By Osaretin Osadebamwen
The Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), Dr. Zach Adedeji, has defended President Bola Tinubu’s economic reforms, arguing that the administration has moved Nigeria from crisis management to economic consolidation despite persistent hardship and criticism over declining purchasing power.
Adedeji made the submission during an interview on Channels TV, on Sunday night, in which he was confronted with concerns over rising poverty, food inflation, the depreciation of the naira and the continued pressure on Nigerian households.
Rather than dispute the severity of the hardship, the FIRS chairman sought to shift the assessment of the administration’s performance to the economic realities inherited in 2023 and the structural reforms implemented since then.
According to him, the economic situation inherited by the Tinubu administration was significantly worse than some current figures suggest, insisting that without the reforms, the number of Nigerians facing poverty and hardship would have been considerably higher.
“Just imagine that we’ve not done what we’ve done. All those numbers you are reading out will have been doubled,” Adedeji said.
His defence rests largely on improvements in government revenue, foreign exchange reserves, refining capacity, tax administration, banking capitalisation and Nigeria’s external position.
Adedeji said government revenue had risen from about N12 trillion before the reforms to N28 trillion last year and approximately N40 trillion currently.
“Imagine the revenue level that we had then—about N12 trillion. Today, it was N28 trillion as of last year, and we are now at N40 trillion,” he said, arguing that increased revenue had strengthened the capacity of state governments to pay salaries and execute projects.
The FIRS chairman also pointed to the expansion of domestic refining capacity as one of the administration’s most significant interventions.
He said Nigeria had moved from an estimated refining capacity of about 30,000 barrels per day before 2023 to approximately 700,000 barrels per day, attributing the development to the administration’s policy direction and private-sector investment.
For Adedeji, the significance of increased refining capacity goes beyond the petroleum sector because it reduces Nigeria’s dependence on imported petroleum products and consequently eases pressure on foreign exchange.
He similarly cited Nigeria’s foreign reserves as evidence that the reforms were beginning to stabilise the economy.
According to him, Nigeria had moved from a position where its reserves could barely finance two months of imports to one where they could cover roughly 10 months.
He contrasted this with the World Bank’s benchmark of maintaining reserves sufficient to finance at least three months of imports.
“If that is not stability, what do you call that?” Adedeji asked.
However, the central challenge to the government’s economic narrative remains the purchasing power of ordinary Nigerians. The naira has lost substantial value since 2023, while food and other essential prices have risen sharply.
Pressed on how the administration intends to restore purchasing power rather than merely stabilise the foreign exchange market, Adedeji rejected the description of the exchange-rate reform as a devaluation of the naira.
“We did not devalue the naira. It is not naira devaluation,” he said, arguing that the previous exchange-rate regime had artificially suppressed the value of the currency.
According to him, the disparity between the official and parallel markets had distorted the economy, discouraged investment and created an unrealistic value for the naira.
“Manually holding dollar to naira at 360 or 340 will not bring anything,” Adedeji said, maintaining that the administration’s decision was aimed at allowing the currency to find a more realistic market value.
But this explanation exposes one of the most important weaknesses in the government’s defence: macroeconomic stability does not automatically translate into improved living standards.
Adedeji’s argument that Nigerians would have been poorer without the reforms may explain why the government believes its policies are necessary, but it does not by itself demonstrate that the average household is currently better off.
This distinction is particularly important because increased government revenue, higher foreign reserves and stronger bank capitalisation are macroeconomic indicators. They do not necessarily tell the full story of what households can buy with their salaries at the end of the month.
Adedeji nevertheless pointed to the increase in the minimum wage as evidence that workers’ incomes were being addressed. He noted that the minimum wage had risen from N30,000 and that the President had directed that wage reviews should take place after three years rather than five.
He also cited the reform of Nigeria’s tax system, saying 66 tax laws had been consolidated into a single framework as part of efforts to make the business environment more conducive.
Adedeji further argued that stronger corporate earnings could eventually benefit ordinary Nigerians through employment and wages. He cited companies including MTN, Dangote, BUA and Seplat as examples of businesses whose earnings had improved significantly.
“So, if that is not helping the common man, what else is helping the common man?” he asked, pointing to increased state allocations, salaries and private-sector activity as evidence that the reforms were reaching ordinary Nigerians.
Yet the argument raises another critical question: how directly do these gains translate into better welfare for the majority of Nigerians, particularly those outside the formal wage economy?
The FIRS chairman also defended the government’s record on banking reform, revealing that banks had raised N4.6 trillion in capital within three years, with about 75 per cent raised locally.
He argued that successful recapitalisation without bank failures would strengthen confidence in the financial system and protect depositors.
Adedeji’s overall argument is therefore clear: the Tinubu administration should not be judged solely by today’s hardship figures but by whether its structural reforms are laying the foundation for a more sustainable economy.
He maintained that “Mr. President has moved the economy from crisis management to consolidation level,” citing improvements in foreign exchange stability, trade, bank capitalisation, government revenue and other economic indicators.
But the government’s economic defence ultimately confronts a difficult political test.
Nigerians do not experience the economy through foreign reserves, tax receipts or bank capitalisation alone. They experience it through the price of food, transport, rent, electricity, school fees, healthcare and the purchasing power of their wages.
That makes the gap between macroeconomic improvement and household welfare one of the defining questions of Tinubu’s economic record.
With the 2027 general election approaching, that gap could become even more politically significant.
For the Tinubu administration, the challenge is no longer merely to demonstrate that its reforms have stabilised Nigeria’s economic fundamentals. It must convince Nigerians that those improvements are translating into tangible relief in their homes and communities.
That, ultimately, may determine whether the government’s claim of moving Nigeria from crisis to consolidation is accepted as an economic success story—or judged as a recovery that Nigerians have yet to feel.
