade after privatisation was concluded, Nigeria generates roughly the same amount of grid power it did in 1999. The institutions charged with reform have mastered the vocabulary of transformation while delivering its opposite.

By mid-2025, over 60% of manufacturing companies had disconnected from the national grid, according to surveys by the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN). Dangote Industries, Nigerian Breweries, Honeywell, and MTN had installed more than 6,500 megawatts of captive power. Manufacturers spent a record ₦1 trillion on self-generation in 2024. The exit is not limited to the elite. It is a national adaptation to institutional failure, replicated at every level of income. Those who can afford to leave the system, do. Those who cannot, remain in darkness.

The logic of exit is seductive and corrosive. If the Presidency can leave the grid, why should it prioritise fixing it? If Dangote can build its own power plant, why should the state invest in transmission? If Lagos households can buy inverters, why should the distribution company meter its customers? Each private solution is rational at the individual level. Aggregated across a nation, they destroy the collective incentive to build public systems. The result is a country where infrastructure is not a public good but a private luxury, and where the gap between those who can afford exit and those who cannot becomes a permanent feature of the social order.

The question this book asks is not why Nigeria is poor. The question is why a state that has had the same policy prescriptions on its shelf for four decades, that has watched its national grid collapse more than two hundred times, that knows exactly what reforms are needed, cannot convert that knowledge into outcomes that outlast the press conference. The knowledge is not missing. The will is not missing. What is missing is the institutional architecture that converts knowledge and will into sustained, measurable improvement in the lives of citizens.

The knowledge is not missing. What is missing begins where the money comes from—and where it disappears.

Sources

1. International Monetary Fund. Article IV consultation (2005).
2. World Bank. Nigeria Economic Report (2013).
3. International Monetary Fund. Article IV consultation (2019).
4. World Bank. Nigeria Development Update: Nigeria's Post-COVID-19 Chance (December 2022).
5. Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa. Analyses on fuel subsidy fiscal impact (n.d.).
6. Nigerian Economic Summit Group. Policy dialogues on subsidy removal (n.d.).
7. Lagos Business School. Papers on fuel subsidy reform (n.d.).
8. University of Ibadan. Papers on fuel subsidy reform (n.d.).
9. African Development Bank. Papers on fuel subsidy reform (n.d.).
10. National Bureau of Statistics. Consumer Price Index and inflation data (December 2024).
11. World Bank. Nigeria Development Update: Nigeria's Tomorrow Must Start Today (April 2026).
12. S&P Global. Naira exchange rate forecast (late 2025).
13. National Bureau of Statistics. Consumer Price Index rebasing technical notes (January 2025).
14. National Bureau of Statistics. Multidimensional Poverty Index (2022).
15. Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission. Grid collapse data (n.d.).
16. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria. Quarterly sectoral surveys (2024).

Chapter 2: The Extractive Trap

Nigeria has produced roughly 10 billion barrels of crude oil since commercial extraction began at Oloibiri in 1958. The Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) has audited the accounts. What it found is not a secret. What was done about it is.

What NEITI Found

Before oil, agriculture was the fiscal foundation. In the 1960s, groundnuts from the North, cocoa from the West, and palm oil from the East generated foreign exchange and employment without requiring a state-owned corporation to manage them. Regional governments competed to build commodity marketing boards, storage silos, and rail links to the ports. The discovery of crude at Oloibiri in 1956 and the subsequent oil boom of the 1970s reversed this structure. By the late 1970s, petroleum accounted for over 90% of export earnings and roughly 70% of government revenue. Agriculture did not decline because Nigerians stopped farming. It declined because the state stopped needing it. Once oil revenue could be collected in dollars, processed through a single parastatal, and distributed through the federation account, the political incentive to invest in rural roads, storage facilities, and agricultural extension vanished. The regions that had financed themselves through commodity exports became dependents of the federal centre, waiting monthly for allocation committees to announce their share.

The federation account itself is part of the trap. All revenue collected by the Federal Government—including petroleum proceeds, company taxes, and customs duties—is pooled and then shared among the three tiers of government according to a formula decreed by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission. The states receive the largest share after the Federal Government, and local governments receive a smaller allocation through the states. Because the constitution assigns mineral rights to the Federal Government, an oil-producing state like Bayelsa receives the same derivation percentage as a non-producing state like Jigawa, with only a 13% derivation principle reserved for the producing region. The result is a fiscal system that severs the link between production and benefit. A state governor does not need to grow the economy to receive revenue. He only needs to wait for the monthly Federation Account Allocation Committee meeting. The incentives favour consumption, political patronage, and payroll expansion over investment, tax collection, and productivity.

NEITI is not an opposition party. It is a statutory body established by the NEITI Act of 2007, mandated to reconcile what oil companies say they paid with what the government says it received. Its audits for 2020, 2021, and 2022 document billions of dollars in unremitted revenues, persistent discrepancies between company-reported figures and Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) records, and petrol-subsidy arrangements so opaque that neither the auditor nor the citizen could trace where the money went. The reports were published. The press conferences were held. The recommendations were tabled before the National Assembly. And then nothing.

The National Assembly receives NEITI's reports through its relevant committees. The committees summon officials. They issue press statements. They do not legislate remedies. There is no mechanism in Nigerian law that automatically triggers an investigation when NEITI identifies an unremitted sum. The Attorney-General of the Federation is not required to act. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is not mandated to open a file. The reports accumulate in volumes that grow thicker while the behaviour they document remains unchanged. The opacity is not accidental. It is protected by the absence of consequence.

The pattern is not accidental. It is structural. The Nigerian state extracts hydrocarbons at scale and converts them into public goods at a rate so low that the extraction itself becomes the obstacle to development. This is not abstract theory about resource-rich nations. It is a specific sequence of institutional choices: revenue collected by an opaque national oil company, shared through a federation-account formula that rewards consumption over production, and spent through procurement systems where accountability is the exception rather than the rule. NEITI's work has been thorough, but thoroughness without enforcement is merely a record of failure.

Consider the mechanics of opacity. Crude is produced through joint ventures in which NNPC Limited holds between 55% and 60% equity but contributes little cash to operating expenses. The international oil companies fund operations and recover their costs from production before profit is shared. The cost-oil barrel is supposed to be audited. In practice, the NNPC and its partners negotiate cost-recovery schedules in meetings whose minutes are not public. When costs escalate—whether from genuine maintenance, security spending, or inflated contracting—the government's share of profit oil shrinks. NEITI's audits have repeatedly found that the sums companies claim as recoverable costs exceed what independent engineering assessments would support. But the NNPC lacks the technical capacity to challenge every item, and the contracts themselves contain confidentiality clauses that prevent full disclosure. The citizen sees the export figure. The citizen does not see the cost figure. And without the cost figure, the export figure is meaningless.

No updated NEITI audit with fully reconciled remediation figures has been published since the 2022 report cycle— itself a measure of institutional opacity. The audits name the gaps. They do not close them.

The NNPC's opacity has persisted across multiple administrations because it serves a political function that no audit can dislodge. The corporation is the largest source of discretionary foreign exchange, the single biggest contributor to the federation account, and the primary channel through which petrol subsidies are administered or withdrawn. Any president who seeks to reform it must simultaneously rely on it for revenue, for fuel supply, and for macroeconomic stability. The result is a reform trap: the institution is too important to fail, too opaque to fix, and too central to the political economy to be dismantled. NEITI's audits have mapped the contours of this trap with precision. What they cannot provide is the political mechanism to escape it.

More Barrels, Less Money

In 2025, the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) reported average crude production of approximately 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd). The federal budget had assumed 2.06 million bpd. The shortfall was roughly 500,000 barrels every day—each one a missed opportunity to fund a school, pay a nurse, or settle a debt. Even this figure requires qualification. When condensates are included, output rises to roughly 1.6–1.7 million bpd, and the NUPRC claimed in April 2026 that production had reached 1.84 million bpd. But the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) quota remained at 1.5 million bpd, and Nigerian crude is not always the easiest grade to place in a market shifting toward lighter, lower-sulphur barrels. What matters to the treasury is not the barrel count but the revenue it yields. And there, the picture is worse.

According to the Budget Implementation Report for the fourth quarter of 2024, Nigeria's gross profit from crude oil and gas sales plunged by ₦824.66 billion in 2024. Production had recovered from the lows of mid-2022, when sabotage, pipeline vandalism, and operational neglect dragged output below 1.1 million bpd. More oil was flowing. Less money was arriving. The contradiction is the subject of this chapter.

Several mechanisms explain the gap. First, crude theft in the Niger Delta—often described in official documents as "illegal bunkering"—removes an estimated 10–20% of production before it ever reaches the export terminal. The NUPRC has acknowledged losses of up to 200,000 bpd to theft, but the exact figure fluctuates and remains disputed among security agencies. Some estimates from industry sources suggest the true figure could be higher, depending on whether one counts small-scale refining, pipeline siphoning, and offshore loading into waiting vessels. The Nigerian Navy, the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, and private security contractors employed by oil companies all produce different numbers. None of them agree. The absence of a single, verified measurement is itself a governance failure: a state that cannot count what is stolen cannot calculate what is owed.

Second, Nigeria's joint-venture contracts with international oil companies contain cost-recovery provisions that allow operators to deduct upstream expenses before profit is shared. The NNPC's failure to meet its cash-call obligations—its share of operating expenses—for years has created a backlog that international partners recover from current production, further reducing the government's share. When maintenance backlogs, security costs, and ageing infrastructure inflate those expenses, the government's take shrinks regardless of the headline price. Third, the naira depreciation that began in June 2023 should have increased the naira value of dollar-denominated crude sales. But the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited—renamed and restructured under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) of 2021—entered into forward-sale arrangements and swap contracts whose terms are not fully disclosed in public accounts. Under these arrangements, NNPC Limited commits future crude cargoes in exchange for refined products or cash advances. The result is that exchange-rate gains do not always reach the federation account in the volume or timing that the budget assumes. A dollar of crude revenue earned in March may not appear as naira in the federation account until September, and the conversion rate may have been fixed months earlier at a level that benefits the trading counterparty more than the treasury.

The environmental cost compounds the fiscal loss. Nigeria has flared natural gas associated with crude extraction for decades, releasing methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere while forgoing the revenue that captured gas could generate through liquefied natural gas exports or domestic power generation. The NUPRC has set repeated deadlines for the cessation of routine flaring. The flaring continues. The gas is burned because the infrastructure to collect, process, and transport it would require capital investment that neither the NNPC nor its partners have prioritised. The result is a double loss: the environment is degraded, and the treasury is deprived of revenue that could have been captured with basic midstream investment.

The exchange-rate channel adds a further layer of distortion. When the naira was floated in June 2023, the official rate moved from ₦461 per dollar to over ₦750 within weeks, and eventually to above ₦1,500 by late 2024. In theory, every dollar of crude revenue should have generated more naira for the federation account. In practice, the NNPC Limited's swap obligations and pre-committed forward sales meant that a significant portion of crude earnings were already hedged at older, lower rates. The corporation captured the exchange-rate gain on some portion of its sales, but the federation account did not capture it in full. The Budget Implementation Report records the outcome: a revenue plunge of ₦824.66 billion in 2024, a year when the naira hit historic lows and every textbook model predicted a revenue windfall.

The Budget Implementation Report is prepared by the Budget Office of the Federation under the Ministry of Finance. It is not a polemic. Its figures are the government's own assessment of its own performance. When a government's own report records a revenue plunge of ₦824.66 billion in a year of production recovery and currency depreciation, the diagnosis is not conspiracy. It is arithmetic. And the arithmetic says that extraction and revenue are no longer the same thing.

The Petroleum Industry Act: A Reform Half-Finished

The Petroleum Industry Act, signed into law in August 2021 after nearly two decades of legislative limbo, was supposed to change the architecture of extraction. It restructured the NNPC into NNPC Limited, a commercial entity governed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act. It created the NUPRC to regulate upstream activities and the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) to oversee refining, distribution, and pricing. It established a Host Communities Development Trust fund, requiring oil companies to set aside 3% of their operating expenditure for communities in production areas. And it created a Frontier Exploration Fund, allocating 30% of NNPC Limited's profit oil to the search for hydrocarbons in basins that had not yet produced commercially.

Four years later, the implementation is contested. NNPC Limited remains the majority partner in most joint ventures, the buyer of crude for domestic refining, the allocator of refined-product import licences, and the manager of petrol-subsidy transition—functions that create conflicts of interest no corporate governance code can resolve when the appointing authority is also the policy maker. The Host Communities Development Trust has been slow to take shape, with communities in the Niger Delta reporting that the 3% levy remains more visible in legislation than in their bank accounts. Some community leaders have complained that oil companies have set up trust boards on paper while continuing to manage community relations through the old patronage networks of chiefs and political brokers. In early 2026, President Bola Tinubu issued an Executive Order suspending the 30% Frontier Exploration Fund, redirecting the resources toward more immediate fiscal needs. The suspension was pragmatic. It was also an admission that the PIA's fiscal architecture was designed for a revenue environment that no longer exists.

The deepest failure is transparency. NNPC Limited's audited accounts for 2022 and 2023 were published—an improvement on the pre-PIA era, when the corporation's finances were effectively state secrets. But the accounts raise as many questions as they answer. The corporation's transition from a government parastatal to a "commercial" entity has not severed its political connections. The board is appointed by the President. The Minister of Petroleum Resources—also the President—sets policy. And the federation account still depends on NNPC Limited's remittances, which are subject to deductions for petrol subsidies, pipeline repairs, and "other operational costs" whose detail is rarely disclosed in a form that a legislator, let alone a citizen, could audit. The annual reports run to hundreds of pages. The line items that matter—how much crude was swapped, at what price, with which counterparty—are aggregated into single figures that defy scrutiny.

The PIA also introduced a new royalty and tax framework, replacing the old Petroleum Profits Tax with a Hydrocarbon Tax for onshore and shallow-water production and leaving deep-water projects under the Companies Income Tax Act. The intention was to attract investment by offering more competitive fiscal terms. But investors do not invest in legislation alone. They invest in predictability. When regulatory disputes drag on for years, when crude theft erodes the production base, and when exchange-rate volatility makes cost projections meaningless, even the most generous tax rate cannot compensate for the risk that the rules will change between signing and first oil. The NUPRC has approved Final Investment Decisions worth roughly $20 billion in 2024–2025, but many of these projects will not produce until the 2030s. The immediate revenue crisis cannot wait for deep-water fields that may or may not materialise.

What the PIA did not address is as revealing as what it did. The Act contains no provision for automatic publication of joint-venture contracts. It does not require real-time disclosure of crude-swap terms. It does not mandate independent technical audits of cost-recovery claims. And it leaves environmental liability largely with the operating companies, without creating a dedicated cleanup fund for legacy pollution in the Niger Delta. A law that restructures the national oil company but leaves its contracts confidential is a law that recognises the problem without surrendering the privilege of opacity.

Dangote's Refinery: Private Execution, Public Resistance

If the public sector cannot refine its own crude, the private sector will try. The Dangote Petroleum Refinery, sited on the Lekki Free Zone in Lagos State, is the most significant industrial project in Nigeria since the steel mills of the 1980s. With a nameplate capacity of 650,000 barrels per day, it is the largest single-train refinery in the world. Aliko Dangote broke ground in 2016, invested a reported $19 billion, and began diesel and aviation-fuel production in early 2024. Petrol production followed later that year. By early 2025, the refinery was producing at volumes sufficient to alter Nigeria's refined-products landscape. The country, which had imported virtually all its petrol for decades despite being Africa's largest crude producer, finally had a domestic source capable of meeting national demand.

What followed was a regulatory conflict that exposed the dysfunction of Nigeria's downstream architecture. The NMDPRA, the downstream regulator created by the PIA, disputed Dangote's claims about product quality and crude-supply allocation. Dangote accused international oil companies of withholding domestic crude supply, forcing the refinery to import crude from the United States and Brazil at higher cost. The NMDPRA questioned whether the refinery's products met West African standards. Dangote alleged regulatory sabotage designed to protect imported-product marketers who had built lucrative businesses around the importation monopoly. The public was left watching a battle between the country's most powerful industrialist and its newest regulatory authority, with neither side offering contract-level documentation to settle the dispute.

The case matters because it illustrates a pattern that repeats across Nigerian political economy. State institutions do not merely fail to execute; they often obstruct those who can. The Dangote Refinery succeeded where public refineries in Port Harcourt, Warri, and Kaduna failed—not because Dangote had better engineers, but because he could bypass the procurement, personnel, and political interference that rendered the state-owned plants inoperable. The Port Harcourt refinery complex, which underwent a $1.5 billion rehabilitation contract awarded in 2021, remained non-operational as of 2025, years after the contract deadline. Warri and Kaduna fared no better. Dangote's refinery took eight years from groundbreaking to petrol production. The public refineries have consumed four decades of "turnaround maintenance" without achieving reliability. The difference is not technical. It is institutional.

Yet even private execution cannot escape public incoherence. The refinery's operation coincided with the removal of petrol subsidies in May 2023. In a subsidised market, NNPC Limited was the sole importer, setting a uniform price below cost and absorbing the difference as "under-recovery"—a term that described a loss the corporation recorded but the public paid for through foregone remittances to the federation account. In a liberalised market, multiple players should import, refine, and price competitively. But the NMDPRA's regulatory disputes with Dangote, combined with lingering foreign-exchange scarcity and crude-supply allocation conflicts, meant that the transition from monopoly to competition was neither clean nor complete. By early 2025, Dangote was supplying a growing share of the domestic market, but the pricing mechanism remained opaque, and the naira cost of petrol continued to fluctuate with exchange-rate volatility rather than refining efficiency.

The Dangote Refinery is not a solution to the extractive trap. It is a symptom. A state that cannot maintain its own refineries after four decades of investment must rely on a single private facility to process the crude it pumps from its own soil. That facility then becomes a bottleneck as politically sensitive as the pipelines it was meant to replace. When one refinery serves 220 million people, its maintenance schedule, crude-supply contracts, and product-pricing decisions are no longer commercial matters. They are national-security concerns. And national security, in the Nigerian context, is precisely the category of decision-making least subject to public audit.

The Subsidy Removal: Fiscal Accounting Without Fiscal Architecture

President Tinubu announced the removal of petrol subsidies on 29 May 2023. Before removal, the subsidy consumed an estimated ₦3 trillion to ₦5 trillion annually—more than the federal budgets for health and education combined. NNPC Limited recorded the cost as "under-recovery," deducting it from federation account remittances without parliamentary appropriation. After removal, remittances improved and the deficit narrowed on paper. But the fiscal relief was not accompanied by the institutional architecture to turn savings into capital investment. The Central Bank of Nigeria no longer had to provide special foreign-exchange windows for petrol importers, removing one source of arbitrage. What remained was a pricing mechanism still opaque, a single refinery serving 220 million people, and a state that had proven it could stop a subsidy but not build what the subsidy had masked: a functioning petroleum products market.

The Angolan Comparator: Reform After the Family Firm

Nigeria is not the only African OPEC member to discover that oil wealth and institutional weakness form a combustible mixture. Angola offers a comparator that illuminates the limits of even sincere reform. For three decades under President José Eduardo dos Santos, the state oil company Sonangol functioned as a parallel treasury, presidential purse, and employment agency for the ruling party's cadres. Revenues were diverted, budgets were opaque, and production peaked while poverty persisted. In 2017, President João Lourenço succeeded dos Santos and launched a reform programme that stripped Sonangol of its non-core assets, audited its accounts, and prosecuted former executives—including the ex-president's daughter, Isabel dos Santos, who had headed the company and was subsequently charged with embezzlement and money laundering.

The results were partial. Angola's oil production continued to decline, from roughly 1.8 million bpd in 2010 to below 1.2 million bpd by 2024, as mature fields depleted and new investment lagged. Transparency improved—Sonangol began publishing audited financials, a step NNPC Limited has only partially matched—but the underlying contract terms with international oil companies remained less favourable than Nigeria's, and the non-oil sector grew only slowly. The lesson is not that Angola succeeded where Nigeria failed. It is that even determined reform produces limited results when the institutional architecture was built around extraction rather than transformation. Lourenço could change Sonangol's management. He could not, in eight years, build the tax administration, procurement oversight, and subnational fiscal capacity that would turn revenue into roads, schools, and clinics at scale.

Nigeria's PIA was, in conception, more comprehensive than Angola's Sonangol restructuring. But Angola's reform had one feature Nigeria has yet to replicate: the prosecution of senior officials for embezzlement. In Nigeria, no senior NNPC official has been convicted for the billions in unremitted revenues documented by NEITI. The audits name discrepancies. They do not name consequences. Until consequence is institutionalised—through independent prosecutors, judicial enforcement, and asset recovery that does not depend on the political calendar—the audit trail will remain a record of impunity rather than a prelude to restitution.

Angola also established a sovereign wealth fund, the Fundo Soberano de Angola, in 2012, modelled partly on Norway's Government Pension Fund. It accumulated several billion dollars before the post-dos Santos reformers discovered that much of its capital had been diverted or invested in non-transparent vehicles. Nigeria's own Nigerian Sovereign Investment Authority (NSIA), established in 2011, has fared better in governance terms, with published accounts and infrastructure investments in healthcare, roads, and power. But the NSIA manages just over $3.5 billion in assets—a fraction of the revenue that has passed through the NNPC in the same period. The problem is not the absence of a savings mechanism. It is the scale of the leakage that occurs before any saving can happen.

But oil is only half the trap. The other half is what the state does with what it keeps—and what it cannot do with what it needs. The revenue that does reach the federation account is spent through institutions that cannot meter electricity, maintain roads, or deliver textbooks on time. The power sector, which should be the first beneficiary of fiscal reform, is instead the most visible proof of the state's incapacity to convert revenue into service. That is the subject of the next chapter.

Sources

1. Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI). Audit reports for 2020, 2021, and 2022 (n.d.).
2. Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC). Production and theft reports (2025).
3. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Production quota for Nigeria (n.d.).
4. Budget Office of the Federation. Budget Implementation Report, fourth quarter 2024 (2024).
5. Petroleum Industry Act (2021).
6. Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited. Audited accounts (2022–2023).
7. Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA). Regulatory assessments and disputes (n.d.).
8. Nigerian Sovereign Investment Authority (NSIA). Published accounts and infrastructure investments (n.d.).

Chapter 3: The Darkness

The Anatomy of a Collapse

On January 23, 2026, Nigeria's national grid collapsed from 4,500 megawatts to 24. Four days later, it collapsed again. By March, the Presidency had nearly completed a ₦10 billion solar project to take Aso Rock off the grid entirely. The government had, in effect, declared that it no longer trusted the system it governs.

This was not an aberration. According to data compiled by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), the national grid suffered at least 222 partial or total collapses between 2010 and 2022. The pattern did not improve in the years that followed. The grid collapsed on December 29, 2025. It collapsed again on January 23, 2026, dropping from 4,500 megawatts (MW) to 24 MW—enough electricity to power a small industrial estate, not a nation of more than 220 million people. It collapsed once more on January 27. It collapsed again in March. Each collapse is a system-wide failure. Because Nigeria operates a single integrated grid, when the frequency destabilises, every power plant connected to the network must shut down simultaneously to protect its turbines from damage. The darkness is total and instantaneous. There are no partial collapses in a synchronised system. There is only light, and then there is none.

To understand what 24 MW means in human terms, consider that a single large teaching hospital in a developed country might require 10 to 15 MW to operate its theatres, intensive care units, and diagnostic equipment. On January 23, the entire Nigerian grid—spanning 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory—was running on roughly twice that amount. The rest of the country was on generators, in darkness, or both. The Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry (NESI) has an installed generation capacity of approximately 13,000 MW, but actual output rarely exceeds 5,000 MW and frequently falls below 4,000 MW. The gap between what exists on paper and what reaches homes and factories is not a technical mystery. It is an institutional wound that has been documented, reported, and ignored for two decades.

The collapses follow a predictable sequence. Gas supply to thermal plants is interrupted by pipeline vandalism, pricing disputes, or unpaid bills. The plants reduce output. The grid frequency drops. The system operator at the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN) attempts to shed load, but the deficit is too large or too sudden. The frequency falls below the 49.5 hertz threshold. Protection relays trip. Generators disconnect. Within seconds, the entire network is down. Restoration takes hours or days, depending on how many plants can be restarted and whether the gas pipelines are flowing. On January 23, the restoration was complicated by the fact that multiple plants were already down for maintenance or fuel shortages. The grid had no reserve margin. It was operating on the edge of failure, and failure came.

The fragility begins at generation. Roughly 80% of Nigeria's grid-connected power comes from gas-fired thermal plants. These plants depend on a gas supply chain that is itself broken. Pipeline vandalism in the Niger Delta disrupts delivery. Pricing disputes between gas producers and power generators leave fuel unpaid for. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited, which dominates upstream gas, has never delivered firm supply agreements that would allow GenCos to plan maintenance and output. The plants that are supposed to power the nation operate on intermittent fuel deliveries, like a hospital that receives blood supplies by lottery. When the gas stops, the plants stop. When the plants stop, the grid falls.

The technical vulnerability is compounded by structural fragility. Nigeria has only one national grid. There are no regional backup networks, no inter-state redundancy, and no islanding capability that would allow a region to separate from the collapsing system and maintain local supply. Most developed countries operate multiple interconnected grids with automatic separation protocols. Nigeria has a single thread, and when it snaps, the entire fabric unravels. The TCN has known this vulnerability for decades. Studies have recommended grid segmentation, dual circuits, and emergency reserves. None have been implemented at scale. The transmission network remains a collection of ageing lines and undersized transformers held together by reactive maintenance and improvised repairs.

The impact is not evenly distributed. Lagos and Abuja, with higher concentrations of wealth and generator ownership, experience the collapse as an inconvenience. Rural communities in Kebbi, Borno, or Ebonyi experience it as a shutdown of modern life. For households that cannot afford a generator, a grid collapse means no light for studying, no power for phone charging, no refrigeration for medicine, and no electricity for small businesses that operate after dark. The rural electrification gap means that millions of Nigerians were never on the grid in the first place. When the grid collapses, they do not even register in the outage statistics. Their darkness is permanent, not intermittent.

The human cost of these collapses is rarely measured in official statistics. When the grid fails, surgical operations in public hospitals are interrupted unless backup generators start instantly. Blood storage refrigerators depend on fuel that may not have been delivered. Neonatal incubators in rural clinics switch to batteries that last hours, not days. Students in universities without generating sets cannot charge the laptops they were told would transform their education. Small shopkeepers lose refrigerated stock. The cost is not merely economic. It is measured in interrupted surgeries, spoiled vaccines, and examinations postponed because the lights went out. No government agency publishes a tally of these losses. The absence of such data is itself a measure of institutional opacity.

What Darkness Costs

The economic cost of this failure is not abstract. According to World Bank energy sector estimates, power outages cost Nigeria approximately $29 billion annually, a figure equivalent to roughly 10% of gross domestic product (GDP). This is not money that disappears into the air. It is money that Nigerian businesses spend on diesel, on generator maintenance, on redundant equipment, and on lost production hours. It is money that could have gone to wages, to expansion, to training, and to the research and development that industrial upgrading requires. Instead, it goes to keeping the lights on in a country that exports crude oil and liquefied natural gas but cannot power its own cities.

The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) reported in its quarterly sectoral surveys for 2024 that its members spent a record ₦1 trillion on self-generation. By mid-2025, over 60% of manufacturing companies had disconnected entirely from the national grid. Dangote Industries, Nigerian Breweries, Honeywell, and MTN Nigeria have collectively installed more than 6,500 MW of captive power capacity—more than the national grid typically delivers to the entire country at any given moment. These are not small firms improvising with portable generators. They are the largest corporations in Africa's biggest economy, and they have concluded that the state cannot be relied upon for the most basic prerequisite of modern production: a reliable supply of electricity.

The burden falls even more heavily on small and medium-sized enterprises that cannot afford industrial-scale captive plants. A tailor in Aba with six sewing machines must choose between buying petrol for a generator or buying fabric for production. A barber shop in Ibadan must price haircuts high enough to cover diesel costs. A cold-store operator in Kano must factor generator fuel into the price of every crate of soft drinks. These are not marginal costs. They are structural overheads that determine whether a business survives. When MAN reports ₦1 trillion in self-generation spending, the figure captures only the formal manufacturing sector. The informal economy—where most Nigerians work—spends billions more on smaller generators, inverter batteries, and kerosene lamps, none of which appear in official surveys.

The decision to generate privately is rational for each firm, but collectively it represents a catastrophic market failure. Every naira spent on captive power is a naira not spent on productivity. Nigerian manufacturers already face high input costs, currency volatility, and port inefficiencies. Adding self-generation costs of ₦1 trillion per year makes domestic production uncompetitive against imports from countries where electricity is a public utility, not a private emergency. The World Bank estimate of $29 billion in annual losses does not capture the full picture, because it cannot measure the factories that were never built, the jobs that were never created, and the investors who looked at the power sector data and chose Ghana or Kenya instead. It also cannot measure the engineers who emigrated because they could not practise their craft in a country where the grid collapses monthly. What is visible in the data is the tip of a much larger iceberg of foregone opportunity. Households, which rarely appear in MAN surveys, spend billions more on petrol for small generators, on inverter batteries, and on kerosene for lamps. The average middle-class family in Lagos may spend ₦50,000 to ₦100,000 monthly on generator fuel alone—more than their rent in some cases. The poor, who cannot afford generators, pay in lost income: the artisan who cannot work after sunset, the trader whose phone dies because there is no power to charge it, the student who cannot study for exams. These costs do not appear in GDP calculations. They appear in stunted lives. Foreign direct investment in Nigerian manufacturing has stagnated in part because investors routinely cite power unreliability as a deal-breaker. Why build a textile factory in Kaduna when the same capital could build one in Vietnam with guaranteed grid supply? The power sector does not merely impose costs. It forecloses possibilities.

The disparity in consumption tells the story more starkly than any statistic about debt or collapse frequency. Nigeria's per capita electricity consumption stands at approximately 144 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. Egypt consumes 1,700 kWh per capita. South Africa consumes 3,800 kWh. Even Tanzania, with a gross domestic product per capita roughly one-seventh of Nigeria's, manages 180 kWh per capita. Nigeria is not merely behind its peers. It is behind nations with far fewer resources and far smaller budgets. The difference is not geological—Nigeria sits on 209 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves, the ninth largest in the world. The difference is not financial—trillions of naira have been budgeted, borrowed, and spent on power since the return to civilian rule in 1999. The difference is institutional: the capacity to convert resources and money into functioning infrastructure through contracts that are enforced, payments that are made, and projects that are completed.

Egypt provides a useful comparator not because its institutions are free of corruption or its policies are flawless, but because it demonstrates what sustained state attention can achieve when execution is treated as seriously as announcement. Between 2014 and 2024, Egypt added more than 40,000 MW of generation capacity, built new high-voltage transmission corridors, and reduced energy subsidies in phased adjustments that allowed industry to adapt. The Egyptian Electricity Holding Company remained a state-owned entity, but it executed contracts, paid contractors, and met construction deadlines. Nigeria's equivalent institution, the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN), remains federally owned and chronically underfunded, unable to evacuate even the modest power that Generation Companies (GenCos) manage to produce. Egypt did not discover a secret technology. It simply maintained the institutional discipline to finish what it started, to pay what it owed, and to hold contractors accountable for delays. Nigeria has not managed any of these three things in the power sector for thirty years.

Privatisation and Its Discontents

The power sector is the most instructive autopsy of institutional failure in modern Nigeria because every party to its collapse has been identified, every cause named, and every remedy proposed—repeatedly. Nothing has changed because the incentives that produce failure have never been altered.

In November 2013, the Federal Government completed the privatisation of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), selling generation and distribution assets to private investors in a transaction managed by the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE). The sale was hailed as the solution to decades of public-sector mismanagement. The theory was sound: private capital would replace depleted government budgets, commercial discipline would replace bureaucratic lethargy, and competition would drive efficiency. The theory failed because the transaction was structured in haste and executed without due diligence on the financial capacity of the buyers.

The investors who won the 11 Distribution Company (DisCo) licences had, in numerous documented cases, borrowed their bid fees from Nigerian banks. Those same banks then sat on the creditor committees of the companies they had financed. The investors arrived with no equity cushion, no capacity to absorb the inevitable losses of rehabilitating dilapidated networks, and no incentive to invest in the infrastructure upgrades that the sector desperately needed. They had paid for licences, not for transformers, meters, or cables. When the revenues did not materialise—because the networks could not collect tariffs from unmetered customers, because theft was rampant, because the grid could not deliver the power they were supposed to sell—the investors had no capital reserves to bridge the gap. They defaulted on their bank loans. The banks, which had approved the loans in the first place, faced write-downs. And the DisCos, caught between unpaid bills and unrehabilitated networks, simply stopped investing.

The metering deficit illustrates the point. NERC had mandated mass metering programmes for years, yet millions of households remained on estimated billing—a system in which the DisCo guesses consumption and charges accordingly. Estimated billing breeds distrust. Distrusted customers refuse to pay. Unpaid bills reduce DisCo revenue. Reduced revenue prevents network investment. The cycle is self-reinforcing, and it has persisted because no regulator has been able to enforce metering deadlines against DisCos that claim they cannot afford to buy meters. The DisCos cannot afford meters because they do not collect revenue. They do not collect revenue because customers do not trust estimated bills. The trap is institutional, not technical. Smart meters are available on the global market. The inability to install them is a governance failure.

The result was a cash-flow death spiral that has been documented in every NERC market operator report for more than a decade. The DisCos could not collect enough revenue to pay the Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Company (NBET), the government-owned bulk trader that purchases power from GenCos and sells it to DisCos. NBET could not pay the GenCos at the tariff rates approved by NERC. The GenCos could not pay gas suppliers for the fuel needed to run their turbines. The gas suppliers, facing their own unpaid invoices, reduced supply or shut off valves. The plants ran below capacity or shut down entirely. The grid frequency dropped. The system collapsed. And the cycle began again.

The gas supply problem deserves its own examination because it reveals how one institutional failure amplifies another. Nigeria holds the world's ninth-largest proven natural gas reserves. Yet domestic gas supply to power plants has been unreliable for two decades. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited, which controls upstream gas production and transportation, has failed to deliver firm gas supply agreements to power producers. Pricing disputes between gas producers and GenCos have persisted because no regulator has been able to enforce a transparent, market-based gas pricing framework. The gas producers argue that they can earn more exporting liquefied natural gas than selling domestically at regulated prices. The GenCos argue that they cannot pay international prices because they are not paid for the electricity they generate. The regulator lacks the authority to resolve this impasse. The result is that power plants sit idle beside pipelines that carry gas to export terminals.

By February 2026, total power sector debt had reached ₦6.8 trillion, with projections from industry analysts that it would climb to ₦8.8 trillion by December 2026. The Federal Government owed GenCos approximately ₦4 trillion in legacy arrears. In recent billing cycles, GenCos have been paid only 35% of their monthly invoices. A generator company that receives 35% of its revenue cannot maintain its turbines, cannot service its loans, cannot buy spare parts, and cannot invest in new capacity. It can only decay. The plants grow older. The maintenance backlogs grow longer. The outages grow more frequent. The debt grows larger. And the consumers—those who cannot afford generators or solar panels—sit in darkness.

The privatisation was supposed to solve this by introducing market discipline. Instead, it replicated the exact incentive problem that had destroyed the public utility: the people who controlled the assets had no capital at risk, no contractual enforcement against them, and no consequence for failure. When a DisCo underperforms, NERC issues regulatory orders. The orders are ignored. When NBET defaults on payments, the GenCos petition the Ministry of Power. The ministry writes memoranda. The memoranda are circulated, filed, and forgotten. When the grid collapses, the TCN issues technical reports. The reports identify the same causes—frequency instability, gas shortage, line tripping—that were identified in the previous collapse. The institutional architecture was designed to look like a market, complete with buyers, sellers, regulators, and contracts, but it functions like a patronage network in which every participant is too indebted, too politically connected, or too dependent on federal bailouts to insist on payment or demand performance.

The Bureau of Public Enterprises, which managed the original sale, has no authority to compel the DisCo investors to inject new capital. NERC has the legal power to revoke licences, but revocation would trigger bank defaults, employee lay-offs, and political backlash in multiple states. The Ministry of Power has the political authority to approve bailouts, but every bailout rewards the very investors who failed to perform and deepens the moral hazard for the next round. No institution has both the power and the incentive to break the cycle. That is the definition of institutional paralysis.

The tariff disputes reveal the same pattern. NERC has approved multiple tariff increases designed to allow DisCos to recover costs and invest in network upgrades. Each increase has been met with public resistance, political intervention, and partial reversals. The consumers are right to resist: they receive unreliable supply and estimated bills, so why should they pay more? The DisCos are right to demand higher tariffs: they cannot maintain networks on revenues that do not cover costs. The regulator is caught between two legitimate grievances and lacks the authority to enforce metering, punish theft, or guarantee supply quality. The result is a tariff that is too high for consumers and too low for investors, satisfying no one and solving nothing.

The Graveyard of Promises

If the DisCo privatisation reveals how Nigeria cannot manage what it already owns, the history of unbuilt projects reveals how Nigeria cannot build what it desperately needs.

The Mambilla Hydropower Project, first proposed in the 1980s, was designed to deliver 3,050 MW of clean electricity from the Mambilla Plateau in Taraba State. For four decades, it appeared in every national development plan, every budget speech, and every ministerial portfolio. In 2017, the Federal Government signed a $5.8 billion financing agreement with Chinese lenders to finally construct the plant. The project was never started. By 2025, the deal had collapsed into corruption investigations, contract disputes, and mutual recriminations between Nigerian and Chinese partners. A former Minister of Power is on trial in connection with the procurement process. The $5.8 billion never produced a single kilowatt-hour. It produced legal briefs, newspaper headlines, international embarrassment, and another entry in the catalogue of Nigerian infrastructure projects that consume billions in financing, fees, and feasibility studies, and deliver nothing to the grid.

The Siemens Presidential Power Initiative (PPI) offers a different but equally instructive case. Announced in 2019 with the personal involvement of President Muhammadu Buhari and Chancellor Angela Merkel, the initiative was framed as a comprehensive solution to Nigeria's power crisis. The agreement envisaged three implementation phases: new generation capacity, transmission infrastructure upgrades, and distribution network rehabilitation. Siemens, one of the world's largest energy engineering firms, was to provide equipment, technical expertise, and project management. By 2025, the PPI had produced little beyond photo opportunities, memoranda of understanding, and press releases. The specific milestones—new generation plants, transmission substations, comprehensive metering programmes—remained largely unfulfilled. The initiative was not formally cancelled. It simply drifted, starved of the procurement clarity, budgetary commitment, and institutional momentum required to move paper into concrete and concrete into electrons.

While these projects languished, the Presidency pursued its own solution. In early 2025, it approved a ₦10 billion solar power project to take Aso Rock Villa—the seat of the federal government—off the national grid entirely. By March 2026, the project was nearing completion. The symbolism is impossible to miss. The government that presides over the grid, regulates the sector, and approves the budgets no longer trusts the grid to keep its own offices running. The officials who write power sector policy, issue ministerial directives, and negotiate with DisCos do not live under the consequences of that policy. Elite exit is not a new phenomenon in Nigeria—private diesel generators have long been the norm for the wealthy—but the Aso Rock solar project is the first time the Presidency has formally, and with public funds, severed itself from the national system. It is an admission of defeat dressed as an energy transition.

The contrast between Aso Rock and the public institutions that ordinary Nigerians depend upon is stark. While the Presidency was installing solar panels on its villa, federal teaching hospitals were running dialysis machines on generators that failed when fuel deliveries were delayed. While ministers were celebrating their energy independence, public universities were cancelling laboratory sessions because inverter batteries had died. The state is not failing to solve the power crisis because it lacks solutions. It is failing because the people who decide what to build have insulated themselves from the consequences of non-performance. When a minister's office has uninterrupted power, the minister has no personal incentive to fix the grid. When a governor's mansion runs on diesel, the governor does not feel the collapse. Institutional failure persists because the decision-makers do not share the experience of those who live with its consequences.

There is, meanwhile, a genuine energy transition occurring in Nigeria, but it is happening despite the state, not because of it. According to energy sector data from Nextier Advisory, 803 MW of new solar capacity was installed in 2025 alone, a 141% year-on-year surge. This growth is driven by commercial and industrial users—supermarkets, hospitals, factories, apartment complexes—who have given up on the grid and are buying rooftop solar and battery storage from private vendors. It is a rational market response to state failure, and it keeps the lights on in individual buildings. But it is not a national power strategy. A collection of private solar panels cannot power a steel mill, a railway network, or a public water treatment plant. Decentralised solar keeps businesses operating. It does not industrialise a nation. Industrialisation requires baseload power—continuous, high-voltage, grid-connected electricity that only gas, hydro, or nuclear plants can provide at scale. Nigeria is abandoning the grid before it has built the alternative.

The maintenance culture, or its absence, completes the picture. Nigeria builds and abandons. Power plants are commissioned with fanfare and left to decay without spare parts. Transmission lines are erected and never inspected. Transformers explode and are replaced with refurbished units that explode again. The TCN lacks the budget and the technical staff to maintain what exists, let alone expand. Every year, the maintenance backlog grows. Every year, the equipment grows older. Every year, the probability of catastrophic failure increases. This is not a funding problem. It is a governance problem in which maintenance is invisible and therefore politically unrewarding. A politician opens a power plant. No politician cuts a ribbon on a transformer inspection.

The contrast with private execution in Nigeria is instructive. Dangote Industries built a 650,000 barrel-per-day refinery in Lagos—a project of comparable complexity to any power station—without the institutional pathologies that destroy public projects. It secured land, raised capital, imported equipment, hired contractors, and met deadlines because the incentives were clear. Delay cost money. Failure meant bankruptcy. In the public power sector, delay generates variation orders. Failure generates bailouts. The institutional environment determines whether a project lives or dies, and the environment in which Nigerian public power projects operate is designed to reward announcement over completion.

The Autopsy

To diagnose the power sector as an engineering problem is to miss the diagnosis entirely. Nigeria has gas. Nigeria has sun. Nigeria has rivers. Nigeria has money. What Nigeria lacks is the institutional machinery to convert any of these inputs into reliable electricity.

The Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN), which remains federally owned, has been unable to upgrade its infrastructure to evacuate the power that GenCos produce. The National Integrated Power Project (NIPP), launched in 2004 to build ten new power plants, delivered some generation capacity but could not solve the transmission and distribution bottlenecks that prevent power from reaching consumers. The privatisation of 2013 transferred assets to investors who could not afford to maintain them. The Mambilla project transferred billions to contractors who never built anything. The Siemens initiative transferred political capital to press releases that never became plants. At every stage, the same pattern repeats: a correct diagnosis of the deficit, a plausible plan to close it, a large sum of money appropriated or borrowed, and then—silence.

The silence is not empty. It is filled by the machinery of institutional self-preservation. Civil servants who manage power sector contracts know that their careers depend on not disrupting existing arrangements. Politicians who approve budgets know that power plants take longer to build than electoral cycles. Contractors who win bids know that delay is profitable because variation orders and cost overruns are rarely challenged. Banks that financed the DisCos know that a government bailout is more likely than a foreclosure. Every participant in the system has learned that patience is rewarded, accountability is rare, and completion is optional. The system does not punish failure. It accommodates it.

The darkness is not an accident. It is the predictable output of a system in which contracts are not enforced, regulators are not independent, debts are not paid, and political cycles are too short for the long-term capital planning that power infrastructure demands. A combined-cycle gas plant takes five to seven years to build from financial close to commercial operation. A high-voltage transmission line across multiple states requires land acquisition, environmental permits, community negotiations, and security arrangements that span multiple electoral cycles. A Nigerian minister serves at the pleasure of the President and may be reassigned in a cabinet reshuffle that occurs every two to three years. The time horizons do not match. The civil servants who remain between administrations inherit projects they did not design, debts they did not incur, and political instructions that change with every budget cycle. Continuity is impossible.

The same institutional architecture that produces power failure produces failure in other sectors. The roads that are built and not maintained. The schools that are constructed and left without teachers. The hospitals that are commissioned and run without drugs. Power is not unique. It is simply the most visible, because darkness is harder to ignore than a pothole or an empty classroom. But the mechanism is identical: an announcement, an appropriation, a ground-breaking ceremony, and then a gradual descent into disrepair as institutional attention moves to the next announcement. The power sector is the autopsy that reveals the pathology of the whole body politic.

Some energy analysts have argued that Nigeria should abandon the national grid entirely and pursue a decentralised solar future. This argument has the virtue of realism: the grid is unlikely to be stabilised in the next decade given current institutional capacity. But it also concedes the central premise that this book examines. A state that cannot maintain a single national grid cannot regulate a thousand private micro-grids. A state that cannot enforce payment along a centralised value chain cannot collect tariffs from millions of rooftop solar users. And a state that cannot complete Mambilla or the Siemens initiative cannot be trusted to design, subsidise, and monitor a decentralised energy transition at national scale. The technical debate between centralised and distributed power is secondary to the institutional question of whether the Nigerian state can execute any complex project, at any scale, with any consistency. The evidence of the power sector answers that question with the clarity of a blackout. Every naira that was budgeted for Mambilla, every dollar that was committed to Siemens, every tariff that was approved but not collected, every invoice that was issued but not paid—these are not mysteries. They are ledger entries in an accounting system that no one has been compelled to reconcile. The power sector is where the money goes to disappear. The state cannot keep its own lights on, and a bread seller in Kano has even less chance. The answer lies not in generation capacity but in tracing where the money went—and that trail leads directly to prices.

Sources

1. Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC). Grid collapse data, 2010–2022 (n.d.).
2. Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited. Gas supply records (n.d.).
3. World Bank. Energy sector estimates on outage costs (n.d.).
4. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN). Quarterly sectoral surveys (2024).
5. Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE). Privatisation transaction records (2013).
6. Nextier Advisory. Energy sector data on solar capacity (2025).

Chapter 4: The Inflation Trap

In April 2024, food inflation reached 40.53%. By December 2025, it had fallen to 10.84%. Yet 140 million Nigerians remained poor. Something had decoupled prices from welfare.

The Statistical Mirage

The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) recorded headline inflation at 34.80% in December 2024. One month later, in January 2025, it announced a new figure of 24.48%. The food component, which had reached 39.84% in December 2024 under the old series, was not immediately published for January due to methodological transition. By March 2025, food inflation under the new base stood at 21.79%. It fell to 21.14% in May, drifted through the middle of the year, and reached 10.84% by December 2025. Headline inflation followed a similar path: 24.23% in March, 22.97% in May, 22.22% in June, and 15.15% by December. Taken at face value, these numbers suggest a triumph of monetary tightening and fiscal consolidation. They are, at best, half true.

The NBS rebased the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in January 2025, shifting the base year to November 2009 = 100. Rebasing is a routine statistical exercise. The NBS had last rebased in 2009, and the weights assigned to different consumption baskets had become obsolete. Urban consumption patterns had shifted toward services, communication, and housing. Rural markets had changed with the proliferation of mobile money and informal credit. The relative importance of food, clothing, transport, and education in household budgets needed recalibration. All of this is legitimate, and the NBS followed standard international methodology in constructing the new basket. What is not legitimate is to read the drop from 34.80% to 24.48% as evidence that prices had stabilised overnight. The sharp discontinuity was partly a statistical artifact. The NBS itself acknowledged this in its technical notes accompanying the January 2025 release, stating that the new basket reflected updated expenditure patterns and that direct comparison with the old series required caution. The caution was widely ignored in policy announcements and media coverage.

The new CPI basket reduced the weight of food and non-alcoholic beverages from roughly 51% to approximately 38%, while increasing the weight of housing, water, electricity, gas, and other fuels. This matters because food inflation was the most visible and politically sensitive component of the index. A lower weight on food automatically dampens reported headline inflation when food prices are rising faster than other components. It does not mean food became cheaper. It means food became statistically less important, even though it remained the dominant item in actual household expenditure for the bottom 60% of the population. A family in Kano or Aba that spends 60% of its income on food does not experience 15% inflation because its rent and mobile data bills have stabilised. It experiences the inflation of the goods it buys most frequently: rice, beans, garri, palm oil, and bread. The World Bank Nigeria Development Update, April 2026, observed that household incomes had not grown fast enough to offset still-elevated inflation, and that poverty had yet to begin declining. The bank was reading the household budget, not the statistical abstract.

Even accepting the rebased series on its own terms, the trajectory is not straightforward. After the initial drop to 24.48% in January 2025, inflation rose again to 24.23% in March before beginning a gradual descent. Food inflation under the new base was similarly sticky: 21.79% in March, 21.14% in May, and still 21.97% in June. The disinflation that brought food inflation down to 10.84% by December was concentrated in the second half of the year, driven by a stronger naira, lower global food prices, and seasonal harvest effects. But disinflation is not deflation. Prices did not fall. They rose more slowly. A loaf of bread that cost ₦800 in April 2024 and ₦1,100 in December 2024 did not return to ₦800 in December 2025. It might have cost ₦1,250. The difference between 40% inflation and 10% inflation is the difference between a wound that is gaping and a wound that is healing slowly. The patient is still bleeding, and the blood loss is cumulative.

The political economy of inflation reporting in Nigeria deserves scrutiny. The NBS is structurally independent on paper. In practice, its budget depends on the Federal Government, its senior appointments require executive approval, and its major releases are timed with political cycles. The rebasing was announced in January 2025, shortly before the second anniversary of the Tinubu administration, and produced an immediate and dramatic improvement in the headline number. This timing does not prove manipulation. It proves that the government understood the value of a statistical facelift. The NBS technical notes were published alongside the headline figures, but they were not reproduced in press releases. What the public heard was that inflation had fallen by ten percentage points in a month. What the public felt was that prices remained punishingly high. The gap between the heard and the felt is the gap between macroeconomic stabilisation and household welfare.

The Currency Collapse

Behind the inflation numbers lies the naira's collapse. In May 2023, one month before the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) floated the currency, the official exchange rate was ₦461 to the United States dollar. The parallel market traded at roughly ₦780. The gap between official and parallel rates was not a market anomaly. It was a measure of CBN denial. For years, the bank had defended an artificial peg while depleting reserves through backdoor allocations to favoured importers, politically connected enterprises, and opaque government transactions. The fiction ended on 14 June 2023, when the CBN announced a "willing buyer, willing seller" model for the Nigerian Autonomous Foreign Exchange Market (NAFEM). The policy was economically correct in the abstract. In the concrete, it removed the floor from under a currency that had been supported by rationing rather than by earnings.

The float was socially catastrophic in its initial phase. By December 2023, the official rate had reached ₦907 per dollar; the parallel rate, ₦1,215. By December 2024, the naira had fallen to ₦1,535 on the official market and ₦1,656 on the parallel market. The naira had lost roughly 70% of its official value in eighteen months. Every imported input—wheat, fertiliser, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, packaging materials—became significantly more expensive. Nigeria imported over ₦7.6 trillion in food and beverages in 2025, according to NBS data released in March 2026. A currency that depreciates by 70% makes that bill larger in naira terms even if the dollar price of the commodities remains unchanged. Many businesses, unable to source dollars at any price, simply stopped importing. Shelves emptied. Prices of available goods surged. The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) reported in its quarterly surveys for 2024 that capacity utilisation fell as firms could not obtain foreign exchange for spare parts and raw materials. Some shut down entirely.

The CBN under Governor Yemi Cardoso attempted stabilisation through a combination of institutional repair and market intervention. The Electronic Foreign Exchange Matching System (EFEMS) was introduced in December 2024 to replace the opaque multiple-window system that had allowed preferential access. Tighter regulation of Bureau de Change (BDC) operators reduced the speculative activity that had widened the parallel market premium. External reserves rose to $46.17 billion by January 2026, helped by recovered oil production, improved portfolio flows, and a temporary surge in diaspora remittances channelled through formal banking channels. The naira appreciated to ₦1,386 by January 2026 and traded at roughly ₦1,354 by April 2026. The gap between official and parallel rates narrowed to about ₦40 by May 2025. These were genuine improvements. But they were improvements from a position of extreme distress, not a return to stability.

S&P Global predicted in late 2025 that the naira would trade in the ₦1,625–₦1,650 range over 2025–2026, suggesting that the appreciation was fragile and dependent on sustained CBN intervention, oil price levels, and the restraint of fiscal authorities in drawing down reserves. The prediction was not a criticism of CBN policy. It was a recognition that Nigeria's foreign exchange earnings remain narrowly based on oil, that non-oil exports are negligible, and that the country's import structure is deeply inelastic. Nigerians need fuel, food, and medicine regardless of the exchange rate. When the naira strengthens, demand for imports rises, putting pressure back on the currency. The cycle is familiar to every CBN governor since the 1980s.

More importantly, the currency damage was already embedded in the price level. A depreciation of 70% does not reverse itself when the currency recovers by 20%. The cost structures of manufacturers, transporters, and retailers had already been reset. Contracts had been renegotiated. Rental agreements, where they exist in formal commerce, had been adjusted. Wage demands, where they existed in the formal sector, had been pushed upward, albeit insufficiently. The naira's partial recovery in 2025–2026 slowed the rate of future price increases but did not unwind the increases that had already occurred. Inflation fell; prices did not. A household whose rent went from ₦500,000 to ₦900,000 in 2024 did not see it fall back to ₦500,000 in 2025 simply because the naira strengthened. The new price level was the baseline. Disinflation measured the slope of the line, not its altitude.

From Pump to Plate

On 29 May 2023, President Bola Tinubu announced the removal of petrol subsidies in his inaugural address. The decision was fiscally necessary. The subsidy regime had consumed an estimated ₦3 trillion to ₦5 trillion annually, enriching a network of fuel importers, round-trippers, and fraudulent claimants while delivering cheap petrol to a population that was, on average, wealthier than the government could afford to subsidise. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Limited) had become a financing vehicle for opaque differentials rather than a commercial entity. Removing the subsidy was the right policy. Its execution was abrupt, unbuffered, and transmitted instantly into prices across the economy.

Nigeria moves most of its food by road. The railway system is inadequate for agricultural freight. The Lagos-Ibadan standard gauge line, opened in 2021, carries passengers and some containerised cargo, but it does not move tomatoes from Jos to Lagos or yams from Benue to Onitsha. Cold chain logistics are virtually nonexistent outside a few corporate supply networks. This means that perishable produce harvested in the northern food belts reaches southern markets in open trucks, exposed to heat, dust, and handling damage, within 24 to 48 hours. Those trucks run on diesel and petrol. When the pump price of petrol jumped from roughly ₦189 per litre to over ₦600 per litre within weeks of subsidy removal, and diesel followed a similar trajectory, transport costs doubled or tripled depending on the route. The National Association of Road Transport Owners (NARTO) and the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria repeatedly warned that any increase in fuel prices would be passed directly to passengers and cargo shippers. They were not making threats. They were describing arithmetic.

The transmission was rapid and comprehensive. The Lagos-Kano haulage rate for a single truck of agricultural produce, which had been roughly ₦900,000 in early 2023, surged to over ₦2.5 million by late 2023. Farmers in the North, already facing insecurity and rising input costs, could not absorb the transport margin. They passed it to wholesalers. Wholesalers passed it to retailers. Retailers passed it to consumers. By April 2024, food inflation had reached 40.53%, driven by a combination of currency depreciation, fuel cost shock, and supply disruption. The CBN responded with aggressive monetary tightening, raising the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) from 18.75% in July 2024 to 27.25% by November 2024. Higher interest rates made credit expensive for traders, processors, and small manufacturers. The intended effect was to curb aggregate demand. The actual effect was to squeeze working capital in a supply-constrained economy, forcing some distributors out of business, reducing competition in wholesale markets, and concentrating market power in the hands of larger traders who could self-finance.

By 2025, global oil prices had moderated, and the Dangote Refinery, with a nameplate capacity of 650,000 barrels per day, had begun domestic petrol production, reducing Nigeria's dependence on imported refined products. However, the refinery faced regulatory disputes with the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) over crude supply allocations and pricing formulas, delaying the full pass-through of local refining to pump prices. Fuel prices stabilised and even declined slightly in naira terms as the exchange rate improved and local supply increased. But the cost structure of food distribution had been permanently altered. The trucks that were bought when the dollar was ₦900 were financed at those exchange rates. The warehousing that was built or rented during the crisis was contracted at crisis rents. The wages of drivers, loaders, and market porters, while still abysmal in real terms, had been nudged upward by the sheer necessity of survival. Inflation slowed because the rate of cost increase slowed. It did not slow because costs fell. A transport operator who had adjusted his rates to ₦2.5 million per truck did not return to ₦900,000 when diesel became slightly cheaper. He remained at ₦2.2 million, and his customers remained at higher prices.

The subsidy removal also had a secondary effect that is rarely discussed in macroeconomic summaries. It eliminated the implicit transfer that had subsidised not just private vehicle owners but also commercial transport, agricultural processing, and backup power generation. Small rice mills in Kebbi that ran on petrol generators saw their processing costs triple. Cold storage units in Kano that preserved tomatoes for off-season sale shut down because diesel was unaffordable. The loss of subsidised fuel was not merely a price shock. It was a removal of productive infrastructure that had been built on an artificial cost base. When the base collapsed, the infrastructure collapsed with it. Rebuilding it at market prices requires capital that most small processors do not have and cannot borrow at 27% interest.

The Northern Supply Shock

Monetary policy and exchange rate management cannot grow crops that were never planted. In the northern food belts—Zamfara, Katsina, Sokoto, Kaduna, Benue, Plateau, and parts of Niger and Taraba—farming has become a life-threatening occupation. Banditry, kidnapping for ransom, and farmer-herder conflicts have displaced hundreds of thousands of rural households and made large swathes of arable land inaccessible. No updated comprehensive data on internal displacement has been published since 2022, itself a measure of institutional opacity. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the National Commission for Refugees, Migrants, and Internally Displaced Persons (NCFRMI) have published fragmented state-level updates, but a consolidated national displacement survey remains absent. The absence does not mean the displacement has stopped. It means the state has stopped counting, and what the state does not count, it does not address.

The effects on food supply are direct and measurable. In 2019, Nigeria produced roughly 3.5 million metric tonnes of maize. By 2023–2024, output in the worst-affected northern states had fallen by an estimated 30% to 50% according to analyses by the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) and local agricultural extension services. Rice production in Kebbi and Sokoto, once flagship zones for the Anchor Borrowers' Programme, declined as farmers abandoned their fields or shifted to less labour-intensive, less risky crops. The programme itself, administered by the CBN, had been suspended in part due to massive loan defaults and political interference in beneficiary selection. Specific default rates are hard to obtain—another opacity gap. What is known from CBN circulars and parliamentary hearings is that billions of naira disbursed under the programme were not recovered, and that the political connections of beneficiaries were often more important than their farming credentials. The programme did not prevent the north from becoming a net importer of grains that it once exported to neighbouring countries.

The supply shortfall was not compensated by a surge in domestic production from safer regions. Southern states have higher rainfall and, in some cases, better soil, but they lack the mechanised farming infrastructure, storage facilities, and transport links to replace northern output at scale. Post-harvest losses remain severe. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that Nigeria loses up to 40% of perishable food production due to poor storage and handling, though this figure is difficult to verify independently and may overstate or understate the actual loss depending on the commodity and region. What is not in doubt is that the combination of insecurity in the north and logistical failure everywhere else has made food more expensive regardless of monetary conditions. A CBN governor can raise interest rates to 30%. He cannot plant millet in Zamfara at gunpoint.

In this environment, the ₦7.6 trillion food import bill for 2025 is both a symptom and a cause of inflation. It is a symptom because domestic production failed. It is a cause because every dollar spent on imported rice, wheat, and fish must be bought with a naira that had already collapsed and was only partially recovering. NBS data from March 2026 showed that processed food imports for industrial use grew by 19.46% year-on-year in 2025, suggesting that even domestic manufacturing of food products had become import-dependent. The decline in food inflation to 10.84% by December 2025 coexisted with rising food import dependence. The price stabilisation reflected import volumes, currency appreciation, and seasonal factors, not a domestic agricultural recovery. Nigeria was eating its way out of inflation with borrowed foreign exchange and imported calories. When the naira weakens again, or when global food prices rise, the country will be exactly where it was in 2024, with no larger domestic productive base to cushion the shock.

The Decoupling

The World Bank Nigeria Development Update, April 2026, estimated that 63% of Nigerians—approximately 140 million people—lived below the poverty line in 2025. This was up from 56% in 2023 and 61% in 2024. Poverty rose while inflation fell. The decoupling is the central fact of Nigerian macroeconomics in this period, and it demands an explanation that monetary policy cannot provide. The explanation has three parts: arithmetic, structure, and institutional failure.

The arithmetic is simple and routinely misunderstood. Inflation measures the rate of change of prices. Poverty measures the level of household consumption relative to a minimum threshold. If prices rise by 40% in one year and by 10% the next, the second year is a year of disinflation. But the price level is now 54% higher than it was two years ago. A household whose income rose by 5% per year over the same period is poorer in real terms, even during the disinflation. The NBS does not publish regular real wage indices. No updated national labour force survey has been published since the fourth quarter of 2020, itself a measure of institutional opacity. But fragmentary data from MAN quarterly surveys, from payroll analyses by private firms such as Jobberman Nigeria, and from the World Bank's own household monitoring suggest that nominal wage growth in both formal and informal sectors lagged inflation throughout 2023 and 2024, and only partially caught up in 2025. Catching up to a moving target is not prosperity. It is slower impoverishment. A worker who earned ₦70,000 per month in 2023 and received a raise to ₦85,000 in 2025 experienced a nominal increase of 21%. Over the same period, the price level rose by more than 50%. His purchasing power fell by roughly a third. The fact that prices were now rising at 10% rather than 40% did not restore what he had lost.

The structural explanation is more consequential. Most poor Nigerians work in agriculture and informal services. Their incomes are not denominated in naira on a monthly payslip. They are denominated in bags of rice, baskets of tomatoes, and daily cash turnover that evaporates when customers have less to spend. When food inflation surged in 2024, these households faced a double squeeze. First, the crops they sold did not rise in price as fast as the food they bought, because middlemen, transporters, and market toll collectors captured the margin. Second, their non-agricultural income fell as urban customers retrenched. When inflation fell in 2025, the crops they sold did not rise in price at all, because import competition and subdued demand kept local prices flat. Disinflation in an import-dependent economy with surplus labour is not a welfare gain. It is a price squeeze on domestic producers. The farmer who sold maize at ₦40,000 per bag in 2024 and saw the price fall to ₦35,000 in 2025 did not benefit from lower inflation. He suffered from it.

The institutional explanation completes the picture. The government saved an estimated ₦3 trillion to ₦5 trillion annually by removing petrol subsidies. Those savings were partly absorbed by debt service, which reached approximately ₦16 trillion in 2025, according to the Debt Management Office (DMO). What remained was channelled into capital projects, some of which were real and some of which existed only in budget documents that were never fully implemented. The cash transfer programmes—particularly the Household Uplifting Programme (HUP) and the National Social Safety Nets Project (NASSP)—reached only a fraction of the poor. The World Bank's April 2026 report emphasised that cash transfers must be paired with productive employment creation to have durable effects. They were not. The transfers were too small, too sporadic, and too politically mediated to offset the income loss from subsidy removal and currency depreciation. A one-time payment of ₦25,000 does not compensate for a permanent increase in transport costs of ₦2,000 per week.

The result is that Nigerian macroeconomic stabilisation in 2025 resembled a medical procedure performed without anaesthetic. The patient's vital signs improved on the monitor. The blood pressure of prices came down. The heart rate of currency volatility slowed. But the patient remained on the floor, malnourished and untreated, because the procedure addressed the symptoms of fiscal and monetary disorder without addressing the underlying condition of mass underemployment and collapsed domestic production. The World Bank noted in its April 2026 update that growth in services and industry had lagged agriculture, where most poor Nigerians work, thereby constraining poverty reduction. In other words, the sectors that were stabilising were not the sectors where the poor earned their living. Financial services and telecommunications grew. Tomato farming and roadside trading did not.

There is no automatic recovery. Falling inflation does not restore lost wages. A stronger naira does not replant abandoned fields. Lower interest rates, when they eventually come, will not rebuild the cold storage units that shut down in 2023. The price level has been reset at a higher plateau. Welfare has been reset at a lower one. The gap between them is the inflation trap—not the temporary spike in prices, but the permanent erosion of purchasing power that persists after the spike subsides. Macroeconomic stabilisation without production recovery is a statistician's victory and a household's defeat.

The decoupling has a name: jobs without wages, and wages without work. To understand it, we must enter the labour market—the most poorly measured space in Nigerian economics.

Sources

1. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Consumer Price Index and inflation data (December 2024).
2. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Consumer Price Index rebasing technical notes (January 2025).
3. World Bank. Nigeria Development Update (April 2026).
4. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Trade statistics on food and beverages imports (March 2026).
5. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN). Quarterly sectoral surveys (2024).
6. S&P Global. Naira exchange rate forecast (late 2025).
7. National Association of Road Transport Owners (NARTO) and Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria. Fuel price and transport cost warnings (n.d.).
8. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Monetary Policy Rate decisions (2024).
9. Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA). Regulatory disputes (n.d.).
10. International Organization for Migration (IOM) and National Commission for Refugees, Migrants, and Internally Displaced Persons (NCFRMI). Displacement updates (n.d.).
11. Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET). Agricultural output analyses (n.d.).
12. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Anchor Borrowers' Programme records (n.d.).
13. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Post-harvest loss estimates (n.d.).
14. Jobberman Nigeria. Payroll and wage analyses (n.d.).
15. Debt Management Office (DMO). Debt service data (2025).

Chapter 5: The Missing Jobs

The Last Known Position

The last time Nigeria published a national unemployment survey was the fourth quarter of 2020. Since then, an entire generation has entered the labour market in statistical darkness. On that final survey, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) recorded an unemployment rate of 33.3 percent. Among Nigerians aged 15 to 34, the figure was 53.4 percent. For those with post-secondary education, the rate was 40.1 percent — a devastating indicator that schooling was not translating into work. In urban areas, where graduates congregate, the rate was even higher. Those were the last official numbers. No updated national labour force survey has been published since Q4 2020 — itself a measure of institutional opacity.

What happened in the years that followed is not unknown because it is unknowable. It is unknown because the state stopped counting. The NBS has released other data — consumer price indices, gross domestic product estimates, trade statistics — but the labour force survey, the instrument that tells a country who is working, who is looking for work, and who has simply given up, fell silent. This is not a bureaucratic delay. It is a policy choice. A government that does not measure unemployment does not have to answer for it.

The timing of the silence is not accidental. The Q4 2020 survey was published in March 2021, at the tail end of the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave. By then, the damage was already severe. The NBS reported that 23.2 million Nigerians were unemployed or underemployed. Youth unemployment had doubled since 2014. The underemployment rate — those working fewer than 20 hours a week or in work far below their skill level — stood at 22.8 percent nationally. These were not figures any administration would welcome. Instead of fixing the labour market, successive governments fixed the optics by simply ceasing to publish.

The 2020 survey contained other details that should have alarmed policymakers. The unemployment rate among Nigerians with advanced education was higher than among those with only primary schooling — a pattern that inverts the normal relationship between education and employment. In a functioning labour market, more education correlates with better job prospects. In Nigeria, it correlated with frustration. The graduate who spent four years studying computer science and emerged to find no software firm hiring was worse off than the apprentice who learned carpentry and opened a small workshop. The education premium had become an education penalty.

The survey also revealed stark regional divergences. The South-South and Southeast recorded unemployment rates above the national average, while the Northwest and Northeast, though lower in strict unemployment, had higher rates of underemployment disguised as agricultural work. The North's lower unemployment rate was not a sign of economic health. It was a sign that northern youth had fewer alternatives to fall back on. They did not become unemployed because they never had the option of formal employment in the first place. The data, in other words, measured not just joblessness but the absence of hope.

The absence is particularly devastating because of what it conceals. Between 2020 and 2025, Nigeria added roughly 20 million people to its population. The United Nations Population Division estimated Nigeria's population at approximately 223 million in 2025, with roughly 60 percent under the age of 25. Each year, approximately 4 to 5 million young Nigerians reach working age. They emerge from universities, polytechnics, technical colleges, and apprenticeships into an economy that has not been measured with sufficient granularity to know whether it absorbs even a fraction of them. The NBS knows how much rice costs. It does not know how many of its young people have work.

There are proxies, of course, but proxies are not substitutes. The NBS Multidimensional Poverty Index, published in 2022 and based on surveys conducted between November 2021 and February 2022, found that 63 percent of Nigerians — 133 million people — were multidimensionally poor. The World Bank Nigeria Development Update, April 2026, projected that poverty had risen to 63 percent by 2025, encompassing approximately 140 million people. Poverty and unemployment are not the same variable, but they move together. A country where two in three citizens are poor is not a country where jobs are abundant. The absence of labour force data simply spares policymakers the embarrassment of confirming what the poverty figures already imply.

The NBS is not the only institution that has retreated. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), under Governor Yemi Cardoso, has focused on monetary stabilisation — exchange rate management, inflation targeting, and foreign exchange market reforms. These are legitimate priorities. But monetary policy cannot create jobs. It can only create the conditions under which job creation might occur. Without labour market data, even that modest claim cannot be tested. The CBN tightens interest rates to control inflation. It does not know how many borrowers are small businesses that employ five people. It floats the naira to attract investment. It does not know how many exporters exist outside the oil sector, or how many people they employ. The policy apparatus is flying blind, and the altimeter was deliberately unplugged.

Modelled Optimism

Into this void step the modelled estimates. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) publishes unemployment figures for Nigeria through its ILOSTAT database. In recent years, these estimates have ranged from approximately 3 to 5 percent. At first glance, this seems to describe a different country entirely — an economy with modest frictional unemployment rather than a crisis of mass joblessness. The discrepancy is not an error. It is a methodological divergence that reveals more about the poverty of Nigerian statistics than about the health of its labour market.

The ILO applies a narrow definition: the unemployed are those who are without work, currently available for work, and actively seeking work. In Nigeria, this definition captures almost no one. A young graduate who spends six months searching for a formal position and then starts selling phone accessories from a cart is not unemployed by ILO standards. She is employed — informally, precariously, and without social protection, but employed. A former factory worker who loses his job and returns to his village to farm family land is not unemployed. He is engaged in subsistence agriculture. The ILO model, applied to a labour market where formal jobs are scarce and survival strategies are universal, produces an unemployment rate that would be the envy of Germany. It is statistically correct and analytically useless.

The divergence matters because these modelled estimates are what international investors, development agencies, and policymakers consume. A portfolio manager in London looking at Nigeria sees a 4 percent unemployment rate and concludes that labour is tight, wages are rising, and the consumer class is expanding. He does not see the graduate driving a commercial tricycle because there is no office job. A bilateral aid agency sees low unemployment and redirects funding from employment programmes to financial sector reform. The models do not lie, but they answer the wrong question. They ask how many people are without work and seeking it. They do not ask how many people are with work that cannot sustain them.

The ILO models also miss the phenomenon of discouraged workers — those who have stopped looking because looking is futile. In the NBS 2020 survey, this group was substantial and growing. A graduate who has sent 200 job applications without a single interview eventually stops sending. A mother who cannot afford transport to job centres stops going. By ILO definition, they are not unemployed. They are outside the labour force, as if their absence were voluntary rather than forced. The models treat despair as choice.

The NBS 2020 survey used a broader definition, closer to the reality of underemployment and discouraged work-seeking that characterises Nigerian labour markets. Its 33.3 percent figure included those working fewer hours than they wished, those whose skills were mismatched to their work, and those who had abandoned the search. When the NBS stopped publishing, the ILO models continued, generating numbers that bear no resemblance to lived experience. The lesson is not that the ILO is wrong. The lesson is that without primary data collection, models become fiction dressed in decimal points. Nigeria has chosen fiction.

The Arithmetic of Despair

The demography is unforgiving. With approximately 4 to 5 million new entrants to the labour market each year, the economy must create that many jobs simply to keep the unemployment rate stable. It does not. No Nigerian administration has presided over net job creation at that scale. The World Bank's April 2026 Nigeria Development Update noted that growth in services and industry has lagged agriculture, constraining poverty reduction. What the report described politely is that the sectors capable of absorbing mass labour — manufacturing, construction, formal services — are either stagnant or contracting relative to the population.

Agriculture remains the largest employer, absorbing roughly a third of the labour force by some estimates. But agricultural employment in Nigeria is largely subsistence — smallholders farming less than two hectares, without irrigation, mechanism, or reliable market access. It is not a destination. It is a last resort. The young person who returns to the family farm is not choosing agriculture. He is admitting that the formal economy has no place for him. The World Bank's 2026 report emphasises that cash transfers must be paired with productive employment creation, recognising that keeping people alive is not the same as giving them work.

Where, then, do these millions go? They do not register as unemployed in ILO databases. They do not claim benefits, because no benefits exist to claim. They enter what economists politely call the informal sector and what Nigerians call survival. They become okada riders when motorcycle bans permit it, and delivery agents when they do not. They sell sachet water in traffic. They sew clothes in rooms without electricity. They repair phones with tools bought on credit. They hawk gala and soft drinks in Lagos traffic jams. They wash cars. They carry loads in markets. They braid hair on verandas. They bake bread in wood-fired ovens. They do not vanish. They adapt.

The scale of this invisible economy is staggering, though the exact figures are disputed. The Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN) and the NBS have widely circulated the claim that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) account for 96 percent of businesses, 48 percent of GDP, and 84 percent of employment. These figures are ubiquitous in policy documents and investment prospectuses. They are also undated and lack recent verification. No comprehensive enterprise survey has confirmed them in the context of post-2020 economic upheaval. They may be directionally correct — the informal sector certainly dominates Nigerian employment — but their precision is suspect. The book repeats them here only with this caveat: in the absence of fresh data, even the most frequently cited statistics are hypotheses.

What is not hypothetical is the texture of informal work. It is not a transitional phase on the way to formal employment. It is a permanent condition for most who enter it. The informal worker pays no income tax, but she also receives no pension, no health insurance, no maternity leave, and no protection against arbitrary dismissal. She is outside the law not because she is lawless, but because the law has never bothered to reach her. The state does not regulate her hours, inspect her workplace, or guarantee her wages. In exchange, it does not provide her with electricity, credit, or security. This is not a social contract. It is the absence of one.

The gender dimension compounds the injustice. Women are disproportionately represented in the informal sector, particularly in petty trading, food processing, and domestic services. They face additional constraints: limited access to land, exclusion from credit networks dominated by male guarantors, and the unpaid burden of childcare and household labour that formal employers do not accommodate. An unemployment survey that does not measure informality is bad enough. One that does not measure gendered informality is blind in both eyes.

Another layer of survival is diaspora remittances. The CBN estimates that Nigerians abroad send home approximately $20 billion annually. These flows do not create jobs directly, but they sustain households that would otherwise collapse. A family in Anambra State whose son works in Houston can afford school fees, medical bills, and petty trading capital. A family without such a lifeline has none of these. The informal economy is thus subsidised by the global dispersal of Nigerian labour — the export of workers whose remittances keep those who remain alive. It is a labour market strategy, but it is not a development strategy.

What Remains of Formal Work

If the informal sector is where most Nigerians work, the formal sector is where the few who remain are increasingly besieged. The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) publishes quarterly sectoral surveys that track capacity utilisation, self-generation costs, and input prices. These surveys are among the most reliable real-time indicators of industrial health available in the country, and they document a sector in chronic distress.

MAN's quarterly reports have consistently recorded capacity utilisation rates well below what would be considered healthy for a developing economy aspiring to industrialisation. The precise figure fluctuates by quarter and subsector, but the trend is unmistakable: Nigerian manufacturers operate far below their installed capacity. The reasons are not mysterious. Power outages remain the single largest constraint. As documented in the preceding chapter, manufacturers spent a record ₦1 trillion on self-generation in 2024. The World Bank estimates that power outages cost Nigeria approximately $29 billion annually, roughly 10 percent of GDP. For a factory manager, this is not an abstract statistic. It is the difference between running two shifts and running one.

Beyond energy, the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria has documented relentless pressure from input costs — imported raw materials priced in dollars at exchange rates that moved from ₦461 per dollar in May 2023 to approximately ₦1,354 per dollar by April 2026. The naira float, however necessary as macroeconomic policy, transmitted immediately into production costs. MAN has consistently opposed currency devaluations and value-added tax increases, arguing that they raise input costs without a corresponding improvement in the operating environment. The association's position is not special pleading. It is the voice of an employer class that is being asked to hire more workers while its own survival is in question.

The result is that formal employment, never abundant, has become a shrinking refuge. Real wages in the formal sector have declined. The NBS does not publish regular wage data, but the evidence is everywhere: public sector workers whose salaries have not kept pace with inflation; private sector employees whose contracts are denominated in naira while their cost of living is denominated in devalued purchasing power; companies that freeze hiring, delay promotions, or quietly downsize. The formal sector is not a ladder out of poverty. It is a ledge, and the ledge is crumbling.

The public sector, once a reliable employer of graduates, has contracted under fiscal pressure. The Federal Government's 2025 budget allocated ₦16 trillion to debt service — more than was spent on capital expenditure, education, and health combined. In this fiscal environment, civil service expansion is impossible. Recruitment freezes are common. Existing workers are not replaced when they retire. The states are in worse condition. Many rely on federal allocations that arrive irregularly and in depreciated naira. Some owe salaries for months. A young Nigerian who aspires to teach, to nurse, to administer — the traditional pathways of lower-middle-class stability — finds the door not merely closed but bricked over.

Even the construction sector, which in other developing economies absorbs large numbers of semi-skilled workers, has failed to scale in Nigeria. Infrastructure spending is concentrated in a few high-profile projects — the Lagos-Ibadan railway, the Lekki Deep Sea Port — but these are capital-intensive, not labour-intensive. They employ heavy equipment and imported expertise more than they employ Nigerian bricklayers, welders, and masons. The multiplier effect on employment is weaker than the ribbon-cutting ceremonies suggest.

The Digital Exception

There is one sector that appears to defy this narrative. Nigerian technology companies have attracted global attention and capital. Flutterwave, founded in 2016, processes payments across Africa. Paystack, acquired by Stripe for $200 million in 2020, remains a leading payment gateway. Andela, before its pivot away from pure talent placement, trained and placed thousands of African software developers with global technology firms. These are genuine success stories. They are also statistically irrelevant to the labour market as a whole.

The total employment generated by Nigeria's technology ecosystem — including fintech, e-commerce, software development, and digital services — is measured in the tens of thousands. It is not measured in millions. The sector is highly skill-intensive, requiring levels of education, internet access, and technical training that exclude the vast majority of labour market entrants. It is concentrated in Lagos and a handful of other urban centres. It is, in other words, an exception that proves the rule: the Nigerian economy can create high-quality employment for a tiny elite, but it cannot create mass employment at any quality level.

This is not an argument against technology. It is an argument against using technology as a distraction from the structural problem. When policymakers point to Flutterwave as evidence that Nigerian youth are thriving, they are telling a true story about a few thousand people to avoid telling a true story about tens of millions. The digital economy is real. It is also tiny, exclusionary, and geographically concentrated. It cannot absorb the annual cohort of 4 to 5 million new workers. Nothing in the current economic structure can.

The skill gap is itself a symptom of institutional failure. Nigeria's universities graduate hundreds of thousands of students annually, but the quality of education has deteriorated. Laboratories lack equipment. Libraries lack books. Lecturers strike for months at a time, and semesters stretch into years. A graduate who cannot write coherent prose or perform basic arithmetic is not equipped for a technology job, no matter how many coding boot camps the private sector sponsors. Andela and its peers succeeded not because Nigeria's education system produced them, but because they identified exceptional individuals despite the system, not because of it.

Broadband penetration, a prerequisite for digital work, remains limited. The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) reports broadband penetration at roughly 45 to 50 percent, but this figure includes mobile connections with unreliable speeds. A data entry clerk in rural Oyo State does not have the bandwidth to compete for remote work with a counterpart in Nairobi or Accra. The digital economy is not merely exclusionary by skill. It is exclusionary by infrastructure, and the infrastructure gap is widening.

The Formalisation Trap

The policy response to informality has followed a predictable orthodoxy: formalise, register, regulate, and tax. The logic is seductive. If 80 percent or more of employment is informal, bringing even a fraction into the tax net would dramatically broaden the revenue base. The new tax law signed in June 2025 and effective January 2026 aims to raise Nigeria's tax-to-GDP ratio from its current low base toward 18 percent. The Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) collected a record ₦21.6 trillion in 2024, a 76 percent increase from 2023. The state is getting better at collecting money. The question is whether it has earned the right to collect it from those who receive nothing in return.

Consider what formalisation demands of a street vendor in Ibadan. She must register her business, keep accounts, file returns, and remit taxes. In exchange, the state offers her what, exactly? Electricity? The national grid collapses with such regularity that the Presidency spent ₦10 billion to take Aso Rock Villa off it. Credit? The Bank of Industry (BOI) publishes annual reports on SME lending, but the vast majority of informal operators have no collateral, no credit history, and no relationship with a formal financial institution. Security? In many parts of Nigeria, the state cannot protect its own police stations. Contract enforcement? The judicial system is congested, slow, and expensive. The informal sector has not opted out of the state. The state has failed to provide the public goods that would make formal participation rational.

The tax reform law of 2025 includes a gradual increase in value-added tax (VAT) and the streamlining of multiple taxes at federal and state levels. The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria has opposed VAT increases, arguing that they raise input costs for formal businesses already struggling with energy and forex pressures. State governments have also resisted, fearing a loss of revenue autonomy. The debate has been framed as a federalism dispute, but for informal operators, it is irrelevant. They do not pay VAT. They do not file corporate tax returns. They are not in the debate because the debate assumes a formal economy that does not include them.

This is the formalisation trap. Policymakers treat informality as tax evasion, a moral failure of citizens who refuse to contribute. But informality is better understood as a rational adaptation to state incapacity. The bread seller in Kano does not refuse to pay tax because she is dishonest. She refuses because she has seen what the state delivers to those who do pay: roads that crumble, hospitals without drugs, schools without teachers, and a power grid that dies monthly. She has calculated, correctly, that her money is safer in her own pocket than in the federation account.

Local government authorities compound the problem. In many states, local councils impose levies on informal operators — market fees, hawking permits, environmental charges — that bear no relationship to service delivery. These are not taxes in the fiscal sense. They are extortion, collected by officials who provide nothing in return and punish non-compliance with confiscation or violence. The informal operator who pays these levies does not become formal. She simply becomes poorer. The state that cannot meter electricity has no moral standing to meter her cart.

The Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access (EFInA) organisation publishes annual surveys on access to financial services in Nigeria. These surveys consistently find that informal operators remain outside the formal banking system not because they are ignorant of its benefits, but because the system is not designed for them. A market woman who deposits her daily earnings in a savings group with her peers is not financially illiterate. She is financially rational. The formal bank requires a minimum balance she cannot maintain, documentation she does not have, and branches she cannot reach. Her informal savings group charges no fees, requires no paperwork, and meets under the same tree where she sells her goods. The state that wants to tax her has not built a bank that can serve her.

Some labour economists have argued that the informal sector is not a problem to be solved but a resilient adaptation to state failure. Attempts to force formalisation — through taxation, regulation, or harassment by local government authorities — without delivering services in return may destroy livelihoods without creating replacements. A tax collector who shuts down an unregistered shop but cannot provide the conditions for a registered shop to survive is not expanding the economy. He is shrinking it.

The tragedy is that the informal sector contains genuine productive capacity. The carpenter who builds furniture without a workshop, the tailor who sews without reliable light, the trader who moves goods across states on roads that wreck her vehicle — these are not parasites. They are entrepreneurs operating under conditions that would bankrupt a formal business. They are, in a sense, the most efficient sector of the Nigerian economy, because they survive despite the state rather than because of it. Their productivity is invisible in GDP calculations, uncounted in employment surveys, and ignored in policy design. They are the missing jobs — not missing because they do not exist, but missing because the state has never bothered to see them.

Those who cannot find formal work do not vanish. They build an invisible economy that the state neither serves nor understands. And now the state wants to tax them.

Sources

1. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). National labour force survey, fourth quarter 2020 (published 2021).
2. United Nations Population Division. Population estimates for Nigeria (2025).
3. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Multidimensional Poverty Index (2022).
4. World Bank. Nigeria Development Update (April 2026).
5. International Labour Organisation (ILO). ILOSTAT database (n.d.).
6. Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN) and National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). SME sector statistics (n.d.).
7. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Diaspora remittance estimates (n.d.).
8. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN). Quarterly sectoral surveys (n.d.).
9. World Bank. Energy sector estimates on outage costs (n.d.).
10. Federal Government of Nigeria. 2025 appropriation budget (2025).
11. Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC). Broadband penetration data (n.d.).
12. Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS). Tax collection statistics (2024).
13. Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access (EFInA). Annual surveys on access to financial services (n.d.).

Chapter 6: Broken Bridges

The World Bank says Nigeria needs $100 billion in infrastructure investment every year for thirty years. In 2025, the Federal Government spent ₦16 trillion on debt service alone. Infrastructure is not underfunded because money is missing. It is underfunded because money is misspent.

The Fiscal Trap

According to the Debt Management Office (DMO), Nigeria's total public debt stock reached ₦159.28 trillion by December 2025. Servicing that debt cost approximately ₦16 trillion in the same year, a 22.9 per cent increase over the ₦13.02 trillion spent in 2024. Of the 2025 debt service figure, domestic obligations consumed ₦8.61 trillion, of which 95.7 per cent was interest rather than principal repayment. External debt service added another $5.15 billion, roughly ₦7.39 trillion at prevailing exchange rates. The DMO's Medium-Term Debt Strategy 2024–2027 raised the debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ceiling from 40 per cent to 60 per cent, creating headroom that the government has used with evident enthusiasm.

Against this ledger, the World Bank's estimate that Nigeria requires $100 billion annually in infrastructure spending for three decades is not a policy recommendation. It is a statement of arithmetic impossibility. At the official exchange rate of approximately ₦1,386 to the dollar in January 2026, $100 billion translates to roughly ₦138.6 trillion per year—almost the entire debt stock, spent repeatedly, just to build and maintain roads, rails, ports, and power stations. The Federal Government does not have that money. What it has is a creditor list, a depreciating naira, and a political calendar that rewards ribbon-cutting over maintenance.

The Tinubu administration claimed in October 2025 that the debt service-to-revenue ratio had fallen from 97 per cent to below 50 per cent. Independent analysts disputed this, noting that the denominator—revenue—had been inflated by naira depreciation and windfall taxes rather than by structural improvements in collection. Whether the true figure is 50 per cent or 97 per cent, the reality is the same: Nigeria is borrowing to pay interest, and the interest is crowding out the capital expenditure that might have built the bridges, roads, and grids that make an economy function. In 2025, the Federal Government's total budget allocated ₦5.42 trillion to infrastructure across all ministries—power, works, transportation, aviation, water resources, and housing—representing just 9.85 per cent of the total budget. Of that, ₦2.21 trillion went to the Federal Ministry of Works alone. These figures sound substantial until they are placed beside the ₦16 trillion consumed by debt service. Works received roughly 14 per cent of what debt service received. The arithmetic is not complicated. It is merely cruel.

The gap between appropriation and release is where capital projects go to die. The Federal Ministry of Transportation was allocated ₦256.73 billion in the 2025 Appropriation Act, according to BudgIT's 2025 Federal Budget Analysis. Of that, capital releases stood at roughly one per cent and were largely not cash-backed, Minister of Transportation Senator Saidu Ahmed Alkali told a joint committee of the National Assembly in February 2026. The Nigerian Institute of Transport Technology and the Federal University of Transportation, Daura, recorded average overhead utilisation of about 57 per cent with no capital releases at all. The Ministry of Power fared worse: Minister Adebayo Adelabu confirmed in February 2026 that the ministry received zero capital release in 2025. Across the entire Federal Government, ₦18.53 trillion was appropriated for capital expenditure, yet only ₦834.8 billion was released to Ministries, Departments, and Agencies between January and July 2025—a 7.72 per cent performance against the pro rata benchmark, according to Budget Office data cited by Punch in February 2026. The government subsequently directed that 70 per cent of unspent 2025 capital allocations be rolled over into 2026. The projects that were deferred include the Abuja–Kaduna–Zaria–Kano expressway reconstruction, the completion of the Lagos–Ibadan Expressway, and the East–West Road dualisation. They will wait another year, or longer, while the debt service clock keeps running.

The DMO publishes the debt figures quarterly. The Budget Office, which should publish capital project execution rates with equal regularity, has not released a Budget Implementation Report beyond the third quarter of 2024. No updated capital execution data has been published since then— itself a measure of institutional opacity. A state that cannot tell its citizens what percentage of the roads budget was actually spent is a state that cannot be held accountable for the roads that remain unbuilt. The absence of data is not an administrative oversight. It is a political choice.

The Port That Half Works

The Lekki Deep Sea Port opened in April 2023 on a $1.5 billion investment within the Lagos Free Trade Zone. It is, by the hardware standards of West African maritime infrastructure, an impressive facility. The port has a draft of 16.5 metres, super post-Panamax cranes, drive-through cargo scanners, and automated gate systems. In its first year of operations, it handled over 200,000 Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs). By 2025, it accounted for 40.6 per cent of Nigeria's cargo throughput, driving a 24.8 per cent surge in total port volumes to 129.3 million metric tonnes. Vessel turnaround time at Lekki averaged one day, compared with a national average of 4.0 days, down from 5.1 days in 2022.

These are real achievements. They are also the beginning of the story, not the end. In March 2025, Ramesh Saraf, Deputy Managing Director of CMA CGM Nigeria, stated publicly that operating costs at Lekki were triple those of comparable ports worldwide. The port, he noted, began operations at less than half capacity and had since seen activity decline further. A 15 per cent increase in port and marine fees by the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) pushed transshipment costs at Lekki to more than three times the level at competing ports in Ghana and Cotonou. The result, according to Saraf, was that Nigerian importers and exporters were diverting cargo to neighbouring ports and smuggling goods back across the border. A 20-foot container that cost ₦55,000 before the hike now cost ₦145,000, excluding port charges and logistics fees. A 40-foot container rose from ₦100,000 to ₦290,000.

The Lekki port is therefore a case study in the Nigerian infrastructure paradox: build a world-class facility, then price it out of competitiveness with policy decisions made elsewhere in government. The port's private concessionaire—Lekki Port LFTZ Enterprise Limited, led by Managing Director Wang Qiang—has projected a $361 billion economic impact over the 45-year concession period and $201 billion in taxes, royalties, and duties. These projections assume the port reaches capacity and retains cargo that is currently being priced away. The institutional architecture that built the port did not coordinate with the institutional architecture that sets port fees. The left hand built a highway; the right hand erected a tollgate higher than the road.

The strategy of pushing cargo inland has produced its own disappointments. The inland dry ports at Kaduna, Kano, Ibadan, and Funtua were commissioned to decongest Lagos by moving customs clearance and container storage closer to northern and western manufacturing centres. In June 2024, a trial run transported containers from Apapa to Dala Inland Dry Port in Kano via the rehabilitated narrow-gauge rail line. The journey took several days. Without reliable standard-gauge rail connections or dedicated freight corridors, the inland dry ports remain dependent on the same road network that was already saturated. A truck carrying a 40-foot container from Lagos to Kano faces over 1,000 kilometres of potholed federal highway, multiple security checkpoints, and unpredictable delays. The dry ports have the fences, the scanners, and the customs officials. What they lack is the connecting infrastructure that would make them economically rational. They are, in effect, warehouses at the end of broken supply chains.

The older ports at Apapa and Tin Can Island illustrate what happens when infrastructure is built and then abandoned to political management. For decades, those ports were synonymous with congestion, demurrage charges, and unofficial fees. The 2018 World Bank estimate that port inefficiencies cost Nigeria $19 billion annually was not a hypothetical figure. It was the accumulated cost of vessels waiting at anchor, trucks idling at gates, and cargo trapped in customs limbo. Lekki was supposed to solve this. Instead, it risks replicating the same pattern at a higher elevation: modern equipment hobbled by policy pricing, automation undermined by manual fee hikes, and private investment held hostage to public revenue targets that treat the port as a cash cow rather than a trade enabler. The public-private partnership (PPP) model that delivered Lekki is often cited as a template for Nigerian infrastructure. It is, instead, a warning: private capital will build what the state cannot, but it cannot protect that investment from the state's own appetite for arbitrary fees and uncoordinated policy.

Rails and Derailments

The Lagos–Ibadan standard gauge railway opened in June 2021, spanning 157 kilometres with an additional 7-kilometre branch line, built by the China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) at a cost of approximately $1.5 billion. By March 2024, the line had operated for 1,000 days and transported over 2 million passengers. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) data for 2025 show that rail passenger traffic across all Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC) lines reached 3.89 million, generating ₦7.77 billion in revenue. The NRC exceeded its 2025 passenger revenue target of ₦7 billion, collecting ₦7.46 billion—an 11 per cent overrun. Freight revenue climbed to ₦3.02 billion in 2025, up from ₦347.8 million in 2021, a near tenfold increase in four years. In the first quarter of 2025 alone, the NRC moved 181,520 tons of cargo, up 13 per cent year-on-year.

These numbers suggest a railway system finding its economic footing. They also obscure who is doing the work. In October 2024, the NRC granted CCECC a three-year licence to operate freight services on the Lagos–Ibadan line—the first standard-gauge freight licence issued in Nigeria. In February 2025, the NRC and APM Terminals Apapa relaunched the Apapa–Ibadan freight service on a fixed schedule. The passenger and freight growth is real, but much of it is being delivered by concessionaires and contractors because the NRC lacks the rolling stock, the maintenance culture, and the institutional memory to do the job itself. The Lagos–Ibadan line works, in part, because it is new. Whether it will still work in 2035 depends on whether the NRC maintains the track, the signalling, and the rolling stock with the same precision that CCECC used to build them.

The dependence on concessionaires is not a policy preference. It is a necessity born of institutional incapacity. In 2025, the NRC was allocated ₦39.18 billion, of which only ₦1 billion was earmarked for spare parts—including lubricants for locomotives, coaches, and wagons—and ₦2.79 billion for railway rehabilitation and repairs, according to the corporation's 2025 budget proposal reported by Railway Supply in January 2025. The 2026 budget proposal, analysed by The PUNCH in January 2026, shows the situation worsening: total allocation fell to ₦34.24 billion, with spare parts procurement cut to ₦700 million while personnel costs consumed ₦22.38 billion. The NRC has not recruited sufficient engineers in over a decade. Its training programmes, administered through the Nigerian Institute of Transport Technology in Zaria, graduated over 6,000 professionals in 2024, but the corporation's own staff rarely benefit from refresher courses. When tracks are washed out by heavy rains, as NRC Managing Director Dr. Kayode Opeifa acknowledged in May 2025, the corporation lacks the emergency response capacity to repair them promptly. Procurement of original equipment manufacturer parts requires six to nine months of bureaucratic navigation through the Federal Ministry of Transportation and the Bureau of Public Procurement. By the time the purchase order is approved, the defective component has often damaged adjacent systems. The NRC does not need more lines. It needs a procurement system that can deliver a sleeper before the next derailment.

The Abuja–Kaduna corridor offers a preview of what happens when that precision is absent. Opened in July 2016 at a cost of $874 million—$500 million financed by China's EXIM Bank—the 186-kilometre line was Nigeria's first standard-gauge railway and its most politically visible. On 28 March 2022, armed terrorists bombed the track near Katari in Kaduna State, causing a train carrying approximately 970 passengers to derail. At least eight passengers were killed in the initial attack, and 63 were officially declared abducted, though some reports placed the number higher. The NRC suspended services for eight months. Services resumed in December 2022 under heavy armed escort, with CCTV (closed-circuit television) installations and military patrols.

Security was not the only problem. On 26 August 2025, a train derailed at Asham Station on the same corridor, injuring 21 passengers. A preliminary report by the National Safety Investigation Bureau (NSIB), released in September 2025, attributed the derailment to poor infrastructure maintenance and operational lapses. Defective sleepers and point switches had been flagged in an earlier derailment at the same location thirteen months prior. The NSIB noted that some sleepers damaged in the previous incident had been patched rather than replaced. Personnel had received only initial training, with no refresher courses. Critical monitoring and communication equipment—CCTV systems, clocks, and signalling—was defective or non-functional at the time of the accident. On 16 March 2026, a coupling failure caused a collision on the same Asham section, with 429 passengers aboard. The NSIB had already issued recommendations for comprehensive sleeper replacement and OEM (original equipment manufacturer)-standard point switches. Those recommendations were not implemented before the next failure.

The Abuja–Kaduna line is not a story of terrorism alone. It is a story of a state that can build a railway but cannot maintain it, secure it, or respond to its own safety investigators. Between 2020 and 2022, Nigeria recorded 183 derailments nationwide. The Warri–Itakpe line, commissioned in the same era of railway revival, operates at lower frequency and remains constrained by infrastructure limitations. The Port Harcourt–Maiduguri rehabilitation, begun in 2011, remains unfinished. The Kano–Maradi line, intended to connect Nigeria to Niger Republic, has progressed in fits and starts. Each project shares a common biography: announced with presidential enthusiasm, funded by foreign loans, built by foreign contractors, and handed over to an NRC that has not recruited engineers in sufficient numbers, has not maintained its workshops, and cannot order spare parts without six months of bureaucratic delay. The NRC's Managing Director, Dr. Kayode Opeifa, has acknowledged that the corporation's history "is the history of Nigeria itself." He is right. The railway modernisation programme has spent billions of dollars building standard-gauge lines that decay for want of maintenance budgets, trained personnel, and procurement systems that can deliver replacement parts before the existing ones fail.

The Maintenance Void

The Federal Road Maintenance Agency (FERMA) is the federal government's designated caretaker for 35,000 kilometres of trunk roads. In 2024, FERMA was appropriated ₦103.3 billion. Of that sum, the Office of the Accountant-General released only ₦41.282 billion, and FERMA utilised ₦40.287 billion. For 2025, the agency proposed a budget of ₦64.88 billion—lower than the previous year's appropriation and, according to the Minister of State for Works, Muhammad Bello Goronyo, "grossly inadequate" for the task. FERMA estimates that it requires over ₦700 billion annually to maintain federal roads to acceptable standards. The agency received less than 6 per cent of that need in 2024, and it asked for even less in 2025.

The consequences are visible on every major highway. In its 2025 performance review, FERMA reported maintaining 200.82 kilometres of roads, patching 31,574 square metres of potholes, and making 1,655.89 kilometres of roads "motorable." The word is revealing. "Motorable" does not mean paved, safe, or durable. It means passable, for now, until the next rainy season. FERMA also constructed 10,311 metres of drainage, reinstated 19 washouts, and maintained 3 bridges. For a 35,000-kilometre network, these figures describe triage, not maintenance. The agency's equipment fleet includes machinery donated by the Government of Japan worth ₦3.3 billion, commissioned in 2024. Foreign aid is filling gaps that the federal budget structurally cannot cover. In 2026, FERMA has proposed a budget of ₦229.99 billion, more than triple its 2025 request. Even if fully appropriated and released, that amount would still be less than a third of the agency's estimated annual need.

The specific failures have names and budgets. The Lagos–Ibadan Expressway, originally awarded at a contract value of ₦213 billion, has required repeated emergency interventions because routine maintenance was deferred for decades. In February 2025, Minister of Works David Umahi disclosed that ₦30 billion was still needed to complete outstanding sections, including 8.55 kilometres of the Lagos-bound carriageway, according to The Nation of 4 February 2025. Julius Berger Nigeria Plc and Reynolds Construction Company (RCC) have both been involved in reconstruction and emergency repair works. The Abuja–Kaduna Expressway has fared no better. In 2024, Julius Berger commenced emergency repairs around Kilometre 75 after the road became virtually impassable. The full Abuja–Kaduna–Zaria–Kano reconstruction, originally awarded in 2017 at ₦155.7 billion, has been re-scoped under a new arrangement costing ₦777 billion, with completion now projected for 2026, according to Punch reporting in April 2025. The East–West Road, which traverses the Niger Delta, has been under dualisation for years. In January 2025, Minister Umahi set an April 2025 deadline for the completion of Section II-II from Ahoada to Kaiama, awarded to Setraco Nigeria Ltd, and threatened to revoke the contract of another contractor on the same road for missing deadlines, BusinessDay reported on 11 January 2025. Each of these roads has been rebuilt, in part, at three to five times the cost of maintaining them. Nigeria keeps choosing the more expensive option.

The culture of Nigerian infrastructure governance is construction, not stewardship. New roads are announced with fanfare, commissioned by presidents, and named after politicians. Maintenance is invisible, unphotographed, and underfunded. The Lagos–Ibadan expressway, the Abuja–Kaduna road, and the East–West Road have all required repeated emergency rehabilitations because routine maintenance was skipped for decades. The cost of rebuilding a failed road is typically three to five times the cost of maintaining it. Nigeria chooses the more expensive option every time, not because it prefers waste but because the political and procurement systems reward new contracts over old obligations. A new contract creates opportunities for variation orders, subcontractor appointments, and political patronage. Maintenance creates none of these.

The result is a landscape of half-finished projects and prematurely finished roads. Bridges are built without adequate drainage, causing the approach roads to wash away within two rainy seasons. Asphalt is laid without proper sub-base preparation, creating the familiar pattern of smooth surface over crumbling foundation. Contractors are paid for completion certificates while defects liability periods are ignored or waived. FERMA's staff have the technical expertise to recognise these failures. What they lack is the money to fix them and the institutional autonomy to insist on standards when political pressure demands speed. In January 2025, the Senate Committee on FERMA expressed astonishment at the agency's proposed budget, wondering why so much attention is paid to building new roads at the expense of maintaining existing ones. The question answers itself. New roads are photographed. Pothole patches are not.

The Measurement Gap

For two decades, the World Bank's Doing Business report provided the most widely cited international benchmark for comparing national business environments. In 2021, the World Bank discontinued the report after an independent investigation found evidence of data irregularities and political manipulation in several economies. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) has since replaced it with Business Ready (B-READY), first published in October 2024. B-READY differs from its predecessor in significant ways: it combines expert consultations with firm surveys to capture both de jure regulations and de facto practice; it assesses the quality of public services alongside regulatory burden; and it aims for broader geographic coverage within economies rather than measuring only the largest business city.

Nigeria's B-READY profile is available, though the 2024 pilot covered only fifty economies. The full global rollout is proceeding in annual cycles. For Nigerian policymakers, the shift from Doing Business to B-READY carries a symbolic weight that may exceed its methodological importance. The old report was gamed. Governments knew which buttons to press—reduce the number of days to register a business, simplify a tax form, pass a new law—and they pressed them, sometimes without changing the reality on the ground. B-READY is designed to be harder to game because it asks what firms actually experience, not what statutes say they should experience. A country that passes a law but fails to enforce it will score differently under B-READY than under Doing Business.

For Nigeria, three B-READY topics are especially consequential because they measure the infrastructure failures documented in this chapter. The Utility Services topic assesses not merely whether laws permit electricity connections but the actual reliability of power supply, the time required to obtain a connection, and the quality of water services. The International Trade topic evaluates the physical infrastructure of ports and border posts, the quality of customs management, and the time and cost firms face when importing or exporting. The Business Location topic measures the efficiency of construction permitting and the accessibility of commercial land. These are not abstract indicators. They are direct measurements of whether a manufacturer in Aba can get a power connection in less than six months, whether a warehouse in Kano can clear imports without paying unofficial fees at every checkpoint, and whether a freight truck on the Lagos–Ibadan corridor can move goods without losing axles to potholes. Because B-READY scores are now embedded in World Bank lending decisions and increasingly cited by sovereign risk analysts and private capital allocators, a poor score on Utility Services or International Trade directly raises the cost of capital for Nigerian infrastructure projects. The measurement tool has been upgraded. The infrastructure it measures has not.

This matters for infrastructure because the business environment and the physical environment are inseparable. What firms experience when they seek a power connection, a construction permit, or a clear port is not an administrative inconvenience. It is a measurement of state capacity, and the state is failing the test. There is a deeper symbolism in the fact that Nigeria's business environment must be measured by an external agency because its own statistical and regulatory institutions either do not publish or cannot be trusted. The World Bank had to discontinue Doing Business because some governments manipulated the data. Nigeria was not the worst offender in that scandal, but it is among the chief beneficiaries of the reform: a harder-to-game assessment that may finally capture the distance between Nigerian law and Nigerian practice.

The broader pattern is consistent across every sector examined in this chapter. The Lekki port handles more cargo than any Nigerian port before it, yet policy pricing undermines its competitiveness. The Lagos–Ibadan railway moves more passengers and freight than any Nigerian rail line in decades, yet it depends on foreign contractors for basic freight operations. The Abuja–Kaduna railway was the flagship of national modernisation until terrorism exposed security failures and derailments exposed maintenance failures. FERMA is funded at less than a tenth of its requirement and celebrated for making roads "motorable." The DMO publishes debt figures with quarterly precision while the Budget Office stops publishing capital execution data. Nigeria does not lack the ability to build. It lacks the institutional architecture to maintain, measure, and coordinate what it builds.

Concrete and steel are only the surface. Beneath them lies a harder material: the institutional architecture that decides who builds, who maintains, and who profits. That architecture is the subject of the next chapter.

Sources

1. World Bank. Infrastructure investment estimate (n.d.); port inefficiency cost estimate (2018); Doing Business report (discontinued 2021).
2. Debt Management Office (DMO). Public debt stock data (December 2025); Medium-Term Debt Strategy 2024–2027 (2024).
3. Tinubu administration. Debt service-to-revenue claim (October 2025).
4. BudgIT. 2025 Federal Budget Analysis (2025).
5. Senator Saidu Ahmed Alkali, Minister of Transportation. Statement to National Assembly joint committee (February 2026).
6. Adebayo Adelabu, Minister of Power. Statement on 2025 capital releases (February 2026).
7. Budget Office. Capital release data (January–July 2025, cited in Punch, February 2026).
8. Punch / The PUNCH (February 2026; January 2026; April 2025).
9. Ramesh Saraf, Deputy Managing Director, CMA CGM Nigeria. Statement on Lekki port operating costs (March 2025).
10. Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA). Port and marine fee increase (2025).
11. Lekki Port LFTZ Enterprise Limited / Wang Qiang. Economic impact projections (n.d.).
12. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Rail passenger traffic data (2025).
13. Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC). 2025 operational data (2025).
14. Railway Supply. Report on NRC 2025 budget proposal (January 2025).
15. Dr. Kayode Opeifa, NRC Managing Director. Statement on washout repairs and procurement delays (May 2025).
16. National Safety Investigation Bureau (NSIB). Preliminary report on Asham Station derailment (September 2025).
17. Federal Road Maintenance Agency (FERMA). 2024 appropriation, release, and utilisation data; 2025 performance review (2025).
18. Muhammad Bello Goronyo, Minister of State for Works. Statement on FERMA budget (2025).
19. Government of Japan. Equipment donation to FERMA (2024).
20. David Umahi, Minister of Works. Statement on Lagos–Ibadan Expressway (February 2025).
21. The Nation (4 February 2025).
22. BusinessDay (11 January 2025).
23. International Finance Corporation (IFC). Business Ready (B-READY) (October 2024).
24. Senate Committee on FERMA. Statement on proposed budget (January 2025).

Chapter 7: The Fiscal Labyrinth

The Revenue Illusion

In 2024, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) collected ₦21.6 trillion—an all-time record, 76% higher than the year before. The same year, Nigeria's public debt reached ₦159 trillion. The state is getting better at collecting money and worse at keeping it.

The ₦21.6 trillion figure deserves closer inspection than it has received in the press releases. According to the FIRS 2024 annual report, non-oil taxes accounted for 73.4% of the total, while oil taxes contributed 26.6%. On the surface, this looks like diversification: the economy is weaning itself off petroleum receipts. The reality is more mechanical. Taxes are collected in naira. When the naira falls from ₦461 to the dollar in May 2023 to ₦1,535 by December 2024, every import transaction, every foreign-currency invoice, every bank forex gain generates a larger naira tax liability even if the underlying volume of activity has not grown. The FIRS did not collect more because Nigerians became more compliant. It collected more because inflation and depreciation inflated the naira value of the tax base.

The World Bank Nigeria Development Update, April 2026, notes this distinction carefully. Real tax effort—the actual expansion of compliance beyond what inflation and exchange rate movements would produce—is harder to measure and less impressive than the headline suggests. The FIRS deployed technology, expanded the electronic tax system, and pursued high-net-worth individuals. These are genuine administrative improvements. But they are not large enough to explain a 76% jump in one year. A substantial portion of the ₦21.6 trillion came from windfall taxes on banks' forex revaluation gains and from companies whose naira revenues ballooned in nominal terms while their real activity stagnated. The banks had revalued their dollar assets as the naira collapsed, producing accounting profits that the government taxed aggressively. It was good politics and bad economics: the state captured a one-time accounting gain and treated it as structural revenue improvement.

The tax-to-GDP ratio tells the same story with different numbers. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF), in their Revenue Statistics in Africa 2024 report, placed Nigeria's ratio at 7.9% for 2022. The African average was 16.0%. In October 2025, President Bola Tinubu claimed the ratio had risen to 13.5% and would climb higher under the new tax law. The gap between 7.9% and 13.5% is not merely a measure of progress. It is a measure of disagreement about what should count as tax revenue and what denominator should be used for gross domestic product (GDP). The OECD/ATAF figure uses a standardised methodology comparable across countries. The 13.5% claim uses a rebased GDP denominator and includes some non-tax revenues that other countries classify separately. Both numbers are arithmetically defensible. What matters is that neither places Nigeria anywhere near the revenue capacity of a state that intends to build roads, pay teachers, and service debt simultaneously.

The composition of the ₦21.6 trillion also matters. Company Income Tax (CIT) and Value Added Tax (VAT) dominated. Personal Income Tax (PIT) remained anaemic, which means the bulk of the burden fell on corporate balance sheets and consumption rather than on individual wealth. This is not accidental. Corporate accounts are easier to audit than informal-sector incomes. VAT is collected at points of sale with relative efficiency. What remains largely untapped is the personal wealth of the political and business elite, much of which is held in assets that the FIRS has neither the legal authority nor the political backing to assess properly. The FIRS has made noise about taxing residential property in Abuja's affluent districts and about pursuing owners of luxury vehicles, but the administrative infrastructure for recurrent wealth taxation does not yet exist. The FIRS can send a demand notice to a multinational oil company and expect payment. It cannot yet send one to a senior government official and expect the same.

Oil taxes, at 26.6% of FIRS collections in 2024, also deserve scrutiny. The Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) has documented for years how oil revenues fail to reach the federation account in full. Production losses, pipeline vandalism, and opaque lifting arrangements mean that the barrels produced do not always translate into the taxes paid. The Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) reported average production of roughly 1.5 million barrels per day in 2025, well below the budget target of 2.06 million. Even with higher oil prices in some months, the volume shortfall constrained petroleum profit tax and royalty collections. The FIRS figure of 26.6% is not evidence of a revived oil sector. It is evidence that the non-oil portion grew faster, partly for the wrong reasons.

The FIRS has set a target of ₦25.2 trillion for 2025. Whether it reaches this depends less on administrative effort than on the exchange rate, inflation, and the appetite of the CBN for further windfall taxes. The tax base is volatile because the economy is volatile. A state that cannot predict its revenue cannot plan its expenditure. And a state that cannot plan its expenditure borrows to fill the gaps.

The compliance gap remains staggering. The FIRS estimates that fewer than twenty million Nigerians are registered taxpayers in a country of over two hundred million people. Most of the registered are salaried workers whose taxes are deducted at source by employers. The self-employed professional, the landlord with multiple properties, the importer who undervalues customs declarations—these categories remain largely outside the net. The FIRS has introduced data-matching initiatives, cross-referencing bank records, land registry entries, and vehicle registration databases. But the legal framework for accessing these datasets is contested, and the political will to pursue powerful defaulters is uneven. The result is a tax system that extracts reliably from the visible and leaves the opaque untouched.

The Debt Mountain

While the FIRS celebrated its record year, the Debt Management Office (DMO) published a less cheerful set of numbers. Nigeria's total public debt stock stood at ₦97.34 trillion in December 2023. By March 2024, it had reached ₦121.67 trillion ($91.46 billion—the dollar value fell because the naira depreciated faster than the debt grew). By June 2024, it was ₦134.30 trillion. By September 2024, ₦142.30 trillion. By December 2024, it reached ₦144.67 trillion ($94.23 billion). By December 2025, it hit ₦159.28 trillion (approximately $110.97 billion). The trajectory is not ambiguous. It is a straight line upward, interrupted only by the currency fluctuations that make the dollar denomination appear to fall when the naira collapses.

The DMO's Medium-Term Debt Strategy (MTDS) for 2024–2027, published in 2024, raised the debt-to-GDP ceiling from 40% to 60%. At the time, the stated ratio was roughly 31% using the pre-rebased GDP series. After the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) rebased the national accounts in 2024, the ratio fell to approximately 41%. This statistical improvement did not reduce the debt by one naira. It simply enlarged the denominator. The DMO's decision to raise the ceiling to 60% was a frank admission that the old limit was about to be breached, and that the preferred response was to move the goalpost rather than to slow the borrowing.

The composition of the debt has shifted in ways that matter for risk. Domestic debt service in 2025 consumed ₦8.61 trillion, of which 95.7% was interest. External debt service was $5.15 billion (approximately ₦7.39 trillion). The domestic component is expensive because the government borrows at rates well above inflation from Nigerian banks and pension funds who have few other safe assets to buy. The ten-year Federal Government bond yielded between 19% and 22% in 2024 and 2025, while inflation—despite its decline—remained in double digits. The real interest rate was positive, which is unusual for a sovereign borrower and reflects the market's assessment of Nigerian credit risk. The external component is dangerous because it is denominated in dollars, and every naira depreciation increases the local-currency burden without adding a single dollar to the principal. In 2024 alone, the naira moved from roughly ₦900 to the dollar to ₦1,535, increasing the naira value of the external stock by roughly 70% even as the dollar amount stayed flat.

Who holds this debt matters too. Nigerian commercial banks are the largest holders of domestic government securities. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) holds a significant portion through its monetary policy operations and through the securitised Ways and Means advances. Pension fund administrators (PFAs) hold another large block, because regulatory rules require them to invest a minimum share of their portfolios in government securities. This creates a captive market: the government is borrowing from institutions that are legally or regulatorily obliged to lend. The banks profit from the wide interest margins. The pension funds earn returns that keep them solvent on paper. But the circularity is obvious. The state borrows from Nigerian savers, pays them interest with tax revenue or fresh borrowing, and calls the arrangement a financial market. It is, in part, a tax on retirement savings dressed up as investment returns.

The external debt is owed to a mixture of multilateral institutions, bilateral creditors, and commercial bondholders. The World Bank's International Development Association (IDA) and the African Development Bank (AfDB) hold concessional portions at lower interest rates. China Exim Bank holds bilateral loans tied to specific infrastructure projects, some of which—like the Abuja-Kaduna rail—have been disrupted by security challenges that were not part of the original loan agreements. The Eurobond holders, who bought dollar-denominated securities in the international capital markets, have received no new issuance since 2022. Nigeria has been effectively shut out of the Eurobond market by yields that would be prohibitive, forcing a heavier reliance on domestic borrowing and multilateral programme financing.

The DMO defends this structure by pointing to the apparently manageable debt-to-GDP ratio and to the long maturity profile of the domestic bonds. What this defence omits is the opportunity cost. Every naira paid in interest is a naira not spent on capital projects. Every dollar sent abroad as debt service is a dollar not available for imports of machinery, pharmaceuticals, or fertiliser. The debt is not yet at crisis levels by international comparison, but it is consuming the fiscal space that a developing state needs to invest in the things that would make repayment possible. In 2025, the Federal Government spent ₦16 trillion on debt service alone. That same year, its capital expenditure budget was a fraction of that amount. The state is not borrowing to build. It is borrowing to pay for what it has already consumed.

The refinancing risk is another hidden pressure. Much of Nigeria's domestic debt is in short- to medium-term instruments. As these mature, they must be rolled over at prevailing interest rates. If rates remain at 20% or higher, the cost of rollover will compound the debt service burden even if the primary deficit is eliminated. The DMO has attempted to lengthen maturities, issuing twenty- and thirty-year bonds, but investor appetite for long-duration Nigerian paper is limited. The buyers are the same captive institutions—banks, pension funds, and the CBN—who have little choice but to participate. The market is not pricing risk accurately because the market is not free.

Servicing the Unpayable

In October 2025, President Tinubu announced that the debt service-to-revenue ratio had fallen from 97% to below 50%. The claim was greeted with scepticism by fiscal analysts, and for good reason. The denominator—revenue—had been inflated by the same naira depreciation and windfall taxes that produced the FIRS record. The numerator—debt service—had been understated by excluding certain categories of domestic obligations and by treating CBN Ways and Means advances as something other than debt.

Ways and Means advances are the shadow debt of Nigerian public finance. Under the CBN Act, the Bank may lend to the Federal Government to cover temporary revenue shortfalls, up to a limit of 5% of the previous year's actual revenue. That limit was breached repeatedly during the Muhammadu Buhari administration, and the accumulated overdraft reached an estimated ₦30 trillion by May 2023. In December 2022, the Senate approved a request to securitise the advances—converting the overdraft into long-term bonds—effectively admitting that the temporary facility had become permanent debt. The securitisation spread the pain over forty years at 9% interest, but it did not reduce the obligation. It merely made it less visible in the annual debt service figures.

The Tinubu administration initially pledged to stop the practice. In 2024, fresh Ways and Means borrowing resumed, though at lower levels than under the previous government. The exact current stock is not published in real time. The CBN includes it in its monetary policy reports, but the figures lag by quarters and are buried in tables that few journalists read. What is clear is that the facility remains a preferred source of emergency financing precisely because it bypasses the DMO's transparency requirements and the National Assembly's appropriation process. It is debt that does not call itself debt, and it is therefore debt that does not appear in the President's boast about debt service-to-revenue ratios.

The true cost of debt service in 2025 was approximately ₦16 trillion, according to Budget Office data. That figure includes interest on domestic and external debt, amortisation of principal on some instruments, and the implicit cost of the securitised Ways and Means. It does not include the arrears owed to contractors, pensioners, and state governments, which the Federal Government treats as contingent liabilities rather than current obligations. If those arrears were brought onto the balance sheet, the ratio would look very different. The DMO's quarterly bulletins do not include them. Neither does the President's speech. Nairametrics, in its debt analysis for January 2026, estimated that when all federal obligations—including outstanding refunds to states for federally collected VAT and unpaid contractor certificates—are included, the true debt service-to-revenue ratio remains above 60%.

The international rating agencies have noticed. S&P Global maintained Nigeria's speculative-grade rating in 2025, citing "high fiscal deficits and debt servicing costs" as constraints. Moody's and Fitch have expressed similar cautions. These ratings do not trigger immediate crises, but they raise the cost of any future external borrowing and limit the pool of international investors willing to buy Nigerian Eurobonds at yields that the government can afford. The last Eurobond issuance was in 2022. No new international bond has been placed since then, which means the government has relied entirely on domestic borrowing and multilateral programme financing to close its fiscal gap.

The multilateral financing comes with its own conditions. The World Bank's Nigeria Development Update, April 2026, was explicit about the trade-offs: macroeconomic stabilisation has been achieved at the cost of household welfare, and the fiscal consolidation that would satisfy creditors requires further revenue increases that will hurt the poor. The IMF, through its Article IV consultations, has pressed for tighter fiscal discipline, reduced CBN financing of deficits, and a more flexible exchange rate. These are orthodox prescriptions, and they are not wrong in the abstract. But their implementation in a country where 63% of the population lives in poverty, according to the World Bank, is a political choice dressed up as economic necessity. The creditors get their interest. The citizens get their VAT increase. The institutions get their stability. The poor get poorer.

The Reform Gambit

In June 2025, President Tinubu signed into law a comprehensive tax reform bill, with most provisions effective January 2026. The law aims to raise Nigeria's tax-to-GDP ratio to 18% over the medium term. It streamlines the multitude of taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments—some estimates put the total number of distinct taxes at over sixty—and introduces a gradual increase in the VAT rate from 7.5% toward a higher target. It also proposes a more centralised revenue collection architecture, with the FIRS taking a stronger role in administering taxes that have historically been collected by state revenue services.

The opposition was immediate and fierce. The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN), in statements issued in June and July 2025, warned that higher VAT would raise production costs at a time when manufacturers were already spending ₦1 trillion annually on self-generated power and coping with input prices inflated by naira depreciation. MAN's quarterly sectoral surveys for 2024 and 2025 showed capacity utilisation hovering between 55% and 60%, well below the levels needed for profitability. The association argued that any tax increase should wait until infrastructure and exchange rate stability had been achieved, a position that implicitly asked whether the state expected to be paid before it delivered the services that would justify the bill.

State governments also resisted, though for different reasons. Many saw the centralised collection provisions as a threat to their fiscal autonomy. Under Nigeria's federal structure, states collect Personal Income Tax from residents and have historically administered their own consumption taxes. The reform law threatened to consolidate these into a federal framework with revenue-sharing formulas that the governors feared would favour the centre. The debate exposed a structural tension that no tax law can resolve: the Federal Government needs more revenue to service its debt, while the states need more revenue to pay salaries and build local infrastructure, and neither level of government trusts the other to administer the collection fairly. The revenue-sharing formula between federal, state, and local governments—derived from the 1999 Constitution and modified by various fiscal commissions—has not been fundamentally reviewed in over a decade, even as the economy has shifted from oil dependence to a more service-based structure.

The VAT increase is particularly consequential for poverty. VAT is a consumption tax, and consumption taxes are regressive by design. Poor households spend a larger share of their income on food and transport than wealthy households do, so a uniform VAT rate extracts a higher proportion of welfare from the bottom of the distribution than from the top. The reform law includes exemptions for basic food items and some agricultural inputs, but the implementation of exemptions in Nigeria has historically been weak. Borderline products—processed foods, packaged goods, cooking gas—tend to be taxed at the standard rate because retailers and wholesalers lack the administrative capacity to distinguish exempt from non-exempt items. The World Bank Nigeria Development Update, April 2026, cautions that without robust targeting mechanisms, the tax reform could increase poverty in the short term even as it raises revenue. The same report notes that "household incomes have not grown fast enough to offset still-elevated inflation, and poverty has yet to begin declining." Adding VAT to that equation is a gamble whose losers have already been identified.

The reform law also introduces changes to corporate tax administration, including a minimum tax for companies that report losses and new rules for taxing digital services. These provisions are sensible in principle. Nigeria loses significant revenue to multinational corporations that shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions, and the digital economy has grown large enough that its exclusion from the tax net is no longer tenable. But the administrative capacity to enforce these rules is limited. Transfer pricing investigations require skilled auditors, legal support, and political backing. The FIRS has improved its transfer pricing unit, but it remains small relative to the scale of profit-shifting in the oil, telecoms, and banking sectors. A law is only as good as the institution that implements it, and the institutions are still building muscle.

The Expenditure Mirror

If revenue is one side of the ledger, expenditure is the other, and it is here that the fiscal labyrinth reveals its most confusing passages. The Federal Government's budget has grown in nominal terms every year, but the share allocated to capital projects has shrunk as a proportion of the total. Recurrent expenditure—salaries, pensions, overheads, and debt service—consumes roughly 80% of the federal budget. Capital expenditure, which builds the roads, schools, and hospitals that might justify higher taxes, gets what is left. In 2025, debt service alone exceeded the entire capital budget. The state was spending more on interest than on infrastructure.

The cost of governance is a specific category that deserves its own line item. The National Assembly, the Presidency, and the federal ministries consume billions of naira in overhead allowances, travel, and maintenance that are rarely subjected to public audit. BudgIT, the Nigerian civic tech organisation that tracks budget implementation, has consistently found that overhead allocations are among the most fully executed items in the federal budget, while capital project releases lag by quarters or years. The mechanism is simple: recurrent spending is easier to disburse than capital spending. A salary payment requires a bank transfer. A road contract requires procurement, contractor selection, supervision, and certification. The bureaucracy executes what is easy and defers what is hard, producing budgets that look ambitious on paper and anaemic on the ground.

Subsidies, despite the celebrated removal of petrol subsidies in May 2023, have not disappeared. They have migrated. The CBN continues to subsidise the naira through its foreign exchange interventions, though the scale has diminished since the float. The power sector receives implicit subsidies through the failure of distribution companies to remit full tariffs to generation companies, a gap that the Federal Government periodically promises to fill with budgetary allocations that rarely arrive in full. The petrol subsidy removal saved an estimated ₦3–5 trillion annually, according to Budget Office estimates, but the fiscal space created was immediately absorbed by debt service, naira defence, and the rising cost of governance. The typical Nigerian household saw petrol prices rise from roughly ₦185 per litre to over ₦600, then to over ₦1,000 in some periods, without a corresponding improvement in electricity supply, transport infrastructure, or social services. The subsidy was removed from the product and imposed on the citizen.

The capital budget itself is not immune to distortion. Projects are often selected for political visibility rather than economic return. A road to a minister's hometown gets priority over a road to a port. A hospital renovation in the capital gets funded while primary health centres in rural areas lack basic supplies. The Budget Office publishes capital release data, but the connection between budget allocation and project completion is weak. BudgIT's Tracka platform has documented hundreds of constituency projects that were paid for but never executed, or executed so poorly that they collapsed within months. The money leaves the treasury. It does not always arrive at the site.

The personnel budget is another source of fiscal drag. The Federal Government employs hundreds of thousands of workers, many of whom are redundant or ghost workers on payrolls that have never been fully audited. Various administrations have promised to sanitise the payroll through biometric verification and bank verification number (BVN) matching. Some progress has been made, but the savings have been modest. The civil service is both an employer of last resort and a patronage network. Reducing it requires political courage that no recent administration has displayed. Instead, the wage bill grows annually, absorbing revenue that could fund classrooms and clinics.

The Fiscal Contract

Behind every tax dispute lies a question that Nigerian governments rarely answer in public: what does the citizen receive in return for payment? In countries with functioning fiscal contracts, taxpayers fund roads, schools, and security forces that they can see and use. In Nigeria, the visible return on taxation is meagre. The road from Lagos to Ibadan was rebuilt with borrowed Chinese money, not tax revenue. Public universities strike for months over unpaid salaries. The national grid collapses with such regularity that the Presidency has spent ₦10 billion to take itself off it entirely. A state that cannot keep its own lights on is asking a great deal when it demands higher VAT from families who already spend 60% of their income on food.

This is why the informal sector remains stubbornly outside the tax net, and why attempts to formalise it meet resistance that is often misread as evasion. The street trader in Onitsha, the mechanic in Kano, the hair braider in Port Harcourt—these are not wealthy tax dodgers. They are survivors of a state that delivers little and demands much. When the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service (LIRS) or its equivalents in other states conduct enumeration drives, they encounter not criminality but calculation. The trader weighs the cost of registration, the risk of harassment by revenue agents, and the probability of receiving any public good in return. The arithmetic usually favours remaining informal. This is not a failure of tax policy. It is a rational response to a broken fiscal contract.

The FIRS has made genuine progress in corporate compliance. Large companies now file electronically. Transfer pricing rules have been tightened. The Voluntary Assets and Income Declaration Scheme (VAIDS) and its successors have brought some previously hidden wealth into view. But these are marginal gains in a system where the bulk of personal wealth remains unassessed and the bulk of public spending remains unaudited in any meaningful sense. The Office of the Auditor-General of the Federation publishes annual reports documenting billions of naira in unaccounted expenditures, unsupported payments, and contracts without documentation. The reports are tabled in the National Assembly and ignored. No senior official has been prosecuted on the basis of an Auditor-General's finding in recent memory.

The consequence is a culture of impunity that infects every level of public finance. When the Auditor-General identifies unsupported payments, the ministries concerned promise to provide documentation. When the documentation never arrives, the matter is forgotten. When the National Public Accounts Committee summons officials, they send representatives who plead ignorance. The cycle repeats annually, producing thicker reports and identical outcomes. The institutions of oversight exist. What is missing is the enforcement mechanism that would convert findings into consequences. Without that, audit is theatre, and the audience stopped watching long ago.

The tax reform law promises to change some of this by introducing technology-driven compliance and reducing the multiplicity of taxes that harass small businesses. What it does not address is the expenditure side of the ledger. Raising revenue without reforming procurement, without reducing the cost of governance, without converting debt service into capital investment, is simply asking Nigerians to pay more for a state that functions as poorly as it did when they paid less. The reform may succeed on its own terms. The FIRS may hit its ₦25.2 trillion target for 2025 or its successor targets for 2026. The DMO may keep the debt-to-GDP ratio below 60%. But if the additional revenue is consumed by interest payments, recurrent expenditures, and the operating costs of a government that has grown in size without growing in capacity, then the fiscal labyrinth will simply have added another corridor.

The numbers do not lie, but they do not tell the whole story either. Nigeria collects more than it ever has. It owes more than it ever has. And its citizens are poorer, in real terms, than they were when the collection began. The connection between revenue, debt, and welfare is not automatic. It is mediated by institutions that decide who pays, who borrows, who spends, and who benefits. Those institutions are the real subject of this chapter, even when the text has been about percentages and trillions. A tax system is only as good as the state it feeds. A debt portfolio is only as sustainable as the growth it finances. And a fiscal reform is only as meaningful as the change it produces in the daily life of a citizen who has heard many promises and seen few roads.

But revenue and debt are only part of the ledger. The other part is who benefits and who is left behind. That geography is not accidental. It is political.

Sources

1. Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS). 2024 Annual Report (2024); 2025 revenue target (2025).
2. World Bank. Nigeria Development Update (April 2026).
3. OECD and African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF). Revenue Statistics in Africa 2024 (2024).
4. President Bola Tinubu. Tax-to-GDP claim (October 2025).
5. Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI). Oil revenue documentation (n.d.).
6. Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC). Production data (2025).
7. Debt Management Office (DMO). Public debt stock data (December 2023–December 2025); Medium-Term Debt Strategy (MTDS) 2024–2027 (2024).
8. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). GDP rebasing (2024).
9. Budget Office. Debt service and capital expenditure data (2025); petrol subsidy removal estimates (n.d.).
10. Nairametrics. Debt analysis (January 2026).
11. S&P Global. Nigeria sovereign rating (2025).
12. Moody's. Nigeria credit outlook (2025).
13. Fitch Ratings. Nigeria credit outlook (2025).
14. International Monetary Fund (IMF). Article IV consultations (2025).
15. President Bola Tinubu. Tax reform bill signing (June 2025).
16. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN). Statements on tax reform and quarterly sectoral surveys (2024–2025).
17. BudgIT. Budget implementation and Tracka platform data (n.d.).

Chapter 8: The Divided House

The Border Is Policy

In the Southwest, 12% of people live in poverty. In the Northwest, 78% do. These are not two different countries. They are two different Nigerias inside one federation—and the border between them is drawn by policy, not geography.

The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) published these figures in its 2020 Poverty Profile, the last time Nigeria produced a comprehensive regional breakdown of monetary poverty. No updated regional poverty data has been published since 2020— itself a measure of institutional opacity. The silence is not accidental. A federation that measures poverty nationally but refuses to measure it regionally is a federation that does not want to see the map it has made.

The numbers, where they exist, are brutal. According to the NBS 2020 Poverty Profile, the Northwest recorded a poverty rate of 77.7%, the Northeast 71.9%, and the North-Central 59.6%. In the South, the figures were starkly different: South-South 21.3%, Southeast 18.9%, and Southwest 12.1%. The gap between the Southwest and the Northwest is not a difference of degree. It is a difference of kind. In the Northwest, more than three in four people live below the national poverty line. In the Southwest, fewer than one in eight do. These are not variations around a national mean. They are separate distributions, separated by over six hundred kilometres of asphalt and by decades of divergent public investment.

The NBS Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) survey of 2022, conducted between November 2021 and February 2022, found that 63% of Nigerians—approximately 133 million people—were multidimensionally poor. The MPI captures deprivations in health, education, and living standards simultaneously. A household is multidimensionally poor if it falls below thresholds in multiple indicators at once. The 2022 survey confirmed that multidimensional poverty was heavily concentrated in the northern states, with Sokoto, Bayelsa, Gombe, Jigawa, and Plateau recording the highest incidence. Yet the MPI 2022 did not update the regional monetary poverty rates from 2020. We are left with a national headline and a six-year-old map.

The Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, stood at 0.43 in 2018 according to NBS data. That figure places Nigeria among the more unequal countries in Africa, though it almost certainly understates the true dispersion. Gini coefficients capture relative income distribution within a population; they do not capture the absolute gap in living standards between Sokoto and Lagos, or the difference in life chances between a child born in Jigawa and one born in Ekiti. A Gini of 0.43 tells us that income is concentrated. It does not tell us that one region has been systematically deprived of the institutions required to convert income into wellbeing. For that, one needs a theory of development that goes beyond cash.

The absence of updated regional poverty data has practical consequences. Without fresh disaggregated numbers, policymakers in Abuja cannot track whether interventions are closing the gap or widening it. State governments cannot benchmark their performance against neighbours. Civil society organisations cannot hold legislators accountable for constituency outcomes. The data void is not merely an academic inconvenience. It is a political technology that makes the divide deniable. A minister can claim progress on national poverty while the Northwest remains as poor as it was six years ago, and no official statistic can prove otherwise. The opacity protects the architecture.

Capabilities, Not Just Cash

Amartya Sen, in his 1999 book Development as Freedom, argued that development should be judged not by the growth of gross domestic product but by the expansion of human capabilities—the real freedoms that people enjoy to lead the lives they value. Income matters, but only instrumentally. What matters more is whether a person can read, whether a child survives past five, whether a girl can attend school without fear, whether a farmer can access a market without being killed on the road. Poverty, in Sen's framework, is not merely a lack of money. It is a deprivation of basic capabilities. A person who is starving and a person who is illiterate are both poor, but their poverty consists in different denials of freedom.

Applied to Nigeria, the capability approach reveals that regional inequality is not a surface blemish on an otherwise functional economy. It is a structural deformation. The North does not simply have lower incomes. It has lower capabilities across nearly every dimension that Sen identifies as central to human development. The deprivation is cumulative: a child who is stunted at two, unvaccinated at three, and out of school at seven enters adulthood with a capability set so constrained that no amount of late-stage income support can fully repair it.

Consider education. The 2021 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS), published by the NBS in partnership with the Federal Ministry of Health and international donors, found that female literacy in the Northeast and Northwest was below 35%, compared with over 85% in the Southwest and Southeast. In Borno State, decades of insurgency have collapsed the formal education system; in Sokoto State, the Universal Basic Education (UBE) programme has struggled with teacher absenteeism, inadequate classrooms, and a parallel informal Quranic education system that keeps millions of children out of the formal sector. The capability to acquire knowledge is not unevenly distributed by accident. It is unevenly distributed because the institutions that should deliver it have never been built, staffed, or funded at equal scale.

The disparity is not limited to the North-South axis. Within the South, there are significant gradients. The Southeast, despite relatively low monetary poverty, has a grossly inadequate number of federal universities and teaching hospitals relative to its population, a legacy of political marginalisation that dates to the civil war. The South-South, which generates the crude oil that finances the federation, has lower educational attainment than the Southwest and suffers from environmental degradation that destroys livelihoods regardless of school certificates. Capability deprivation takes different forms in different places, but it is never random. It follows the path of institutional neglect.

The scale of educational exclusion in the North is staggering. UNICEF estimates that Nigeria has approximately 18.5 million out-of-school children, the highest number globally, and the majority are in the northern states. A significant share of these children are enrolled in the Almajiri system, a traditional Quranic education arrangement in which children live with religious teachers and often beg for sustenance. The Almajiri system is not inherently harmful— it has produced generations of scholars— but its contemporary form, stripped of the communal welfare structures that once supported it, functions as a parallel education track that leaves millions of children without literacy, numeracy, or vocational skills. The Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) has acknowledged this gap but has never mustered the funding or political support to integrate Almajiri pupils into the formal system at scale. The result is a generation of children who grow up in Nigeria but outside its institutional framework, denied the capability to participate in a modern economy.

Health outcomes follow the same gradient. The NDHS 2021 reported an under-five mortality rate of 132 deaths per 1,000 live births in the Northwest, against 59 in the Southwest. Maternal mortality ratios show an equally wide gap. Vaccination coverage for basic childhood immunisation in the Northeast remains among the lowest in the country, not because vaccines do not exist but because cold chain logistics, security, and primary healthcare staffing collapse at the point of last-mile delivery. The capability to survive childhood is not a function of personal virtue. It is a function of whether the state can maintain a cold chain from Abuja to a clinic in Yobe, and whether a nurse in Zamfara is paid enough to stay in her post rather than migrate to Lagos.

Nutrition completes the picture. Stunting rates—children too short for their age, indicating chronic undernutrition—exceed 50% in parts of the Northwest and Northeast, according to the 2021 NDHS and UNICEF Nigeria nutrition briefings. In the Southwest, the rate is closer to 20%. Stunting is not reversible after a certain age. It permanently reduces cognitive capacity, educational attainment, and later productivity. The regional divide in nutrition is, in effect, a regional divide in future human capital. A child stunted in Kebbi at age two will enter adulthood with capabilities permanently constrained by policy choices made before he was born. No cash transfer at age fifteen can restore the brain development that failed to occur at age two.

Displacement adds another layer. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have documented millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the Northeast and, increasingly, in the Northwest. Borno State alone hosts hundreds of thousands of IDPs in formal camps and informal settlements. These populations are not captured in standard poverty surveys. They do not farm, they do not trade, and their children do not attend school. Their capabilities are not merely underdeveloped; they are suspended entirely, dependent on humanitarian aid that is itself chronically underfunded. A federation that produces millions of internal refugees and then excludes them from its poverty statistics is a federation that has stopped counting the poor to avoid confronting their number.

Security, too, is a capability. Sen's framework emphasises that freedoms include the absence of violence and the ability to move without fear. In this dimension, the North has suffered catastrophic deprivation. Banditry in Zamfara, Katsina, and Kaduna states has made farming impossible across vast areas. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) documented thousands of violent events in the Northwest between 2020 and 2024, with fatality counts that rival those of the Northeast insurgency. Herders and farmers cannot cultivate land they cannot reach. Traders cannot move goods on roads controlled by kidnappers. The capability to engage in economic activity is itself annihilated by the absence of security. This is not poverty in the conventional sense. It is the destruction of the preconditions for economic life.

Sen's framework demands that we ask not only how much money flows to the North but what that money enables people to do. The answer, by every available indicator, is: far less than it should. The capability gap is the real divide. Income poverty is merely its most visible symptom.

The Fiscal Geography

If regional inequality were a natural condition—determined by rainfall, soil quality, or distance from the coast—there would be little to discuss. But Nigeria's fiscal architecture actively reproduces the divide. The federation does not merely tolerate inequality. It finances it.

The Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) distributes revenue among the three tiers of government monthly. The formula, last substantially revised in the early 2000s, allocates revenue on the basis of population, equality of states, internal revenue generation, land mass, terrain, social development factors, and water. Derivation— the principle that oil-producing states should retain a share of revenue from resources extracted within their borders— accounts for 13% of allocated revenue. The remaining 87% is shared according to a formula that weights population heavily.

On paper, this should favour the populous North. In practice, it produces a perverse equilibrium. States with large populations but weak internal revenue generation receive substantial federal allocations, which they then lack the institutional capacity to spend effectively. The Federal Government collects most of the revenue— particularly Value Added Tax (VAT), corporate income tax, and oil royalties— and redistributes it to states that have neither the bureaucratic machinery to absorb it nor the political incentive to transform it into public goods. The result is what economists call a fiscal transfer trap: states receive enough to survive but not enough to develop, and they are not required to raise their own revenue to any meaningful degree.

The contrast in internally generated revenue (IGR) is stark. Lagos State, in the Southwest, generates more IGR than the entire Northeast geopolitical zone combined. In 2023, Lagos reported IGR of approximately ₦660 billion. Borno State, ravaged by insurgency and depopulation, generated less than ₦20 billion. The gap is not merely a reflection of economic activity. It is a reflection of tax administration, property registration, business formalisation, and state-level institutional capacity. A state that cannot register its businesses cannot tax them. A state that cannot title its land cannot levy property rates. The fiscal weakness of northern states is partly a legacy of underdevelopment, but it is also a self-reinforcing cycle: weak institutions produce low revenue, which produces weak public services, which discourages formal economic activity, which keeps revenue low.

Capital budget execution rates tell the same story. BudgIT, the Nigerian civic technology organisation that tracks government spending, has repeatedly found that northern states execute smaller shares of their capital budgets than southern states. Capital projects— schools, roads, clinics, water schemes— are the instruments through which revenue becomes capability. When capital budgets are unexecuted, revenue remains in bank accounts or is converted to recurrent spending on salaries and overheads. The machinery of government consumes the resources that should have built the machinery of development. This is not a funding problem. It is an absorption problem, and it is concentrated where need is highest.

The VAT distribution debate of 2021–2023 exposed the political fault lines. States with higher consumption bases— predominantly in the South— argued that VAT should be collected and retained where it is generated. States in the North, which generate less VAT but have larger populations, resisted. The Supreme Court eventually intervened, but the underlying tension remains unresolved. The federation has not decided whether it is a unitary redistribution machine or a collection of competing jurisdictions. Until it decides, every revenue-sharing formula will be fought as a zero-sum battle rather than designed as a productive investment. The tax reform law signed in June 2025, effective January 2026, promises to streamline the tax system and raise the tax-to-GDP ratio, but it does not resolve the fundamental question of who owns the revenue and who is accountable for spending it.

Meanwhile, local government councils— the tier of government closest to the citizen— have been systematically captured by state governors. The 1999 Constitution guarantees local government autonomy on paper, but in practice, state governors control local government allocations through State-Local Government Joint Accounts, appoint caretaker committees in place of elected officials, and redirect funds to state-level priorities. A 2022 report by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) found that a significant share of local government funds in several states was diverted or unaccounted for. The World Bank's 2023 Nigeria Public Finance Review noted that local government capacity is so weak in many northern states that even when funds arrive, they cannot be executed. The money sits in accounts, or it leaks, or it is spent on recurrent costs. It does not build classrooms. It does not stock clinics. It does not maintain rural roads.

The geography of neglect is therefore not a passive outcome. It is encoded in the fiscal structure. A system that collects revenue centrally, distributes it to weak subnational institutions, and then fails to monitor outcomes is a system designed to produce exactly the map we see: poverty concentrated where state capacity is lowest, and state capacity lowest where poverty is most entrenched. The border between the two Nigerias runs through the FAAC ledger.

Safety Nets with Holes

Against this backdrop, the Federal Government has operated social protection programmes that attempt to compensate for structural failure through cash transfers. The National Social Safety Nets Project (NASSP), supported by the World Bank and managed through the National Social Safety Nets Coordinating Office (NASSCO), includes the Household Uplifting Programme (HUP), which delivers conditional cash transfers (CCTs) to poor households. The theory is sound: if the state cannot build schools and clinics immediately, it can at least put cash in the hands of the poor to buffer consumption and incentivise human capital investment.

The practice has been more complicated. World Bank evaluation reports on NASSP, published between 2019 and 2023, documented mixed results. On the positive side, households receiving HUP transfers showed modest improvements in school attendance and health clinic visits. The cash did reach some of the intended beneficiaries, and it did reduce extreme deprivation in targeted communities. These are not trivial achievements in a country where institutional delivery is notoriously unreliable. A programme that delivers anything to the poor in Nigeria has already overcome formidable logistical obstacles.

But the evaluations also identified severe targeting failures. The programme relies on a National Social Register (NSR) to identify poor households. The register was built through community-based targeting, in which local committees nominate beneficiaries. World Bank reviewers found that this process was vulnerable to elite capture, political interference, and simple exclusion error. In some communities, the poorest households— those without voice, without political connection, and sometimes without permanent residence— were not registered at all. In others, ineligible households with connections to local power brokers appeared on the list. The World Bank's 2022 Nigeria Social Protection Performance Report noted that coverage remained far below need: at its peak, the HUP reached roughly one million households in a country where over 80 million people live in extreme poverty. The register itself contained approximately 12 million households, but only a fraction received regular transfers.

The scale mismatch is the deeper problem. A conditional cash transfer programme reaching one million households cannot meaningfully alter the capability map of a country where 77.7% of the Northwest lives in poverty. It can save individual families from destitution. It cannot rebuild a primary healthcare system, resupply a collapsed education sector, or restore security to farming communities in Kaduna and Zamfara. Cash transfers are a palliative, not a cure. And when they are presented as proof that the state is addressing regional inequality, they become a distraction from the structural choices that produce the inequality in the first place.

The HUP and NASSP also suffered from funding unpredictability. Transfers were often delayed, eroding the trust of beneficiaries and undermining the conditionality mechanism. A mother who is promised a monthly stipend conditional on her child's school attendance cannot plan if the stipend arrives quarterly or not at all. The capability to plan— a central element of Sen's framework— is itself undermined by the state's inability to maintain predictable fiscal commitments. The safety net becomes a lottery. The World Bank's 2023 evaluation noted that payment delays of three months or more were common, and that some states had suspended transfers entirely during fiscal crises. A safety net that disappears when it is most needed is not a net. It is a rope bridge with missing planks.

There is also the question of what the transfers are conditional upon. The HUP requires that beneficiaries send children to school and attend health clinics. In communities where schools have no teachers and clinics have no drugs, these conditions are either meaningless or impossible to meet. A conditional cash transfer that requires school attendance in a village where the school has been closed for two years does not incentivise education. It excludes the poorest. The conditionality, designed to break intergenerational poverty, becomes a mechanism for filtering out the most deprived.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed these limitations with brutal clarity. When the Federal Government announced cash palliatives in 2020, the distribution was chaotic. The same National Social Register that underperformed in normal times was pressed into emergency service. Reports by civil society organisations and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) documented cases of diversion, duplication, and exclusion. In some states, palliatives were hoarded in warehouses while citizens starved. The pandemic did not create these failures. It revealed them under pressure. A social protection system that cannot function in a crisis cannot function at all.

The Design Feature

Regional inequality in Nigeria is often discussed as if it were a malfunction— a bug in the system that better policy could patch. The evidence suggests otherwise. It is a design feature.

A federation that centralises revenue collection, weakens subnational institutional capacity, allows governors to capture local government funds, and then fails to publish regional poverty data for six years is not a federation that accidentally produced a divided house. It produced one by a series of political choices that concentrate power in Abuja, disperse accountability across thirty-six states, and ensure that no single tier of government is fully responsible for any single outcome. The ambiguity is the architecture. The opacity is the insulation.

The political economy reinforces the geography. National elections are won by coalitions that span regions, but the coalitions are held together by patronage distribution rather than by shared investment in capability-building. A politician who needs votes in Kano and Lagos has an incentive to promise projects in both places, but not to transform the institutional environment in either. Short-term, visible interventions— roads, bridges, cash transfers— substitute for long-term, invisible investments in bureaucratic capacity, teacher training, and health system logistics. The result is a perpetual cycle of announcement without execution, and of execution without transformation.

The federal character principle, embedded in the 1999 Constitution, was intended to ensure equitable representation across regions. In practice, it has often been reduced to a quota system for public appointments that substitutes regional balance for competence. When federal ministries, agencies, and parastatals are staffed according to geopolitical zone rather than merit, the quality of public service delivery suffers everywhere, but it suffers most where the regional talent pool is shallowest because the education system has already failed. Federal character becomes a mechanism for spreading mediocrity evenly rather than raising standards universally. The intention was inclusion. The effect is institutional dilution.

The North's human capital deficit did not appear overnight. It is the accumulation of decades of underinvestment in education, of primary healthcare systems that were never fully staffed, of agricultural extension services that collapsed in the 1980s and never recovered, and of security failures that have made farming impossible across vast swathes of the Northwest and North-Central. Each of these failures has a specific policy history, specific budget lines, and specific officials who made specific choices. They are not acts of nature. They are acts of government, repeated until they became structural.

The South is not exempt from this logic. The South-South, which produces the oil that finances the federation, suffers from environmental degradation, underdeveloped infrastructure, and unemployment rates that belie its relative wealth in monetary terms. The Southeast, despite lower poverty rates than the North, faces a severe infrastructure deficit in federal roads and a sense of political marginalisation that has fuelled separatist agitation for decades. The Southwest, with the lowest poverty rate in the country, still contains slums in Lagos where access to clean water, sanitation, and secure tenure is no better than in northern cities. Regional inequality is not a North-South binary. It is a gradient of state failure, steepest in the North but present everywhere the federation has chosen to underinvest in capability.

The National Assembly, which should provide oversight, has itself become part of the architecture of division. Constituency projects— legislative interventions intended to bring federal development to local areas— are notoriously opaque. A 2021 report by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) found that many constituency projects were either not executed or were executed at inflated costs by contractors connected to the legislators who nominated them. The projects that do materialise tend to be visible, short-term interventions— boreholes, motorcycles, empowerment grants— rather than the long-term institutional investments that would alter the capability map. The legislator gets a plaque; the community gets a hand pump that breaks within two years. The divide persists because the political system rewards visibility over viability.

What makes the divide politically sustainable is that it is simultaneously visible and deniable. The data exists— the NBS 2020 Poverty Profile, the NDHS 2021, the World Bank's repeated human capital warnings— but it is old, fragmented, and rarely cited in budget debates. A legislator from Zamfara can point to his state's FAAC allocation as evidence of federal support, without mentioning that the state's internally generated revenue is negligible, its capital budget execution rate is abysmal, and its citizens remain among the poorest in the federation. A minister from Abuja can announce a new social protection programme without acknowledging that the last one reached less than 2% of the poor. The divided house persists because no one is required to answer for the whole.

Geography is destiny in Nigeria. But technology promises to rewrite the map—or to etch the divide more deeply. The next chapter examines which of these paths the digital economy is actually travelling.

Sources

1. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). 2020 Poverty Profile (2020).
2. NBS. Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) Survey (2022, conducted November 2021–February 2022).
3. NBS. Gini coefficient data (2018).
4. Amartya Sen. Development as Freedom (1999).
5. NBS and Federal Ministry of Health. 2021 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) (2021).
6. UNICEF. Out-of-school children estimates and Nigeria nutrition briefings (n.d.).
7. Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC). Statement on Almajiri integration gap (n.d.).
8. International Organization for Migration (IOM) and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). IDP documentation (n.d.).
9. Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED). Violent events data (2020–2024).
10. Lagos State Government. Internally generated revenue data (2023).
11. BudgIT. Capital budget execution tracking (n.d.).
12. Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). Local government fund diversion report (2022); COVID-19 palliative distribution reports (2020, with civil society organisations); constituency project execution report (2021).
13. World Bank. 2023 Nigeria Public Finance Review (2023); National Social Safety Nets Project (NASSP) evaluation reports (2019–2023); 2022 Nigeria Social Protection Performance Report (2022); 2023 NASSP evaluation (2023).

Chapter 9: Digital Naija

The Numbers Game

Nigeria has 160 million internet subscriptions and a power grid that collapses monthly. The digital economy is being built on sand—and some people are selling the sand.

The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) reported approximately 220 million active mobile subscriptions and roughly 160 million internet subscriptions as of early 2025. Broadband penetration hovers between 45% and 50%, depending on whether one counts third-generation (3G) networks or insists on fourth-generation (4G) long-term evolution (LTE) standards. These figures are routinely cited as evidence that Nigeria is a digital powerhouse. They are evidence of something else: that Nigerians are desperate to connect, and that connection is not the same as capacity.

A mobile subscription is not a person. Many Nigerians hold multiple subscriber identity module (SIM) cards, switching between networks to chase fleeting signal or cheaper data bundles. An internet subscription is not reliable access. The same NCC data that records 160 million internet users coexists with a national grid that collapsed twice in January 2026 alone, dropping from 4,500 megawatts to 24 megawatts on 23 January before failing again four days later. When the grid dies, the base stations die. The digital economy pauses, and the diesel generators begin to hum. TechCabal estimated in 2024 that Nigerian data centres and telecommunications infrastructure spend between 30% and 40% of their operating budgets on diesel. That is not a digital economy. That is a generator economy with a website.

The cost of participating in this generator economy falls on the user. Data remains expensive relative to income. A monthly 10-gigabyte data bundle from a major operator costs roughly ₦3,000 to ₦5,000, depending on promotions. The national minimum wage was raised to ₦70,000 per month in 2024, but the majority of employed Nigerians work in the informal sector where earnings are irregular and often below that threshold. For a household in Kano or Sokoto earning ₦50,000 monthly, a consistent internet connection is a luxury comparable to rent. The subscription numbers measure desire, not affordability. They measure how many people have paid for access at least once, not how many can sustain it.

The quality of what is sustained is also uneven. Ookla speed test data for 2024 placed Nigeria's median mobile internet speed below that of Senegal, Ghana, and South Africa. Latency on congested networks during peak hours makes video calls stutter and e-learning platforms time out. A student in Ibadan attempting to complete an online examination may find that the test logs her out not because she lacks a subscription but because the network cannot maintain a stable session. The infrastructure is present enough to collect fees but fragile enough to fail at the moment of use. It is, in this sense, a perfect metaphor for the broader state capacity problem: the appearance of service without the reliability of delivery.

The sand takes many forms. There are the digital economy conferences held in Lagos hotels with backup generators purring behind floral arrangements, where speakers from government ministries present slide decks about the Fourth Industrial Revolution without mentioning that the venue itself is off-grid. Delegates pay conference fees to hear about smart cities while checking their phones to see whether the transfer they initiated an hour ago has cleared. There are the consultancy contracts awarded to firms promising digital transformation for ministries that still process contracts in paper files. There are the startup incubators funded by development agencies that teach coding to young people who will write Python scripts on laptops that die twice daily. The digital economy has become an industry in itself, producing reports, strategies, and photo opportunities. What it has not produced, in proportional measure, is reliable public infrastructure.

The gap between subscription numbers and functional infrastructure is where the sand is sold. Policymakers cite connectivity statistics to foreign investors who may not know that a Lagos-based software developer loses three hours daily to power outages. Government officials quote internet penetration rates at conferences while the National Broadband Plan slips its deadlines. The Nigerian National Broadband Plan 2020–2025 aimed for 70% broadband penetration by 2025. It will miss that target by roughly twenty percentage points. No updated broadband implementation report has been published by the NCC since late 2024— itself a measure of institutional opacity. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy issues press releases about artificial intelligence (AI) strategy and blockchain adoption, as though the country that cannot keep its base stations powered is ready to train large language models.

The Fintech Surge and Its Shadows

If connectivity is the foundation, finance is the floor. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) licensed telecommunications companies as Payment Service Banks (PSBs) in 2019, and the market has since shifted. MTN MoMo and Airtel Money have grown rapidly, capturing segments of the population that traditional deposit money banks never reached. The Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA) State of the Industry Report on Mobile Money, 2024, noted that mobile money transaction volumes in West Africa surged following regulatory opening in Nigeria. MTN Nigeria reported in its 2024 annual results that MoMo's active user base expanded into the millions, though precise audited transaction volumes remain unevenly disclosed.

This growth is real. It is also fragile. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) placed Nigeria on its "increased monitoring" list—commonly called the grey list—in February 2023, citing deficiencies in anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) frameworks. The grey list designation means that Nigerian financial transactions face enhanced scrutiny from international correspondent banks. It means that a financial technology (fintech) startup in Lagos raising Series A funding must explain to foreign investors why its regulator is under global surveillance. The CBN has prioritised ISO 27001 adoption for financial institutions and issued revised AML/CFT guidelines, but the FATF's October 2024 follow-up report found that Nigeria still had not fully addressed technical compliance gaps in beneficial ownership transparency and law enforcement capacity.

The grey list has material consequences beyond investor presentations. Remittance corridors into Nigeria face higher compliance costs, which are passed to recipients in the form of fees or exchange rate spreads. Correspondent banking relationships have tightened. Some international payment processors have withdrawn or restricted services to Nigerian merchants. The digital economy depends on frictionless cross-border flows of capital and data. The grey list adds friction at every border.

The CBN's PSB guidelines impose restrictions that keep the model narrow. PSBs cannot lend. They cannot accept deposits above specified thresholds. They must maintain 75% of their deposit liabilities in government securities. These rules were designed to prevent PSBs from becoming shadow banks, but they also prevent the model from evolving into full financial service provision. A customer who uses MoMo for transfers and airtime purchases still cannot access a loan from the same platform under PSB rules. The fintech lenders who do offer credit operate under different licences, often at higher interest rates, with less transparency. The result is a fragmented financial landscape where inclusion is celebrated in press releases but credit access remains concentrated among the already solvent.

The PSB model itself carries risk. Because telco-led mobile money grew faster than bank-led models, it also grew faster than the oversight architecture designed to contain it. Agents open accounts with minimal know-your-customer (KYC) documentation. The Bank Verification Number (BVN) and National Identity Number (NIN) linkages that were supposed to anchor digital finance to verified identity have been undermined by enrolment backlogs and data-quality failures. The National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) has struggled to issue NINs at the pace required by CBN mandates. When identity infrastructure lags behind financial infrastructure, the result is not inclusion. It is exposure.

The exposure is not theoretical. Point of Sale (POS) terminals have proliferated across Nigerian cities and towns, providing cash withdrawal and transfer services where banks refuse to build branches. The CBN reported over two million registered POS agents by 2024. Alongside this growth has come a surge in fraud. The Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS) and individual bank fraud reports document rising volumes of unauthorised withdrawals, card cloning, and social engineering attacks targeting POS users. The agents who operate these terminals are often undertrained, underpaid, and liable for losses they did not cause. The fintech boom has created a new class of financially included citizens who are also newly vulnerable to digital theft, with regulatory recourse that moves at the speed of bureaucracy while the fraud moves at the speed of code.

The Infrastructure Paradox

Digital transformation requires electricity. This obvious fact is treated as a footnote in most government digital strategy documents. The NCC's industry statistics do not include a column for "hours of grid power available to base stations." If they did, the 220 million subscription figure would look different.

Manufacturers spent a record ₦1 trillion on self-generation in 2024, according to the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN). Technology firms are not exempt. Data centre operators in Lagos report that backup power accounts for a larger share of their cost structure than bandwidth. The World Bank estimated in its Nigeria Development Update, April 2026, that power outages cost the economy roughly $29 billion annually, approximately 10% of gross domestic product (GDP). A digital economy built on this foundation is not leapfrogging anything. It is crawling across broken glass.

The physical infrastructure gap extends beyond power. Submarine cables land in Lagos—MainOne, Glo-1, SAT-3/WASC, and others—carrying terabits of capacity from Europe and Asia. But fibre optic backhaul to the interior remains thin. The Southwest enjoys latency times that allow real-time video conferencing and cloud-based software development. Parts of the Northeast and Northwest depend on satellite links that add hundreds of milliseconds to every packet, making real-time applications impractical. These are not merely technical differences. They are competitive disadvantages that reproduce the regional inequality mapped in the preceding chapter. When a software engineering job requires a stable internet connection, the geography of connectivity becomes the geography of opportunity.

Data centre capacity illustrates the paradox. Nigeria has a handful of Tier III data centres in Lagos, with smaller facilities in Abuja and a few other cities. Building a new data centre requires not just fibre and land but reliable grid power or heavy investment in captive generation. The cost of this redundancy is passed to customers. A cloud hosting package priced for the Lagos market is proportionally more expensive for a business in Enugu or Port Harcourt that receives the same service over worse infrastructure. The digital economy, in this sense, taxes distance. It taxes those who are already far from the centre.

The notion of data sovereignty adds another layer. Government agencies and firms handling sensitive information face pressure to store data within Nigeria's borders, both for regulatory compliance and for national security. But local hosting means local power outages, local cooling costs, and local bandwidth constraints. The state wants digital control without having built the physical substrate that makes control meaningful. Sovereignty over a server rack that dies when the generator runs out of diesel is sovereignty in name only.

The Regulatory Void

The Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) was enacted in 2019, four years before the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) was formally established in 2023. That four-year gap is instructive. A regulation without a commission is a press release. A commission without enforcement capacity is a building. The NDPC has issued compliance notices to some large data controllers, but no major Nigerian technology firm or government agency has faced significant penalties for breaching data protection standards as of early 2026. The Commission's budget and staffing levels remain below what is required to oversee a market of 160 million internet users.

The NDPR itself borrowed heavily from the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), transplanted into Nigerian law without the institutional ecosystem that makes GDPR enforceable in Europe. There are no Nigerian equivalents of the European Data Protection Board. There is no robust mechanism for class action lawsuits by data subjects. The NDPC's enforcement toolkit is limited to compliance notices and modest fines that large data controllers can absorb as a cost of doing business. Without investigative powers, technical staff, and judicial backup, the Commission is a regulator in form only.

The regulatory vacuum is widest where the technology is newest. Artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic decision-making have entered Nigerian markets with almost no indigenous regulatory framework. Credit-scoring algorithms deployed by fintech lenders use alternative data—mobile phone usage patterns, airtime purchase history, social network density—to assess default risk. These models are trained on data that reflects existing inequalities. A borrower from a region with poor mobile infrastructure may have thinner digital footprints and receive worse scores, not because of credit risk but because of geography. No Nigerian law currently requires algorithmic impact assessments, bias audits, or explainability standards for automated lending decisions.

The CBN's regulatory focus has been on financial stability and AML/CFT compliance, not on the fairness of the algorithms that now determine who gets credit. The NCC regulates telecommunications infrastructure, not the applications that run on it. The Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy published a National Artificial Intelligence Strategy in 2024, but strategy documents are not statutes. The gap between policy aspiration and enforceable law is where algorithmic bias reproduces old discrimination in new code. The market grows faster than the state's capacity to understand it.

The government itself is not a model data steward. Multiple federal agencies collect biometric and personal data—the NIMC with its NIN database, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with voter registration biometrics, the Nigeria Immigration Service with passport data. These databases are not known to be interoperable, and their security protocols are not publicly audited. When the state demands that citizens surrender biometric information to access services, but cannot demonstrate that it can protect that information from breach or misuse, the social contract of digital governance is undermined before it is formed.

Elsewhere, regulatory frameworks are catching up. The European Union's AI Act, which began taking effect in 2024, classifies credit-scoring systems as high-risk and mandates conformity assessments. Kenya published a draft National AI Strategy in 2024 that includes ethics principles and sectoral guidelines. Nigeria has produced strategy papers but no equivalent enforcement mechanism. The result is that Nigerian consumers are exposed to algorithmic decisions made by systems trained on biased data, operated by firms regulated for capital adequacy but not for fairness, and overseen by a state that has not decided whether algorithmic accountability is a priority.

What the Neighbours Did

African comparisons are more useful than Baltic ones. Kenya's M-Pesa, launched by Safaricom in 2007, remains the most cited mobile money case study on the continent. By 2024, M-Pesa processed transactions equivalent to roughly 60% of Kenya's GDP, according to Safaricom's annual report. The model succeeded because it combined regulatory clarity with agent-network density and a simplified KYC tier that allowed small transactions without full bank documentation. The Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) maintained a regulatory sandbox that allowed innovation while preserving oversight, and it updated its National Payment System Act to accommodate digital wallets before the market outran the law.

Nigeria's PSB experiment is often compared to M-Pesa, but the comparison reveals difference more than similarity. Kenya's grid, while imperfect, does not collapse monthly. Its national ID programme, while contested, achieved higher enrolment rates earlier. Its regulatory sandbox produced rules before the market produced crises. M-Pesa grew in soil that was more stable than Nigeria's sand. Nigeria, by contrast, licensed PSBs into an environment where identity verification was patchy, power was unreliable, and AML/CFT oversight was under international review. The result is faster growth with thinner guardrails.

Rwanda offers a different comparator. The Irembo government-services platform, launched in 2014 and expanded through 2024, allows citizens to apply for permits, pay taxes, and access certificates online. Rwanda's e-government infrastructure is underpinned by deliberate state investment in fibre connectivity and data centre capacity. The Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority maintains enforcement staff who audit compliance. Rwanda is not a democracy in the same sense as Nigeria, and its digital infrastructure has been built with a centralisation that would face constitutional resistance in a federal system. But the contrast is still relevant: Rwanda built its digital state after deciding that connectivity was a public utility, not a market opportunity for rent-seekers. Nigeria treats it as both, and serves neither goal well.

Old Inequalities, New Code

The question is not whether Nigeria's digital economy is growing. It is growing. The question is what it is growing into. A 2023 survey by Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access (EFInA) found that 64% of Nigerian adults were financially included, up from 58% in 2020. That progress is meaningful. But financial inclusion measured by account ownership is not the same as financial security measured by access to affordable credit, insurance, or savings instruments. An account that holds occasional remittances and airtime purchases is not a pathway out of poverty. It is a digital ledger of precarity.

The regional inequality documented in Chapter 8 reappears in digital form. The Southwest, with Lagos as its hub, hosts the majority of venture capital funding, data centre capacity, and skilled technology labour. The Northwest, where 77.7% of people lived in poverty according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) 2020 survey—the most recent regional data available—has lower smartphone penetration, weaker fibre connectivity, and fewer agent networks. Digital platforms do not erase these disparities. They monetise them. A logistics algorithm that routes deliveries based on predicted demand will concentrate service in affluent Lagos postcodes and ignore low-income northern settlements where expected revenue does not justify fuel costs. The algorithm is not malicious. It is efficient. And efficiency without equity is another word for exclusion.

Employment in the technology sector illustrates the same pattern. Andela, Paystack, Flutterwave, and other Nigerian technology firms have created high-quality jobs. But the total number of direct technology-sector jobs remains in the tens of thousands, not the millions required by a labour market that absorbs roughly four to five million new entrants annually. Tech employment is real. It is also tiny. It cannot substitute for the missing industrialisation, agricultural modernisation, and public-sector capacity that would employ the majority.

The state's digital ambition is not limited to the private sector. The Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) has pursued digital tax collection with increasing aggression, requiring businesses to file online and pay through electronic transfer. This is rational policy in a country with a 7.9% tax-to-GDP ratio, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF) Revenue Statistics in Africa, 2024. But the enforcement is asymmetric. Large corporations with accounting departments and tax lawyers navigate the portals with difficulty but eventual success. Small traders and informal vendors, who may not have reliable internet or the literacy to operate tax software, face a steeper cliff. The digitalisation of tax collection, without the digitalisation of public service delivery, looks less like modernisation and more like extraction. The state wants to collect through algorithms what it has not earned through service.

The promise of digital transformation is that it allows societies to bypass broken infrastructure. The reality is that digital platforms require infrastructure of their own: electricity, identity verification, regulatory enforcement, and contractual trust. Nigeria's state has not built these things. Private capital has filled some of the gaps, but private capital charges for the filling. The result is a two-tiered digital economy: one for those who can afford generators, fibre backup, and legal counsel to navigate grey-list banking restrictions, and one for those who cannot. The first tier pays a premium for reliability. The second tier pays with downtime, fraud exposure, and permanent exclusion from credit markets that algorithms have already judged and found wanting.

The state's own digital service delivery does not inspire confidence. The Nigeria Immigration Service portal for passport applications crashes during peak periods. The Federal Road Safety Corps online driver's licence renewal system is notorious for failed payments and duplicated charges. The Corporate Affairs Commission's online registration portal, while improved, still requires physical visits for many transactions that are advertised as fully digital. The FIRS tax filing system, though mandatory, generates error messages that send taxpayers back to account officers who may or may not answer their phones. A state that cannot make its own websites function reliably wants citizens to trust its biometric databases and algorithmic welfare systems. The contradiction is not subtle. It is daily.

The state that cannot keep the national grid running for twenty-four consecutive hours wants to be trusted with biometric data, digital tax collection, and algorithmic governance. The state that has not published an updated national poverty survey since 2020 wants to deploy AI to identify social welfare beneficiaries. The mismatch between digital ambition and state capacity is not a gap. It is a chasm. And across that chasm, entrepreneurs, investors, and political intermediaries are building bridges—for a toll.

The code is written. The apps are built. The question is whether they will be used to include or to exclude—and whether the state that cannot meter electricity can regulate algorithms.

Sources

1. Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC). Mobile and internet subscription data (early 2025).
2. TechCabal. Estimate on data centre and telecom diesel costs (2024).
3. Ookla. Speed test data (2024).
4. Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy. National Broadband Plan 2020–2025 (2020).
5. Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA). State of the Industry Report on Mobile Money (2024).
6. MTN Nigeria. 2024 Annual Results (2024).
7. Financial Action Task Force (FATF). "Increased monitoring" (grey list) designation (February 2023); follow-up report (October 2024).
8. National Identity Management Commission (NIMC). National Identity Number enrolment data (n.d.).
9. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). POS agent registration data (2024); Payment Service Bank guidelines (n.d.).
10. Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS). Fraud reports (n.d.).
11. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN). Self-generation cost data (2024).
12. World Bank. Nigeria Development Update (April 2026).
13. Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy. National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (2024).
14. European Union. AI Act (2024).
15. Kenya. Draft National AI Strategy (2024).
16. Safaricom. Annual report (2024).
17. Central Bank of Kenya (CBK). Regulatory sandbox and National Payment System Act (n.d.).
18. Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (n.d.).
19. Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access (EFInA). Financial inclusion survey (2023).
20. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). 2020 Poverty Profile (2020).
21. OECD and African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF). Revenue Statistics in Africa 2024 (2024).

Chapter 10: The Unfinished Roadmap

Every Nigerian administration since 1986 has produced an economic blueprint. Structural Adjustment. NEEDS. Vision 20:2020. ERGP. The National Development Plan. Almost none was implemented. This chapter is not a roadmap. It is an autopsy of roadmaps—and a single question about what would have to change for the next one to survive.

The Autopsy Begins

The first observation an autopsy yields is that the patient was not ignorant. Each blueprint correctly identified the symptoms. The Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) of 1986, negotiated with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, diagnosed an overvalued exchange rate, a bloated public sector, and an import-dependent economy. The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) of 2003, drafted by the National Planning Commission under President Olusegun Obasanjo and launched in May 2004, identified corruption, weak infrastructure, and a shallow tax base. Vision 20:2020, launched by the National Planning Commission in 2009 under President Umaru Yar'Adua, promised to place Nigeria among the world's top twenty economies by 2020 through diversification and human capital investment, targeting a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $900 billion and a per capita income of $4,000. The Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) of 2017, produced by the Ministry of Budget and National Planning under President Muhammadu Buhari, set sixty specific strategies to restore growth after the 2016 recession, including ramping oil production to 2.5 million barrels per day and creating fifteen million jobs. The National Development Plan (NDP) 2021–2025, produced by the Ministry of Finance, Budget and National Planning, committed to massive public and private investment in infrastructure, social services, and economic diversification.

Each document was launched with ceremony. Each was abandoned with silence. SAP was formally suspended in 1988, though its core elements—devaluation, trade liberalisation, and privatisation—lingered through the 1990s without the compensatory social spending that might have cushioned their impact. The World Bank's own 1994 evaluation of structural adjustment lending in Africa found that while macroeconomic indicators stabilised, the effect on poverty and social welfare was frequently adverse—a judgment that applied with particular force to Nigeria, where manufacturing employment collapsed and the informal sector absorbed displaced workers without social protection. NEEDS expired in 2007 with most of its poverty reduction targets unmet. The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) recorded that poverty remained above 54% at the end of Obasanjo's tenure, and Nigeria's per capita income was lower than that of several non-oil-producing countries in West Africa. The one undeniable achievement of the period—the Paris Club debt relief deal of 2005, negotiated by Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala—was an external transaction, not a domestic institutional reform. It removed debt but did not build the capacity to avoid accumulating it again.

Vision 20:2020 was discarded before its deadline; by 2020 Nigeria's GDP was approximately $432 billion, less than half the $900 billion target, and the country ranked twenty-sixth by GDP, not twentieth. The First, Second, and Third National Implementation Plans that were supposed to translate Vision 20:2020 into annual budgets were never fully funded or consistently executed. President Yar'Adua's Seven-Point Agenda displaced it before the first implementation plan had ended. President Jonathan's Transformation Agenda borrowed its language but abandoned its metrics. The ERGP's 2020 deadline passed with oil production at roughly 1.4 million barrels per day, well below its 2.5 million target, and with unemployment higher than when the plan began. The NDP 2021–2025 is still technically alive, but by 2025 Nigeria's public debt had reached ₦159.28 trillion, according to the Debt Management Office (DMO), and debt service consumed ₦16 trillion—more than the capital budget and social spending combined. The plan that was supposed to diversify the economy arrived at a moment when the state could barely service its existing obligations.

The Failure Modes

What killed these plans was not a shortage of analysis. It was a predictable set of institutional failure modes that recurred across every administration, regardless of political party or ideological orientation.

First, the plans were hostage to oil prices and production volumes over which the state exercised only partial control. SAP was designed when oil traded above $25 per barrel; when prices collapsed in 1986, the austerity required to maintain IMF conditionality became politically unsustainable, and the government began backtracking on trade liberalisation within two years. NEEDS benefited from rising oil prices after 2003, but the Excess Crude Account became a presidential slush fund rather than a stabilisation buffer, and the fiscal savings that should have financed infrastructure were dissipated through off-budget spending and opaque deductions by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). The ERGP projected oil production of 2.5 million barrels per day by 2020 at a price benchmark of $45 per barrel; actual production averaged below 1.7 million barrels per day for much of the period, and while prices eventually exceeded the benchmark, the NNPC failed to remit the full proceeds to the federation account—a pattern documented by the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) in its audits from 2020 to 2022, which found billions of dollars in unremitted revenues and discrepancies between company-reported and government-reported figures. Every plan assumed that oil revenue would finance diversification; every plan discovered that oil revenue financed consumption, debt service, and elite capture instead.

Second, implementation was nobody's statutory job. NEEDS had no legally binding status; it was a strategy paper, not an appropriations law, and it contained no enforcement mechanism that could survive a change of government. When President Yar'Adua succeeded Obasanjo in 2007, he abandoned NEEDS for his own Seven-Point Agenda. When President Goodluck Jonathan succeeded Yar'Adua, he launched a Transformation Agenda that borrowed language from Vision 20:2020 but operated on different priorities. When Buhari succeeded Jonathan in 2015, he produced the ERGP, explicitly disavowing the previous administration's framework. When the Tinubu administration succeeded Buhari in 2023, it began its own reform programme—subsidy removal, naira float, tax reform—without reference to the NDP's specific targets or timelines. The Federal Government of Nigeria has spent four decades writing plans and zero years embedding them in legislation that outlasts a press conference.

Third, monitoring and evaluation were theatrical rather than disciplinary. The ERGP established a Delivery Unit in the Presidency and promised quarterly performance reports. The Ministry of Budget and National Planning produced dashboards and scorecards. But there was no mechanism to penalise non-performance. A minister who missed every capital expenditure target faced no consequence beyond a cabinet reshuffle. A ministry that failed to spend 70% of its capital allocation was not dissolved or restructured; it was given a larger allocation the following year, on the theory that the problem was insufficient funding rather than institutional incapacity or diversion. The NDP 2021–2025 contained a Volume III on "Legislative Imperatives," an implicit admission that previous plans had failed because they lacked statutory backing. But that volume was not enacted into law. The plan was, in effect, a wish list with a budget line and a launch ceremony.

Fourth, and most fundamentally, each plan assumed that the existing institutional architecture could carry a new load. SAP assumed that a civil service accustomed to import licensing could administer a market economy. NEEDS assumed that ministries that had never delivered a capital project on schedule could suddenly build roads and power plants on a four-year timeline. The ERGP assumed that a Bureau of Public Procurement operating under executive control could prevent contract inflation. The NDP assumed that state governments receiving monthly federal allocations could develop the capacity to co-finance infrastructure. None of the plans invested seriously in rebuilding the institutions that were supposed to implement them. They were blueprints drawn for a construction firm that did not exist. The pattern is now visible across every sector this book has examined: the power sector knew it needed metering and transmission investment, but the institutions that should have delivered them were captured by debt, political appointees, and procurement cartels. The fiscal system knew it needed higher tax revenue, but the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) collected record sums only to see them consumed by debt service. The labour market knew it needed four to five million new jobs annually, but the NBS stopped publishing unemployment data after 2020, as if the absence of measurement could disguise the absence of policy delivery.

The Exception That Proves the Rule

If there is a single counter-example to the institutional failure described in the preceding chapters, it is the Dangote Refinery. Located in the Lekki Free Zone in Lagos, the refinery has a nameplate capacity of 650,000 barrels per day. It began petrol production in 2024, with diesel and aviation fuel following shortly after. It represents the largest single private industrial investment in Nigerian history, estimated at $19 billion. And it was built not by the state but in spite of it.

The Federal Government had spent four decades and billions of dollars trying to refine crude oil domestically. The four state-owned refineries in Port Harcourt, Warri, and Kaduna operated at a fraction of capacity for decades, consuming subsidies and producing negligible output. Rehabilitation contracts were awarded, re-awarded, and abandoned with a regularity that suggested the process itself was the revenue model. The NNPC, now NNPC Limited, presided over a refining system that could not meet 10% of domestic demand despite receiving billions in turnaround maintenance allocations. The Dangote Group achieved what the Ministry of Petroleum Resources and its successor agencies could not: it built a functioning refinery on time, at scale, and under budgetary discipline enforced by international lenders.

The difference was not capital. The state had capital. It was not technical knowledge. The state hired the same international engineering firms—Technip, KBR, and others—that worked on the Dangote project. The difference was institutional architecture. Aliko Dangote could fire a contractor who missed a deadline. The Ministry of Petroleum Resources could not. Dangote could enforce a performance bond and withhold payment until specifications were met. The Bureau of Public Enterprises, which oversaw privatisation, could not. When regulatory disputes arose with the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) over crude supply allocations and domestic pricing in 2024 and 2025, Dangote had the commercial leverage and international profile to negotiate from strength. A state-owned refinery would have surrendered to regulatory pressure, as state-owned enterprises have done for decades.

The refinery does not prove that the private sector is inherently superior to the public sector. It proves that execution requires accountability mechanisms that the Nigerian state has systematically dismantled or failed to build. Where the state cannot enforce contracts, cannot discipline non-performers, and cannot insulate procurement from political interference, even the correct project will fail. Where those mechanisms exist—as they did inside the Dangote Group, enforced by lenders, shareholders, and the imperative of commercial survival—the same technical challenge yields a different outcome. The implication is not that Nigeria should privatise everything. It is that the state must build, within its own operations, the same accountability mechanisms that function in private enterprise: clear lines of responsibility, consequences for failure, and oversight that reports to someone other than the person being overseen.

The Continental Test

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) presents a live test of whether Nigeria can convert policy ambition into institutional capability. Nigeria ratified the AfCFTA agreement in 2020, after initial hesitation driven by concerns about smuggling and the competitiveness of domestic manufacturing. The promise is substantial: a single market of 1.3 billion people, tariff liberalisation on 90% of product lines, and the potential to shift Nigerian manufacturing from a domestic market of roughly 220 million to a continental market of over a billion consumers. The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) estimated in 2021 that AfCFTA could increase intra-African trade by 52% by 2022, with Nigeria positioned as a potential beneficiary given the scale of its consumer market and its entrepreneurial base.

But Nigerian implementation readiness tells a different story. The National Action Committee on AfCFTA was established, but its coordination with the Nigeria Customs Service, the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment has been slow and fragmented. The Nigeria Customs Service still relies on manual processes and physical inspection at major border posts, including Seme and Jibiya, where clearance times are measured in days rather than hours. The SON lacks the laboratory capacity to certify agricultural and manufactured exports at the speed that a continental supply chain demands. Nigerian manufacturers, who spent a record ₦1 trillion on self-generation in 2024 according to the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN), face an electricity cost handicap that no tariff reduction can offset. A firm that spends 40% of its operating budget on diesel cannot compete on price with a Ghanaian or Kenyan firm that draws reliable power from a national grid.

The paradox of AfCFTA for Nigeria is that the country stands to gain the most from a larger market and is prepared the least to compete in it. Ghana has moved faster on rules of origin documentation and digital trade facilitation. Kenya has built export processing zones with functioning infrastructure. Rwanda has integrated its customs system with regional platforms. Nigeria's comparative advantage—its market size, its entrepreneurial base, its creative and technology sectors—will not survive contact with a continental market if the infrastructure to move goods across its own territory remains broken, if power remains unreliable, and if customs clearance remains a negotiation rather than a procedure. The World Bank estimated in 2023 that non-tariff barriers and poor logistics infrastructure reduce Nigeria's effective market access by more than tariffs do. AfCFTA eliminates the tariffs but leaves the barriers intact. AfCFTA is not a gift delivered by diplomats. It is a competitive examination. And Nigeria has not yet finished building the examination hall.

What Would Change the Calculus

The argument of this book is that Nigeria does not have a planning problem. It has an execution problem. And execution is not a function of intention. It is a function of architecture. The question is not whether the next administration wants to implement its blueprint. The question is what structural changes would make implementation the path of least resistance for whoever occupies Aso Rock, regardless of party or personal disposition.

Four such changes are identifiable, not as recommendations offered to a receptive government but as alterations to the incentive structure that has produced four decades of abandoned plans. Each addresses a specific failure mode. None is a panacea. Together, they would alter the calculus.

Independent procurement oversight would change the arithmetic of capital projects. The Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) currently operates under the executive branch, reviewing contracts that the same executive branch wants to award. An independent procurement regulator, funded directly from the federation account and reporting to the National Assembly rather than the Presidency, would not eliminate corruption. But it would raise the cost of circumventing due process. When the Lagos-Ibadan railway contract was inflated through variation orders, when the Mambilla Hydropower $5.8 billion contract spawned a corruption trial that is still ongoing years later, when fertiliser procurement became a seasonal ritual of diversion to political networks, the common element was that the oversight body lacked the statutory independence to say no and make the refusal stick. A procurement regulator with the power to void contracts, blacklist contractors, and refer cases directly to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) without executive clearance would not end graft. It would make graft more expensive.

Judicial enforcement of contracts would change the risk calculation for investors. Nigeria's contract enforcement ranking in the World Bank's discontinued Doing Business report fell from 90th in 2008 to 96th in 2017, a trajectory that the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Business Ready assessment suggests has not reversed. Commercial dispute resolution in Nigerian courts routinely takes five to seven years, and the enforcement of judgments against politically connected defendants remains uncertain. A manufacturing firm that cannot enforce a supply contract within a predictable timeframe will not expand. A foreign investor who cannot obtain and execute a judgment against a defaulting domestic partner will not enter, or will enter only at a risk premium that raises prices for consumers. The problem is not the absence of commercial laws. The Contracts Act, the Sale of Goods Act, and the Companies and Allied Matters Act all exist. The problem is the absence of a judiciary that can deliver judgments on schedule and enforce them against defendants with political connections. Constitutional reform to guarantee court administration funding independent of executive control—so that a state governor cannot withhold the judiciary's budget to influence a case—and statutory deadlines requiring commercial disputes to be resolved within eighteen months, would not guarantee justice. But it would make delay more difficult and predictability more likely.

Subnational fiscal autonomy would change the geography of accountability. Under the current revenue allocation formula, states receive monthly allocations from the Federation Account based on a formula that rewards population, land mass, and derivation rather than internally generated revenue. The result is a fiscal system in which state governors are distributors of federal transfers rather than builders of local tax bases. Lagos State, which generates roughly 40% of its revenue internally, operates under entirely different incentives than states that derive 80% or more of their revenue from Abuja. When a state government knows that its citizens are the primary source of its revenue, its incentive to deliver services shifts from patronage to performance. The tax reform law signed in June 2025, effective January 2026, attempts to streamline Value Added Tax (VAT) collection and reduce multiple taxation, but it does not alter the fundamental structure in which most states are spending units rather than productive jurisdictions. A constitutional amendment requiring each state to raise a minimum percentage—say, 30%—of its budget from direct taxation of its own residents would not punish poor states. It would force every state to build the institutional capacity to assess, collect, and be accountable to its own taxpayers. States that currently cannot tell you how many businesses operate within their borders would suddenly have a reason to find out.

Citizen audit mechanisms would change the information asymmetry that sustains institutional decay. The Freedom of Information Act of 2011 exists on paper, but its enforcement is sporadic, and public agencies routinely reject requests or demand fees that discourage inquiry. BudgIT, a Nigerian civic organisation, has demonstrated since 2011 that citizens can track capital projects, expose abandoned contracts, and publish procurement data in formats that ordinary people can understand. But its work relies on volunteer effort, donor funding, and the courage of staff who face harassment. A statutory right for any registered taxpayer to demand and receive, within thirty days, the detailed expenditure report of any ministry or agency—backed by criminal penalties for non-compliance—would not by itself end diversion. But it would equip civil society organisations, investigative journalists, and opposition legislators with the documentary ammunition to make opacity politically costly. The current system depends on the public not knowing. Opacity is cheaper than transparency only because the law makes it so.

None of these four changes is a panacea. Each would face resistance from the interests that benefit from the status quo. Each would require legislation that the legislature may not pass and the executive may not sign. Each would be attacked as impractical by the very institutions whose dysfunction it seeks to correct. But that is precisely the point. The reason previous roadmaps failed is that they required no one to give up power. They were documents that asked the Nigerian state to perform better without changing the rules that govern how it performs. They assumed that the same civil service that had not delivered a power project on budget in thirty years would suddenly deliver sixty new strategies on schedule. They assumed that the same procurement system that produced the Mambilla scandal would suddenly produce honest contracts. They assumed that the same revenue allocation formula that made state governors tax collectors for Abuja rather than builders of their own economies would suddenly produce fiscal responsibility. A roadmap that does not alter the incentives of the people who must implement it is not a plan. It is a press release with a higher word count.

The knowledge is not missing. The will is not missing. What is missing is the institutional architecture that converts will into action. Until that is built, every roadmap is a prayer—and Nigeria has prayed long enough.

Sources

1. World Bank. Evaluation of Structural Adjustment Lending in Africa (1994).
2. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Poverty data (2007).
3. Debt Management Office (DMO). Public debt stock data (2025).
4. Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI). Audits (2020–2022).
5. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA). AfCFTA impact estimate (2021).
6. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN). Self-generation cost data (2024).
7. World Bank. Estimate on non-tariff barriers and logistics infrastructure (2023); Doing Business report (2008, 2017).
8. International Finance Corporation (IFC). Business Ready assessment (n.d.).

Chapter 10: The Bypass Economy

In October 2024, Paystack — founded in Lagos in 2015 — processed more daily transactions than NITEL had handled across its entire 38-year history. By then, the company was a Stripe subsidiary headquartered in Delaware. Its founders were in San Francisco. Its tax residency was in Ireland. Its 50 million Nigerian users had never noticed. A Nigerian infrastructure need was met by a Nigerian-founded company that grew to serve millions. The company then relocated its legal home to the United States and its leadership to California. The users remained in Lagos, Port Harcourt, and Kano, paying in naira that was settled in dollars and governed by Delaware law. The bypass is not a theory. The bypass is a corporate structure.

The Bypass Defined

NITEL, the Nigerian Telecommunications Limited, operated for 38 years from 1961 to 1999. At its peak, the company managed approximately 700,000 fixed telephone lines for a population that had grown to over 100 million. The lines were concentrated in government offices, military installations, and the homes of senior civil servants. The waiting list for a residential line exceeded five years in some states. NITEL was privatised in 2001 as part of the GSM licence auction, but the privatisation never completed. The company was re-nationalised, re-privatised, and eventually liquidated in 2019. In its entire history, NITEL never provided universal telephone access. Paystack provided payment access to 50 million Nigerians in nine years. The comparison is not between public and private efficiency. The comparison is between public absence and private presence.

The bypass thesis is not an optimistic narrative. The thesis describes a mechanical fact: when a public institution fails to provide an infrastructure service — payment rails, savings products, employment pathways, broadband connectivity — private actors build alternatives that route around the failure. The state did not disappear from the bypass economy. The state created the conditions for it. Four decades of institutional decay produced the vacuum that Paystack, Andela, Moniepoint, and Starlink now fill. The question is not whether the bypass is happening. The question is what it reaches, what it leaves behind, who owns it, and whether a country can survive when its most capable citizens no longer need its institutions.

The bypass thesis does not claim that private actors are inherently better than public institutions. The thesis claims that public institutions failed first, and private actors filled the vacuum second. The sequence matters. Paystack did not disrupt a functioning Central Bank of Nigeria payment system. Paystack built on top of a CBN-licensed infrastructure that the banks had failed to extend to online merchants. Moniepoint did not destroy rural bank branches. Moniepoint served areas where no branch had ever existed. Starlink did not compete with NITEL. NITEL was already dead. The bypass is not creative destruction in the Schumpeterian sense. The bypass is construction in a vacant lot. The lot was vacant because the state failed to build.

Each case study in this chapter follows the same structural pattern. A public institution that was supposed to provide an infrastructure service failed to deliver it at adequate scale or quality. A private actor built an alternative. Nigerians adopted the alternative rapidly. That alternative now handles more volume than the public institution it bypasses. Yet the alternative reports to no minister, answers to no National Assembly committee, and owes no accountability to the citizens who use it — because the alternative is a company, not a government. This pattern is visible in employment, in banking, in broadband connectivity, and in savings. The chapter names what gets bypassed, measures the bypass at scale, and then names the ceiling that no private workaround can break.

The pattern is not accidental. That pattern is repeatable because the underlying institutional failure is repeatable. The same state that cannot maintain a power line also cannot enforce a banking licence in a rural local government area. The same regulator that lacks the staff to inspect a pension fund also lacks the staff to supervise a fintech wallet. The bypass emerges in multiple sectors simultaneously not because entrepreneurs are coordinating, but because the institutional vacuum is systemic. The bypass is not a conspiracy of the private sector against the public interest. The bypass is a rational response to a state that collects tax, issues licences, and then absents itself from the service it was supposed to provide.

Moniepoint processed approximately ₦2 trillion in transactions per month by 2024, serving 2 million merchants that no Central Bank of Nigeria development finance scheme had ever reached.

Moniepoint press statement, 2024; TechCrunch, Moniepoint Reaches Unicorn Status, October 2023

The four bypass cases that follow are not success stories in the conventional sense. They are diagnostic evidence. Andela bypasses the Nigerian formal employment market and the Nigerian education system simultaneously. OPay and Moniepoint bypass the bank branch requirement for financial access. Starlink bypasses NTEL and the terrestrial broadband failure in non-Lagos Nigeria. PiggyVest and Cowrywise bypass the savings and pension infrastructure that the state failed to provide for informal workers. Each case names the public institution that failed, the private actor that built the alternative, and the scale at which the alternative now operates. Each case also names the population that the alternative does not reach.

Andela and the Employment Bypass

Andela bypasses the Nigerian formal employment market and the Nigerian education system simultaneously. The company trains software engineers and places them with international firms, routing around a university system that produces graduates faster than the economy absorbs them and a labour market that the National Bureau of Statistics stopped measuring after Q4 2020. The last published Nigeria Labour Force Survey, released in March 2021, recorded 33.3% national unemployment, 53.4% youth unemployment, and 23.2 million unemployed or underemployed Nigerians — figures that have not been updated in six years. Founded in 2014 by Jeremy Johnson, Brice Nkengsa, Christina Sass, and Ian Carnevale, Andela began as a four-year paid fellowship in Lagos. The original model was specific: identify talented young Nigerians, train them in software engineering through an intensive residential programme, and place them with global technology firms that could pay dollar salaries no Nigerian employer could match.

The Nigerian university system produces approximately 500,000 graduates annually who compete for fewer than 100,000 formal sector vacancies. The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board registered 1.94 million candidates for the 2024 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination, against approximately 500,000 to 600,000 available admission slots — a gap of more than 1.3 million qualified applicants who cannot be admitted in any given year. The pipeline is oversupplied at entry and choked at exit. Andela did not wait for the government to reform the curriculum, fund the laboratories, or align training with market demand. Andela built its own assessment system, its own training curriculum, and its own placement network. The bypass was complete: Andela became the employer, the educator, and the export facilitator for Nigerian engineering talent.

Between 2020 and 2021, Andela pivoted from residential training to a distributed "talent cloud" — a platform connecting African engineers to global remote opportunities on a contract basis. The shift was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which normalised remote work for technology firms from San Francisco to Berlin. In September 2021, SoftBank Vision Fund led a $200 million Series E investment that valued Andela at $1.5 billion — a valuation of $1.5 billion for a company that trains Nigerian engineers to work for American firms. By 2023, the company claimed more than 175,000 engineers on its talent network, operating in over 100 countries. Andela has trained approximately 100,000 engineers since its founding. The scale is significant. The scale is also minuscule against a labour market that absorbs 4–5 million new entrants each year.

The Andela model exposes a deeper dysfunction in Nigerian education. The country's 274 licensed universities produce graduates who cannot find work, while Andela trains non-graduates — and sometimes graduates of non-technical fields — into globally competitive software engineers in six months. The bypass is not just of the labour market. The bypass is of the credential system. A Nigerian with a degree in political science and self-taught coding skills can earn $3,000–$10,000 per month through Andela, while a first-class honours graduate in computer science from a state university earns ₦150,000 per month in a Lagos bank — if hired at all. The university credential is supposed to signal competence. Andela's assessment tests signal competence more accurately. The bypass is also an information correction: it replaces a broken credential with a direct skills measurement.

The Andela bypass also reveals the geographic concentration of opportunity. The company's Lagos fellowship attracted applicants from across Nigeria, but the residential programme required physical presence in a city with rents that exclude most of the country. The pivot to remote work in 2020–2021 nominally democratised access — an engineer in Enugu could now join without relocating to Lagos. But remote work requires electricity, internet, and a quiet workspace. Enugu's grid is no more reliable than Lagos's. The engineer who can afford a generator and a Starlink subscription is still, by Nigerian standards, wealthy. The bypass democratises access to global employment only for those who have already bypassed the local infrastructure crisis.

The bypass is precise in its institutional mechanics. An Andela engineer routes around the Nigerian formal labour market by being employed by a German technology firm in US dollars, paid through a Delaware-incorporated intermediary, while living in Lagos and paying rent in naira. The naira's collapse from ₦360 to the dollar in 2019 to over ₦1,500 in 2024 accidentally amplified this bypass: the same dollar salary that bought comfort in 2019 bought relative affluence in 2024. A software engineer earning $3,000–$10,000 per month in 2024 received a naira equivalent that places them in the top 0.1% of Nigerian income earners. The engineer's landlord, grocer, and mechanic benefit from this purchasing power. The Nigerian state does not tax it effectively.

But the institutional home of this employment is not Nigeria. Andela's headquarters is in New York. The employment contracts are governed by Delaware law. The taxes on the income are paid where the employing company is tax-resident, not where the engineer wakes up. The engineer's physical presence in Lagos is a geographic accident, not a structural commitment to the Nigerian economy. If the engineer relocates to Nairobi, to Accra, or to Berlin, the employing company notices only the time zone change. The Nigerian state loses the income tax, the consumption stimulus, and eventually the engineer. The fraction of Andela engineers who remain in Nigeria versus those who have relocated is not publicly disclosed. The direction of travel is knowable: remote work platforms do not require physical presence, and dollar salaries lose naira purchasing power only when the worker stays.

The post-pandemic acceleration of remote work has made the Andela bypass reversible in geographic terms. A company in Berlin that hired an Andela engineer in 2022 no longer cares whether the engineer codes from Lagos or from Lisbon. Portugal offers a digital nomad visa. Estonia offers e-Residency. Nigeria offers neither. The engineer who relocates takes their Lagos rent, their generator budget, and their naira-denominated stress with them. The receiving country gains the income tax, the local consumption, and the human capital. Nigeria gains nothing from the departure except a vacancy in the labour market that the National Bureau of Statistics no longer measures. The bypass was supposed to route around a broken labour market. The bypass is now routing around the country itself.

Andela's model has been replicated by other platforms — Turing, Gebeya, and direct recruiting by global firms — but Andela remains the largest and most visible. The company demonstrates what the bypass thesis predicts: where public education and formal employment fail, private intermediaries emerge to capture the gap. But Andela captures the most educated fraction of the youth cohort. Andela does not reach the carpenter, the market trader, or the graduate of a state polytechnic in Yobe. The bypass is real for the engineers it reaches. The bypass reaches perhaps 0.1% of the 20–25 million young Nigerians who entered the labour market between 2021 and 2026 without a published survey to measure their fate. The National Bureau of Statistics has not conducted a national labour force survey since Q4 2020. Andela's growth is invisible in the official data because the official data no longer exists.

OPay, Moniepoint, and the Banking Bypass

OPay and Moniepoint bypass the bank branch requirement for financial access. Nigeria's commercial banking sector operates approximately 37 branches per 100,000 adults, concentrated in Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt, and a handful of state capitals. The 774 local government areas contain tens of millions of adults who live more than 10 kilometres from the nearest bank branch. The Central Bank of Nigeria's Payment Service Bank licence, introduced in 2019, was supposed to solve this by allowing non-bank actors to accept deposits and facilitate payments in underserved areas. The licence was issued. The branches were not built. What solved the access problem was the agent network.

OPay, founded in 2018 by the Norway-listed Opera Group, reached 50 million registered users in Nigeria by 2024 and deployed more than 1 million retail agents across markets, motor parks, and street corners. The company achieved a $2 billion valuation in 2021 after a $400 million Series C led by SoftBank Vision Fund. Moniepoint, which achieved unicorn status with a $1 billion valuation in October 2023 after a Series C led by Development Partners International, serves more than 2 million merchants and processes approximately ₦2 trillion in transactions per month. Moniepoint's platform provides working capital assessments to approximately 600,000 businesses that the Central Bank of Nigeria's development finance schemes — Anchor Borrowers, NIRSAL, MSMEDF — never reached. The assessment is based on transaction data that Moniepoint already holds, not on collateral that micro-merchants do not own.

The bypass is physical. An OPay agent in a Lagos street market or a Moniepoint terminal in a Kano provisions store replaces the bank branch that was never built in that local government area. The agent network does not require real estate, air conditioning, security guards, or tellers with National Diploma certificates. The agent network requires a smartphone, a data connection, and a float of cash. By 2024, Nigeria had approximately 2.1 million POS agents — a distribution infrastructure that no state-owned bank ever constructed. The state's financial inclusion target, repeatedly announced in Central Bank of Nigeria strategy documents, is being met without the state. EFInA reported 64% financial inclusion in 2023, up from 58% in 2020 — a gain that came from agents, not from branches.

The agent network has created a new class of micro-entrepreneur: the POS agent who charges ₦100 to ₦200 per cash withdrawal, the merchant who receives transfers for a 0.5% fee, and the aggregator who manages ten agents and takes a commission on their volume. These are not employees of Moniepoint or OPay. They are independent operators who have built small businesses on top of the bypass infrastructure. The NBS does not count them in the formal employment statistics. SMEDAN might count them as micro-enterprises. Their income is real, their tax compliance minimal, and their vulnerability to regulatory change high. If the CBN revokes the PSB licence or imposes capital requirements that OPay cannot meet, the agent network dissolves overnight. The bypass is resilient against infrastructure failure. The bypass is fragile against regulatory failure.

The CBN licensed these operators as Payment Service Banks, a category that prohibits them from lending directly but allows them to accept deposits and facilitate payments. The regulatory framework is thinner than the commercial banking licence, and the operators have exploited this thinness to grow faster than the prudential guardrails could keep pace. The Financial Action Task Force grey-listed Nigeria in February 2023, citing among other gaps the regulatory oversight of digital payment platforms. OPay and Moniepoint are not rogue operators. They are regulated entities operating at the edge of a regulatory perimeter that was designed for an era of physical branches and paper ledgers. The bypass grows where the regulation is thin. The regulation is thin where the state lacks the capacity to enforce it.

The comparison with Kenya is instructive. M-Pesa, launched in 2007 by Safaricom, processed transaction volumes equivalent to approximately 60% of Kenya's GDP by 2024. M-Pesa succeeded because Kenya's power grid is more stable, its national ID enrollment higher, and its regulatory sandbox produced rules before the market produced crises. Nigeria's PSB model grew faster with thinner guardrails on a less stable infrastructure floor. Nigeria's power grid collapses monthly; base stations go dark. M-Pesa's reliability rests on 95-plus percent uptime. Nigeria cannot guarantee 70% uptime. The digital bypass is also vulnerable to the infrastructure crisis it is bypassing. When the grid collapses, the agent's smartphone dies. The bypass pauses.

Moniepoint's merchant data reveals something the NBS labour force survey no longer captures. The 2 million merchants on the platform are not employees of Moniepoint. They are micro-entrepreneurs — provision store owners, hair salon operators, motorcycle spare parts dealers — who have built a transaction history that the formal banking system would never have recorded. Moniepoint knows their daily revenue, their seasonality, and their creditworthiness better than any credit bureau. The Central Bank of Nigeria spent approximately ₦1.08 trillion on the Anchor Borrowers' Programme with recovery reportedly below 50%. Moniepoint reached 600,000 businesses with working capital assessments at zero cost to the taxpayer. The bypass is more efficient because it is more precise. The assessment is more precise because Moniepoint is profit-driven, not politically directed.

The profit motive is also the ceiling. OPay and Moniepoint serve merchants who transact. They do not serve the subsistence farmer in Jigawa who sells millet once per harvest. They do not serve the internally displaced person in Borno who has no phone, no bank account, and no transaction history. The 64% financial inclusion figure, celebrated by EFInA, masks a 36% exclusion rate that amounts to approximately 80 million adults. The bypass serves the transactional economy. The bypass does not serve the survival economy.

The agent network's fragility was exposed during the CBN's naira redesign crisis of early 2023. When the Central Bank withdrew old naira notes and failed to distribute new ones quickly enough, cash became scarce across the country. POS agents — who depend on physical cash float — saw their business collapse overnight. Merchants who had come to depend on digital transfers found that their customers still preferred cash. The bypass that had seemed resilient against infrastructure failure proved vulnerable to monetary policy shock. The episode revealed that Nigeria's digital payment layer is still built on top of a cash foundation that the state controls. The bypass routes around the bank branch. The bypass does not route around the central bank.

The Senate Committee on Banking, Insurance and Other Financial Institutions opened a probe into OPay and PalmPay in June 2024, citing Know Your Customer failures and money laundering risks. The probe is not illegitimate. Agent networks are difficult to supervise, and the volume of cash moving through millions of small transactions creates natural opacity. But the probe also reveals the state's contradictory posture: the state licensed these operators to fill a gap that the state itself created, celebrated their growth as financial inclusion, and then investigated them for growing too fast outside the state's supervisory capacity. The CBN's "super-agent" regulation, introduced in 2024, attempts to recentralise oversight by requiring agents to register under designated super-agents who report directly to the CBN. The bypass is being regulated. Whether the bypass survives the regulation is an open question.

Starlink and the Connectivity Bypass

Starlink bypasses NTEL and the terrestrial broadband failure in non-Lagos Nigeria. The Nigerian Communications Commission approved Starlink's operation in the first quarter of 2023. By the end of 2024, the service had an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 subscribers in Nigeria — a figure that SpaceX does not publish and that the NCC has not independently verified. The National Broadband Plan 2020–2025 set a target of 70% broadband penetration by 2025. The actual penetration reached 45.1% by the fourth quarter of 2024, according to NCC data. The target was missed by 25 percentage points. Starlink did not wait for the NCC to build fibre to rural local government areas. Starlink dropped connectivity from low-earth orbit.

The bypass is technological. A remote software engineer in Owerri, a doctor in Nnewi, and a journalist in Kano can now obtain 100-plus megabits per second of symmetrical connectivity that no terrestrial provider was offering at any price. MainOne, Glo-1, and other fibre backhaul providers have built impressive undersea and terrestrial infrastructure, but their networks terminate in Lagos and a handful of major cities. The last-mile connection — the fibre line from the exchange to the user's building — requires right-of-way permits from state governments, local government councils, and sometimes community associations. Each permit is a negotiation. Each negotiation is a delay. Each delay is a cost. Starlink requires no right-of-way. Starlink requires a clear view of the sky.

The cost is the ceiling. Starlink hardware costs approximately ₦75,000 and the monthly subscription runs at approximately ₦38,000 — a combined first-year cost of approximately ₦531,000. The national minimum wage, after the July 2024 increase, stands at ₦70,000 per month. A Starlink subscription consumes more than half of a minimum wage worker's monthly income before food, rent, or transport. The user profile is knowable from the pricing. Abuja and Lagos professionals earning dollar incomes or naira salaries in the top 5% can afford the service. Rural technology entrepreneurs with existing foreign clients can afford it. Remote workers employed by international companies can afford it. The majority of Nigerians cannot. This is a bypass for the affluent, not the masses.

Starlink still requires electricity. The service runs on a satellite dish that consumes power continuously. When the national grid collapses — as it did on January 23 and 27, 2026, falling from 4,500 MW to 24 MW — the Starlink dish goes dark unless the user owns an inverter and a battery bank charged by a generator or solar panels. The connectivity bypass does not bypass the power bypass. The connectivity bypass stacks on top of it. A user who can afford Starlink, an inverter, and a generator has built a three-layer private infrastructure — power, connectivity, and income — that sits entirely outside the public systems that were supposed to provide all three. The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria documented its members spending ₦1 trillion on self-generated power in 2024. Starlink users replicate this household by household.

Estonia built e-government on 98% broadband penetration, chip-enabled digital identity for every resident, and the X-Road data exchange layer connecting all government databases. Nigeria has partial digital identity — approximately 100 million National Identity Numbers enrolled, but the cards are QR-based, not chip-enabled — and 45% broadband penetration. Estonia's e-Tax filing takes five minutes for 98% of filers. Nigeria's Federal Inland Revenue Service collected ₦21.6 trillion in 2024, but a significant fraction of taxpayers still file manually or through intermediaries. The bypass is better than nothing. The ceiling requires infrastructure investment that private satellite internet cannot substitute. Starlink does not build digital identity. Starlink does not connect government databases. Starlink delivers packets.

The economics of satellite bypass reveal why the state cannot replicate it. SpaceX launches its own rockets and manufactures its own dishes at scale. Nigeria's domestic telecommunications manufacturing is negligible. Every Starlink dish sold in Nigeria is imported, paid for in dollars, and supported by a network operations centre in Redmond, Washington. The foreign exchange outflow is continuous: monthly subscription fees leave the country in US dollars. The NCC could have prioritised domestic fibre deployment with the same urgency it showed in approving Starlink. It did not. The regulator chose the bypass because the bypass required no capital expenditure from the Nigerian government. The bypass is fiscally convenient for a state that has no fiscal space.

The Ookla Speedtest Intelligence data for 2024 placed Nigeria's median mobile internet speed below Senegal, Ghana, and South Africa. MTN Nigeria, with approximately 79 million subscribers, and Airtel Nigeria, with approximately 56 million, compete on price in a market where data costs ₦1,200 to ₦2,500 per gigabyte for mid-range plans. Starlink offers unlimited data at speeds that terrestrial providers cannot match, but at prices that only the top tier can afford. The result is a two-speed digital economy. Lagos and Abuja professionals on Starlink conduct video conferences with London and New York. The majority of Nigerians on MTN and Airtel struggle to load a government website on 3G connections that drop when the base station loses diesel. The bypass deepens the inequality it does not create.

SpaceX has not disclosed Nigeria-specific revenue, but at 100,000 subscribers paying ₦38,000 monthly, the annual revenue would be approximately ₦45.6 billion — money that flows to SpaceX in US dollars, not to any Nigerian telecommunications provider. NTEL, the successor to NITEL, was liquidated in 2019 after failing to transition from fixed-line monopoly to broadband competitor. Starlink is not competing with NTEL. NTEL is already dead. Starlink is competing with the absence of NTEL. The bypass does not improve the public infrastructure. The bypass replaces it with a foreign-owned alternative that repatriates its revenue. This is not industrial policy. This is consumer substitution at the top of the income distribution.

The NCC's approval of Starlink in 2023 was itself a bypass of the state's own licensing bureaucracy. Traditional telecom licences in Nigeria require spectrum auctions, local partnership requirements, and Nigerian majority ownership in some categories. Starlink, as a foreign satellite operator, required none of these. The NCC approved the service under a novel "satellite service provider" classification that did not exist when NITEL was liquidated. The regulator adapted its rules to accommodate a technology that the state could neither build nor control. This is the regulatory face of the bypass: when the bypass becomes too visible to ignore, the state reclassifies it rather than competing with it. The NCC did not build broadband. The NCC approved the bypass.

PiggyVest, Cowrywise, and the Savings Bypass

PiggyVest and Cowrywise bypass the savings and pension infrastructure that the state failed to provide for informal workers. Nigeria's pension system, administered by the National Pension Commission, covers primarily formal sector employees — civil servants, bank staff, and workers in registered companies. The 90% of Nigerian employment that is informal, documented by the International Labour Organization, has no pension coverage, no social security, and no accessible savings products that offer positive real returns. Commercial banks pay nominal interest of 3–5% on savings accounts. With inflation running at 34.80% in December 2024 under the old Consumer Price Index series, the real return on bank savings was approximately negative 30%. A saver who deposited ₦100,000 in January 2024 and withdrew it in December 2024 could buy approximately 30% less with the nominal principal.

PiggyVest, founded in 2016 as PiggyBank.ng by Odunayo Eweniyi, Joshua Chibueze, Somto Ifezue, and Nonso Eagle, has grown to approximately 5 million registered users. The platform processes automated savings, investment products, and peer savings circles through its PocketApp feature. According to the company's public statements, PiggyVest has processed more than ₦500 billion in total savings since its founding — a figure that has not been independently verified against audited accounts. Cowrywise, founded in 2017 by Ahmed Popoola and Razaq Ahmed, offers a similar model with a stronger emphasis on mutual funds and investment products. Cowrywise partners with fund managers to offer money market and equity funds to users who would never walk into a brokerage office. The platform has reportedly attracted hundreds of thousands of users, though independent verification of its assets under management is not available. Together, PiggyVest and Cowrywise have created a private savings ecosystem that exists entirely outside the formal pension architecture.

The bypass is behavioural, not financial. PiggyVest does not offer returns that beat inflation through superior financial engineering. PiggyVest beats inflation through discipline — automated transfers on salary days, lock-in periods that prevent impulse withdrawals, and social pressure from group savings targets. The "Safelock" feature freezes deposits for fixed periods, exploiting loss aversion to prevent spending. The "Target Savings" feature allows users to name a goal — rent, school fees, a phone — and automate contributions. These are behavioural finance techniques developed in the academic literature of the 2000s, applied to Nigerian users who have no alternative savings discipline. The commercial banking system offers no equivalent product because the banks have no incentive to do so: banks profit from current accounts and transaction fees, not from helping customers accumulate capital.

The group savings mechanism is particularly revealing. Nigerians have operated ajo and esusu rotating savings circles for generations. The mathematics are identical: each member contributes a fixed amount monthly, and one member receives the pooled sum in rotation. PiggyVest's "Flex Naira" and group savings features digitise this tradition. The platform adds transparency — every member can see who has paid and who has not — and enforces collection through automated debits rather than social shame. But the underlying logic is unchanged: people who cannot access formal credit or formal savings build their own institutions. PiggyVest did not invent the group savings circle. PiggyVest removed the need for physical proximity and trust-based enforcement. The bypass is older than the app.

The average PiggyVest user is urban, aged 25 to 35, and earns a middle-class income — approximately ₦200,000 to ₦500,000 per month based on the savings targets publicly shared by users on social media. These platforms are not universal access. They are middle-class urban bypass. The market trader in Onitsha who earns ₦20,000 per day in cash does not have a salary day to automate. The subsistence farmer in Zamfara who harvests once per season does not need a weekly auto-save. The 140 million Nigerians below the poverty line do not have disposable income to lock away in a Safelock. The bypass serves the aspirational working class — the 30 to 40 million Nigerians who have regular income, mobile internet access, and the behavioural discipline to save.

The institutional gap that PiggyVest fills is staggering. The National Health Insurance Authority covers approximately 10–15% of Nigerians in formal schemes. The pension system covers formal sector workers only. The collapsed civil service pension fund has left retirees in some states unpaid for years. In this vacuum, Nigerians have built informal savings associations — ajo and esusu rotating savings groups — for generations. PiggyVest digitises this tradition. PiggyVest does not replace the state's obligation to provide social protection. PiggyVest provides a private workaround for those who can afford it. The ₦500 billion saved through PiggyVest is real money that would otherwise have been spent or held in cash. The ₦500 billion is also 0.3% of the ₦159.28 trillion public debt stock that the Debt Management Office recorded in December 2025. The scale is meaningful for the users. The scale is microscopic for the country.

The Pension Reform Act of 2014 mandated pension coverage for all employees in organisations with three or more workers. The act does not reach the self-employed trader, the Uber driver, or the freelance designer. The bypass reaches them. The law does not. Kuda Bank, valued at approximately $500 million in 2021, represents a variant of the same bypass. With 2 million registered users as of 2023, Kuda offers zero-fee banking through a mobile application, targeting young Nigerians who are underserved by traditional banks. Kuda is a neobank, not a savings platform, but Kuda operates on the same thesis: the formal banking system charges fees, pays negative real interest, and locates its branches where the poor are not.

Kuda removes the fees and the branch. Kuda does not remove the infrastructure dependency: Kuda's servers run in data centres that consume diesel during grid collapses. Kuda's customers need smartphones and mobile data. The bypass is still a stack of private infrastructure layered on public failure. Every fintech platform in Nigeria, whether savings or payments, rests on the same unstable foundation. The app works when the grid works. The grid does not work reliably. The bypass is therefore a stack of workarounds: the app bypasses the bank, the generator bypasses the grid, the Starlink dish bypasses the fibre, and the dollar salary bypasses the naira labour market. Remove any layer and the entire structure collapses.

The savings bypass raises a question that no regulator has answered: what happens when the platform fails? PiggyVest is not a bank. PiggyVest is a technology company that partners with banks to hold customer funds. If the technology company collapses, the funds are theoretically safe in the partner bank. But the customer relationship is with PiggyVest, not with the bank. The dispute resolution mechanism is unclear. The Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation does not cover fintech wallets. The CBN's PSB licence does not extend to savings platforms. The bypass operates in a regulatory grey zone that works until it does not. The 5 million PiggyVest users are trusting a company, not an institution. Companies fail. Institutions are supposed to outlast companies. Nigeria has not built the institutions.

The Bypass Ceiling

The bypass has a ceiling, and the ceiling is visible from every angle. The bypass cannot fix grid power. Starlink dishes still need inverters. Fintech servers still run on diesel. TechCabal reported in 2024 that Nigerian data centres and telecommunications operators spend 30–40% of their operating budgets on diesel generation. The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria documented its members spending ₦1 trillion on self-generated power in 2024. The World Bank estimated in 2021 that power outages cost the Nigerian economy $29 billion annually — approximately 10% of GDP. The bypass economy is not off the grid. The bypass economy is on a private grid that costs more per kilowatt-hour than the public grid was supposed to. The private grid is more reliable. The cost is higher. The cost is passed to the user, which is why the bypass is selective.

The bypass cannot reach the 140 million poor. World Bank data from April 2026 places Nigeria's poverty rate at 63% — approximately 140 million people. Paystack's users are predominantly urban, educated, and smartphone-owning. Flutterwave's transaction volumes serve the formal and semi-formal economy. Moniepoint serves 2 million merchants, but the merchant who cannot read, who does not own a smartphone, or who lives in a local government area without reliable mobile data is not Moniepoint's market. Andela's 175,000 engineers represent less than 0.1% of the population. Starlink's estimated 100,000 subscribers represent 0.05%. The bypass is most effective for the aspirational working and middle class — the 30 to 40 million Nigerians who have mobile internet access, some formal education, and a small margin of economic resilience. For the Northwest's 77.7% poverty population, documented by the NBS 2020 Poverty Profile, the bypass is largely irrelevant today.

The education bypass compounds the problem. The same Lagos professional who uses Starlink and banks with Kuda also sends their children to private schools that cost ₦500,000 to ₦2 million per term. The public school system, which should educate the 140 million poor, is bypassed by those who can afford the exit. The Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria estimated in 2022 that approximately 40% of practising teachers in public primary schools lacked the minimum teaching qualification. The bypass does not fix this. The bypass removes the children of the politically vocal from the system that needs their pressure. A state where the middle class has exited public education has no constituency demanding teacher training, textbook provision, or school renovation. The bypass solves the individual problem. The bypass deepens the collective crisis.

The bypass is already departing. Paystack's legal domicile is Delaware. Its founders, Shola Akinlade and Ezra Olubi, are in San Francisco. Stripe acquired Paystack for $200 million in October 2020, and the company now operates as a Stripe subsidiary with expansion to Ghana, South Africa, Kenya, and Côte d'Ivoire. Flutterwave, valued at $3 billion in February 2022 after a $250 million Series D, is incorporated in San Francisco. Its chief executive, Olugbenga Agboola, operates primarily from the United States. Andela's headquarters is in New York. Its chief executive, Jeremy Johnson, was never Nigerian. OPay was founded by the Norway-listed Opera Group and remains foreign-controlled. The bypass is not leaving Nigeria in the sense that its users are disappearing. But its institutional residency — its tax domicile, its legal domicile, its senior leadership, its intellectual property — already has.

The profits, when they come, will be taxed where the company is incorporated, not where the engineers code. Nigeria's tax-to-GDP ratio stands at 7.9% under OECD methodology — half the Sub-Saharan Africa average of 16.8%. The bypass companies are not tax avoiders in the illegal sense. They are tax minimisers in the legal sense, structuring their operations through Delaware incorporation, Irish tax residency, and Singapore holding companies in the same way that every global technology firm does. The difference is that Nigeria needs the tax revenue more than Delaware does. The bypass generates employment and consumer spending in Lagos. The bypass does not generate corporate income tax in Abuja. The Federal Inland Revenue Service collected a record ₦21.6 trillion in 2024. The bypass contributed to that figure through value added tax and personal income tax on salaries. The bypass did not contribute through corporate profit taxation at the entity level, because the profits are booked elsewhere.

The founder relocation problem is structural, not personal. Shola Akinlade did not move to San Francisco because he disliked Lagos. Olugbenga Agboola did not relocate because he preferred California weather. They moved because their companies' investors, acquirers, and largest customers are in the United States. Stripe, which acquired Paystack, is a Delaware corporation. SoftBank Vision Fund, which invested in Andela and OPay, is a Japanese fund with its largest operations in California. The venture capital that financed the bypass comes from Silicon Valley, London, and Singapore. The exit requirement is written into the term sheets. When a company raises Series B, C, or D funding, the investor requires Delaware incorporation, US-compliant accounting standards, and eventually a US listing or acquisition. The bypass is funded by foreign capital that expects foreign returns. Nigeria provides the talent and the market. Nigeria does not provide the capital or the exit.

The Departure

The regulatory window is narrowing. In February 2024, the Central Bank of Nigeria, acting through the Office of the National Security Adviser, arrested two Binance executives. One was Tigran Gambaryan, a United States citizen and former Internal Revenue Service special agent. The CBN demanded that the cryptocurrency exchange exit the Nigerian market. The CBN blamed cryptocurrency trading for naira volatility. Gambaryan was detained for months, and the case sent a signal to every digital finance operator: the state that failed to build the infrastructure will assert the right to regulate the bypass that replaced it. In June 2024, the Senate Committee on Banking, Insurance and Other Financial Institutions opened a probe into OPay and PalmPay, citing Know Your Customer failures and money laundering risks. The CBN under Governor Yemi Cardoso has explicitly reframed fintech "bypass" as regulatory arbitrage that undermines monetary policy transmission.

This is not irrational from the CBN's perspective. If digital wallets substitute for the naira at scale, the CBN genuinely loses monetary control. If OPay agents process billions in naira transactions outside the formal banking system, the CBN cannot track money supply accurately. If cryptocurrency platforms enable dollar-denominated savings that bypass the official foreign exchange window, the naira's volatility increases. The CBN's eNaira, launched in 2021 and promoted aggressively in 2023, was the state's attempt to build its own digital currency bypass. Uptake was minimal — approximately 0.5% of currency in circulation by 2024. The state could not build a digital payment system. The state now seeks to regulate the ones that others built. The question is whether regulation will improve the bypass or destroy it.

The eNaira failure is instructive. The Central Bank of Nigeria spent years developing a central bank digital currency that would give the state direct access to every wallet. Nigerians chose OPay, PalmPay, and PiggyVest instead. The state's digital offering failed because it was not designed around user behaviour. The state's offering was designed around state control. The private bypass succeeded because it was designed around the user — the merchant who needs a float, the saver who needs discipline, the engineer who needs dollar income. The state's response has been to regulate the user-centric alternative rather than to reform the state-centric failure. This is the pattern of the bypass economy: private actors solve the problem; the state reasserts control over the solution.

The design philosophy gap is structural. Every successful bypass product was built by observing what users actually do. Paystack watched merchants struggle with payment integration. PiggyVest watched savers lack discipline. Moniepoint watched shopkeepers need working capital. The state's digital products — eNaira, the federal payroll system, the tax filing portal — were built by observing what the state wanted to control. The result is predictable: users choose the product designed for them over the product designed for the regulator. The bypass is not winning because it is private. The bypass is winning because it is user-centric. The state could replicate this approach. The state has not.

The CBN's regulatory posture is not isolated. The Securities and Exchange Commission has clashed with cryptocurrency exchanges. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has investigated fintech pricing. Each regulator is asserting jurisdiction over a sector that did not exist when the enabling laws were written. The result is overlapping, contradictory, and often retrospective regulation that increases compliance costs without improving consumer protection. The bypass companies are hiring compliance officers faster than they are hiring engineers. This is not the sign of a maturing sector. This is the sign of a sector that is spending its innovation budget on regulatory defence.

The compliance cost shift has material consequences. Flutterwave reportedly hired more lawyers in 2023 than product managers. OPay expanded its compliance team to handle CBN super-agent reporting requirements. Moniepoint allocated senior engineering talent to building audit trails for regulators rather than credit-scoring algorithms for merchants. The bypass is still growing, but the growth is becoming defensive. Every naira spent on compliance is a naira not spent on reaching the 36% of adults who remain financially excluded. The regulatory window is narrowing not because the regulators are wrong, but because the regulatory architecture was designed for a different century. The bypass outpaced the law. The law is now catching up. The collision is imminent.

The bypass is evidence of private sector resilience in the face of institutional failure. The bypass is not a substitute for institutional reform. A country where the educated class bypasses public services entirely has no political pressure for those services to improve. The Lagos professional who uses Starlink, banks with Kuda, saves with PiggyVest, and earns through Andela has no stake in the power grid's repair, no dependence on the public pension system, and no reason to demand that the National Assembly fund road maintenance. The bypass solves the individual problem by removing the individual from the public system. The bypass does not solve the systemic problem. The bypass may make the systemic problem worse.

The bypass may be self-defeating at national scale. Each software engineer who routes around the Nigerian labour market via Andela is one less voice demanding labour market reform. Each professional who installs Starlink is one less voter demanding broadband investment from the Universal Service Provision Fund. Each saver who moves funds to PiggyVest is one less depositor pressuring commercial banks to offer real returns. The bypass fragments the constituency for institutional improvement into those who have escaped the system and those who never had the resources to try. The 140 million Nigerians below the poverty line do not have the option to bypass. They are waiting for institutions that work. Their wait grows longer when the class with the political voice opts out.

The political economy of the bypass is perverse. In a functioning state, the middle class demands public services because it depends on them. In Nigeria, the middle class is learning not to depend. The private school replaces the public school. The generator replaces the grid. The Starlink dish replaces the fibre connection. The PiggyVest lockbox replaces the pension. Each substitution is rational for the individual. Each substitution reduces the political cost of public failure. A governor who presides over blackouts faces less pressure when the voters who matter most have installed inverters. A minister who fails to build broadband faces less pressure when the technology entrepreneurs have satellite dishes. The bypass is not apolitical. The bypass is anti-political. The bypass removes the pressure that would otherwise force institutional repair.

The bypass economy is not unique to Nigeria. Gojek in Indonesia built a $28 billion mobility and fintech empire by bypassing Jakarta's dysfunctional public transport. M-Pesa in Kenya bypassed the bank branch network. Estonia's e-Residency bypassed physical incorporation. The difference is that Indonesia, Kenya, and Estonia also invested in the public institutions that the bypass temporarily replaced. Kenya built a national ID system that enabled M-Pesa's Know Your Customer compliance. Estonia built broadband that made e-government possible. Indonesia's post-1998 governments invested in local government capacity. Nigeria has built the bypass without building the floor. The bypass is the only floor. And floors built on bypasses collapse when the bypass moves.

The question that remains is what institutional change would be required for the bypass to matter at national scale. The answer is not more bypass. The answer is public institutions that function well enough that the bypass becomes unnecessary. A power grid stable enough that Starlink is a choice, not a necessity. A banking system inclusive enough that Moniepoint is a convenience, not a lifeline. An employment market large enough that Andela is an option, not an exit. The bypass is the symptom of institutional failure, not its cure. Celebrating the bypass without acknowledging the failure is like celebrating a tourniquet while ignoring the artery. The tourniquet saves the patient. The tourniquet does not heal the wound.

The bypass also cannot fund public goods. Moniepoint does not build roads. PiggyVest does not vaccinate children. Starlink does not train teachers. The 140 million poor do not need a payment app. They need a state that collects tax, spends it on public services, and is held accountable for the result. The bypass is a private good — excludable, rivalrous, and priced for profit. Public goods are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. No private actor will build them at a loss. The bypass economy is brilliant at providing what the market can price. The bypass economy is silent on what the market cannot price: the rule of law, the public health system, the national defence, and the primary education that determines whether the next generation will need a bypass at all.

Whether the bypass can scale beyond Nigeria's borders — and whether the institutional architecture could ever support a bypass that does not require a generator — is the subject of Chapter 11.

Sources

1. World Bank. Nigeria Development Update: Nigeria's Tomorrow Must Start Today. April 2026.
2. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Poverty and Inequality Report 2020. 2020.
3. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Nigeria Labour Force Survey Q4 2020. March 2021.
4. TechCabal. Data centre and telecoms diesel cost reporting. 2024.
5. Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC). Industry Statistics Q4 2024. 2024.
6. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Financial Stability Report 2023. 2023.
7. Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Mutual Evaluation Report Nigeria. February 2023.
8. Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access (EFInA). Access to Financial Services in Nigeria Survey. 2023.
9. Moniepoint. Press statement on transaction volumes and merchant growth. 2024.
10. Andela. Company website and press releases on talent network size. 2023.
11. Stripe. Press release on Paystack acquisition. October 2020.
12. TechCrunch. Flutterwave Raises $250M Series D at $3B Valuation. February 2022.
13. TechCrunch. Moniepoint Reaches Unicorn Status. October 2023.
14. TechCrunch. OPay Raises $400M Series C at $2B Valuation. August 2021.
15. TechCrunch. Andela Raises $200M Series E from SoftBank. September 2021.
16. Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC). Grid Incident Report January 2026. January 2026.
17. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN). Quarterly Economic Review Q4 2024. 2024.
18. World Bank. Nigeria Development Update 2021. 2021.
19. Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB). Annual Report 2024. 2024.
20. International Labour Organization (ILO). Nigeria Country Brief on Informal Employment. 2022.
21. National Universities Commission (NUC). University licensing and enrollment data. 2024.
22. Ookla. Speedtest Intelligence: Nigeria Mobile Performance. 2024.
23. Safaricom. Annual Report 2024. 2024.
24. Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria (TRCN). Teacher qualification data. 2022.