Nigeria’s 2026 growth outlook has improved, but food inflation, expensive fuel and persistent poverty are exposing the gap between macroeconomic recovery and everyday survival. Taiwo Oyedele’s warning against new taxes raises a bigger question: who should bear the cost of rebuilding the economy?
An economy can grow on paper while millions of people struggle to afford the essentials. Nigeria is confronting that contradiction again.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has raised its forecast for Nigeria’s economic growth in 2026 to 4.2 per cent, offering fresh evidence that the economy is proving more resilient than previously expected. Yet the improved outlook comes alongside an uncomfortable admission from Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele: this is the wrong time to impose new taxes or increase the burden on vulnerable households and productive businesses.
The minister has also acknowledged that the sequencing of petrol subsidy removal and foreign exchange reforms was too fast.
Together, the developments pose a question that goes beyond the latest growth forecast. If Nigeria’s economic restructuring is beginning to deliver greater stability, when will ordinary Nigerians feel the benefits?
Growth Is Recovering, but Relief Remains Elusive
The IMF’s revised forecast represents an improvement of 0.1 percentage point on its previous projection. The Fund expects Nigeria’s economy to expand by 4.3 per cent in 2027.
The World Bank has offered supporting evidence. Its latest Nigeria Development Update reported real GDP growth of 4.2 per cent in the first half of 2026, compared with 3.9 per cent in the corresponding period of 2025 and 3.5 per cent in 2024.
Services accounted for much of the expansion, alongside a stronger contribution from agriculture.
The World Bank also said the improvement had stabilised Nigeria’s poverty rate for the first time since 2019.
That is significant, but stabilisation is not the same as a decisive reduction in poverty. Nor does a higher national output automatically mean that households have more money available after paying for food, transport, rent, electricity and healthcare.
This distinction lies at the heart of Nigeria’s economic debate.
Real GDP measures changes in the volume of goods and services produced. It does not show how evenly additional economic activity is distributed, whether workers’ incomes are keeping pace with living costs, or how many families have exhausted their savings.
The IMF’s own assessment of Nigeria reinforces the concern. In June, the Fund said poverty had reached 63 per cent under the national poverty line and estimated that 27 million Nigerians faced food insecurity in the autumn of 2025.
At the IMF and World Bank Annual Meetings in Bangkok, Thailand, the Fund returned to the same problem: resilient growth has yet to provide sufficient relief for a large part of the population.
Deniz Igan, a division chief in the IMF’s Research Department, said policymakers must balance immediate household needs with medium-term fiscal stability.
“What we are advocating is for policymakers to balance the near-term needs of the population, and that involves food security. That involves energy security,” she said.
She added: “While the growth held up in Nigeria, given energy exports, poverty rates are still very high, and we are very mindful that the population is suffering.”
The warning matters because Nigeria’s oil-exporting position can strengthen foreign earnings and government revenue without automatically making essential goods affordable to domestic consumers.
The Cost-of-Living Test Is Still Unresolved
Recent inflation data show why the distinction between economic recovery and household relief matters.
Nigeria’s headline inflation rate eased marginally to 15.39 per cent in August 2026, from 15.43 per cent in July. Food inflation remained considerably higher, at 19.57 per cent year-on-year.
The slowdown is welcome, but it does not mean prices have returned to previous levels. It means prices are rising at a slower rate.
For households already forced to spend more of their income on basic necessities, that difference is crucial. A family that has seen the price of its regular food basket rise sharply does not recover its lost purchasing power simply because the next increase is smaller.
Fuel costs add another layer of pressure.
In September, petrol prices reached around ₦1,400 per litre in Lagos and Abuja, with some stations in northern Nigeria charging as much as ₦1,500. Diesel prices exceeded ₦2,000 per litre, according to Reuters reporting.
These costs affect more than motorists. They influence public transport, the movement of agricultural produce, manufacturing, retail distribution and the cost of running small businesses.
The resulting pressure is particularly difficult for informal workers and small enterprises whose earnings may fluctuate while transport and operating costs remain high.
The challenge for the government is therefore not merely to increase output. It is to ensure that rising output translates into stronger household incomes, more productive employment and lower pressure on essential spending.
Oyedele Acknowledges the Speed of Reform
The minister’s comments are notable because they recognise a central criticism of the Tinubu administration’s economic programme: the speed at which major adjustments were introduced placed substantial pressure on households and businesses.
President Bola Tinubu announced the removal of the petrol subsidy during his inauguration on 29 May 2023. The Central Bank of Nigeria subsequently liberalised the foreign exchange market in June.
The measures were intended to correct distortions, reduce the fiscal cost of subsidies and improve the functioning of the foreign exchange market. Yet the combined effects helped drive up petrol prices and the cost of imported goods and services.
Speaking at the Africa’s Golden Future forum in Bangkok, Oyedele acknowledged concerns about the pace of implementation, describing the sequencing of the fuel and foreign exchange reforms as too fast.
He argued that abandoning or only partially implementing necessary reforms could leave the country with the immediate costs without the corresponding long-term benefits.
That argument raises a legitimate economic question. Reversing reforms that address persistent distortions may create fresh fiscal and market problems. Yet maintaining them without sufficiently effective safeguards can leave households absorbing a disproportionate share of the adjustment.
The choice is not necessarily between abandoning reform and asking citizens to endure unlimited hardship. The more difficult task is to design a transition that preserves the economic objectives while reducing avoidable damage to household welfare and productive activity.
The minister also stressed that governments must communicate difficult policy decisions effectively, even when citizens do not initially “believe you”.
Communication, though, cannot substitute for measurable results. Nigerians need evidence that the promised gains are arriving in the form of better incomes, more jobs, reliable public services and improved access to essential goods.
Why the Minister Is Warning Against New Taxes
Oyedele’s warning on taxation brings the debate into sharper focus.
“This is the wrong time to impose new taxes or increase the burden of tax, particularly on the vulnerable population and productive sectors of the economy,” he said.
He urged governments to examine existing spending, identify areas for savings and improve revenue mobilisation before adding to the financial pressure on households and businesses.
His position reflects a wider fiscal dilemma. Governments need revenue to finance healthcare, education, transport infrastructure, security and social protection. At the same time, additional taxes can undermine household consumption or increase the costs faced by businesses already struggling with expensive energy, logistics and financing.
The question is not whether Nigeria needs a stronger revenue base. It is how that revenue should be raised, who should pay, and whether the proceeds improve public welfare.
Oyedele also defended borrowing as a tool for economic development, saying:
“Borrowing and debt financing is a necessary condition for growth, and every country emerging, developing must be able to apply debt financing in a way that is overall of positive impact, particularly to stimulate job-rich and inclusive growth.”
The qualification is critical. Borrowing can support development when it finances productive infrastructure and services that generate long-term economic returns. When debt servicing consumes resources that could support essential services or investment, the benefits become less certain.
Taxation and borrowing are therefore not interchangeable solutions without consequences. Both require transparent choices about spending priorities, economic capacity and who ultimately bears the cost.
For Nigeria, a credible alternative to simply increasing tax burdens would involve improving compliance, reducing waste, strengthening the administration of existing taxes and ensuring that people and businesses can see a meaningful return on public revenue.
Cash Transfers Must Be Judged by Their Results
The IMF has recommended targeted, temporary income support and cash transfers for the most vulnerable households as a way to alleviate poverty and strengthen food security.
The Fund also stressed that assistance must fit within a sustainable medium-term fiscal framework, supported by better expenditure quality and improved revenue collection.
This approach attempts to address two problems simultaneously: protecting vulnerable people from immediate economic shocks while maintaining the government’s capacity to fund public services.
Oyedele has said the Federal Government’s support programmes have reached more than 10 million vulnerable households.
In August, Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction Minister Bernard Doro separately said the government had disbursed more than ₦600 billion in cash transfers over three years, reaching slightly more than 10 million households.
The figures are important, but beneficiary totals alone do not establish how effective the programme has been.
The National Cash Transfer Office’s public dashboard lists approximately 10.44 million households as having received the first ₦25,000 payment, 8.53 million the second and 7.74 million the third. The differences do not, by themselves, explain why the numbers decline at each stage. They do make complete payment records and transparent reporting essential.
Policymakers need to show how many households received the full intended support, whether beneficiaries were selected using reliable and current information, how payments were monitored and what happened to households that did not receive later instalments.
They must also assess whether the assistance was large enough to make a meaningful difference against rising food and transport costs.
Without such evidence, a programme can report impressive enrolment figures while leaving unanswered questions about the adequacy, consistency and actual impact of the assistance.
Effective social protection is not simply about announcing how many people have been registered. It is about demonstrating how support has helped them withstand economic shocks.
The $1 Trillion Target Raises Another Test
Nigeria’s growth ambitions also require careful scrutiny.
President Tinubu’s target of a $1 trillion economy is considerably more demanding than the IMF’s projected 4.2 per cent real growth rate might suggest.
Using an estimated nominal GDP of $377 billion, the calculation cited in recent reporting suggests that the economy would need to expand by roughly 22 per cent annually in dollar terms over five years to reach $1 trillion, assuming the naira’s value against the dollar remains unchanged.
That is a mathematical scenario, not an IMF growth forecast.
The distinction matters because real GDP growth and the dollar value of nominal GDP measure different things. Exchange-rate movements, domestic prices and the nominal value of output can all affect the economy’s reported size in dollars.
A weaker naira could make the dollar target harder to reach even as domestic output expands. A stronger exchange rate could raise the dollar value without an equivalent increase in real production.
The more durable route to a larger economy is to improve productivity, expand investment, create jobs, strengthen domestic production and support businesses capable of competing in local and international markets.
Growth that depends heavily on favourable exchange-rate movements, rather than stronger productive capacity, would offer a less reliable foundation for higher living standards.
The Next Phase Must Deliver Measurable Relief
Nigeria has made progress in stabilising parts of its economy, and the improved growth outlook is worth recognising. But the IMF’s warning, the minister’s admission about reform sequencing and the continuing pressure of food and fuel costs point to the same unresolved challenge.
Macroeconomic stability is a foundation, not the final measure of success.
The government must now demonstrate that improved public finances and economic growth are translating into more productive jobs, better incomes, reliable essential services and effective protection for vulnerable households.
It must also show how increased revenue is being spent, whether cash transfers are reaching the intended recipients and whether fiscal policy is supporting businesses without imposing avoidable costs on the people who depend on them.
Oyedele is right to warn against placing additional tax pressure on vulnerable households and productive sectors at a time of severe economic strain. Yet the long-term credibility of that position will depend on whether the government can mobilise revenue more effectively and make public spending work harder.
For the IMF, the test is to balance food and energy security with fiscal sustainability. For the government, it is to demonstrate that reform can deliver both economic stability and a tangible improvement in people’s lives.
For Nigerians, the question is more immediate: when the economy grows, will a family be able to afford more of what it needs?
Until the answer becomes visible in household budgets, a higher growth forecast will remain an encouraging economic indicator rather than proof that the cost-of-living crisis has been overcome.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let’s know your opinion.