Tinubu Took the Bullet — Now States Are Counting the Gains

There are economic decisions that are popular because they are easy. And there are decisions that are necessary precisely because they are difficult.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu chose the latter.

When he removed the fuel subsidy in 2023, he knew Nigerians would feel the immediate pain. When he moved to reform the foreign exchange market and unify the multiple exchange-rate windows, he knew the transition would come with serious economic consequences.

But leadership is not always about taking the easiest route. Sometimes, it is about taking the difficult decision today to prevent a bigger crisis tomorrow.

The testimony coming from Nasarawa State Governor, Abdullahi Sule, provides an interesting measure of what those reforms have meant for the sub-national governments.

According to Sule, Nasarawa State’s monthly allocation from the Federation Account has risen from about ₦3.8–₦4.5 billion to approximately ₦16 billion.

That is not a marginal increase. It is a significant expansion in the resources available to a state government.

And, importantly, the governor attributed the increased fiscal space to the economic reforms introduced by the Tinubu administration.

This is where the conversation about the President’s reforms needs to move beyond the politics of immediate hardship and begin to examine the broader question: What did the reforms unlock?

For years, successive administrations acknowledged that the fuel subsidy regime was unsustainable. Yet, government after government postponed the inevitable.

The subsidy system consumed enormous public resources, while questions persisted about its sustainability, transparency and effectiveness.

Tinubu came and made the decision.

“Subsidy is gone.”

Those three words changed the direction of Nigeria’s economic conversation.

The immediate aftermath was painful. There is no point pretending otherwise. Nigerians experienced rising transportation costs, higher food prices and increased pressure on household incomes.

But difficult reforms should not be judged solely by the discomfort they create at the point of implementation. They must also be judged by what they make possible.

And this is where Governor Sule’s testimony becomes significant.

If a state that previously received about ₦4.5 billion monthly can now access approximately ₦16 billion, the question is not simply how much more money is coming in.

The bigger question is: What can governments now do with the additional resources?

Nasarawa says the increased revenue has created room for investments in roads, education, healthcare, water supply, industrialisation and other critical infrastructure.

The state’s projects inspected by the Renewed Hope Ambassadors National Media Tour provide a glimpse into that possibility: a new state secretariat, a 1-megawatt solar farm, the 16-kilometre Makurdi bypass, a vocational and skills acquisition centre, water infrastructure and the Kilema Bridge.

These are not abstract economic figures. They are physical projects that citizens can see and potentially use.

President Tinubu’s reform story, therefore, should not be told only from Abuja.

It should also be told from the states.

Because the real test of economic reform is whether it eventually gives governments at all levels greater capacity to provide roads, schools, hospitals, water, electricity, jobs and other public services.

This explains why Bayo Onanuga’s description of Tinubu as having “taken the bullet” for the sub-nationals is significant.

The President took the political risk of implementing reforms that many knew were necessary but were unwilling to undertake.

He took the initial backlash.

He took the criticism.

He took the political heat.

And now, according to Governor Sule, the states are beginning to see a larger pool of resources.

Of course, increased allocations do not automatically translate into development. More money can be wasted if there is no accountability, transparency and discipline.

That is why Governor Sule’s emphasis on announcing the cost of government contracts is equally important. Increased revenue must be accompanied by responsible expenditure.

Tinubu’s reforms have created an opportunity. What governors and other leaders do with that opportunity will determine whether Nigerians ultimately feel the full benefits.

But one thing is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: the old system was not sustainable, and continuing to postpone reform was not a solution.

President Tinubu chose to confront some of Nigeria’s most entrenched economic problems.

The road has been rough. The transition has been painful. Nigerians have made sacrifices.

But if states are now receiving significantly more resources and using those resources to expand infrastructure and public services, then the reform story deserves to be examined beyond the immediate hardship.

History may ultimately judge Tinubu not by whether his reforms were painless—they were never going to be—but by whether they helped reposition Nigeria’s economy for sustainable growth.

For now, Nasarawa’s numbers offer one compelling piece of evidence.

From roughly ₦4.5 billion to ₦16 billion monthly is more than an increase in allocation.

It is a measure of the fiscal space created by a President who decided that some difficult decisions could no longer be postponed.

Tinubu took the bullet. The states are beginning to count the gains.