By Jimmy Fatunbi

When Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu was elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2023, the country faced significant economic challenges that demanded difficult decisions, sustained policy implementation and a collective commitment to building a more productive and prosperous nation. President Tinubu made economic restructuring a central component of his administration’s Renewed Hope Agenda.

Three major changes in Nigeria’s economic management under his administration are the removal of the petrol subsidy, reforms to the foreign exchange market and the restructuring of the country’s tax administration framework.

These measures reflect an approach aimed at addressing longstanding fiscal challenges, improving government revenue and creating a more predictable environment for investment and enterprise.

The removal of the petrol subsidy was one of the administration’s earliest and most consequential decisions. The declaration, “Subsidy has gone,” remains an indelible part of Nigeria’s recent economic history. Although the removal has placed considerable financial pressure on households and businesses, it has also altered the distribution of public resources and created opportunities for governments to address critical infrastructure and development needs. An estimated ₦15.8 trillion in subsidy savings has been distributed across the federation, with states receiving approximately ₦6.52 trillion through the federation’s allocation system. The extent to which these additional resources translate into better public services and improved living standards now depend on effective allocation, transparent management and diligent implementation by state governments.

Similarly, before President Tinubu assumed office in May 2023, Nigeria’s foreign exchange market was characterised by significant distortions, multiple exchange-rate windows and a substantial disparity between official and parallel-market rates. His administration’s foreign exchange reforms have sought to address these structural problems. The unification of exchange-rate windows has reduced market segmentation and opportunities for arbitrage, while electronic trading systems have supported greater transparency and price discovery. The clearance of verified foreign exchange backlogs was also an important step towards addressing outstanding obligations and restoring confidence among market participants.

These developments represent progress towards a more transparent and functional foreign exchange market. Nevertheless, sustaining that progress will require consistent policies, improved market liquidity, greater exchange-rate stability and continued investor confidence. The long-term value of the reforms will ultimately depend on their capacity to support businesses, encourage investment and strengthen Nigeria’s external economic position.

The administration has also introduced major reforms to Nigeria’s tax system. The enactment of four tax reform laws—the Nigeria Tax Act, 2025; the Nigeria Tax Administration Act, 2025; the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, 2025; and the Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Act, 2025—provides a new legal framework for tax administration and coordination across the tiers of government. The reforms seek to simplify tax obligations, reduce administrative fragmentation, improve compliance and create a more predictable environment for businesses, while strengthening the government’s capacity to mobilise revenue for public services and national development.

With the new framework in operation, its success will be measured by the extent to which it simplifies compliance, improves administrative efficiency, strengthens revenue collection and supports a more favourable business environment. Effective implementation, transparent administration and clear communication with taxpayers will be crucial to achieving these objectives.

Another important ambition of the Tinubu administration is to expand Nigeria’s economy through increased productivity, investment, industrialisation and diversification. In pursuit of this objective, the administration launched the Nigeria Industrial Policy 2025 on 17 February 2026. The policy provides a framework for strengthening domestic manufacturing, reducing import dependence, promoting local production and improving Nigeria’s industrial competitiveness.

Nigeria’s economy also recorded real GDP growth of 4.43 per cent in the second quarter of 2026, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. Both the oil and non-oil sectors contributed to the expansion. While the figure indicates continued economic growth, sustaining that momentum and translating it into productive employment, stronger household purchasing power and improved living standards remain important priorities. These ambitions form part of the broader goal of building a US$1 trillion economy by 2030.

With sustained commitment to reform, Nigeria has an opportunity to build a more productive and diversified economy. Continued investment in reliable electricity, transport infrastructure, stronger institutions, access to finance and a supportive business environment can help accelerate growth and expand opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises. If effectively implemented, these measures could stimulate industrial expansion, attract investment, generate productive employment and strengthen local industries. Their ultimate significance will lie in the extent to which they improve economic opportunities and living standards for Nigerians.

The Renewed Hope Agenda places economic transformation, productivity and shared prosperity at the centre of the administration’s development ambitions. With its vast human, agricultural, mineral and entrepreneurial resources, Nigeria possesses considerable potential to overcome its economic challenges and develop a stronger, more diversified and self-reliant economy. Realising that potential, however, requires more than policy announcements. It demands sustained implementation, accountability, investment in productive sectors and support for local enterprises.

For ordinary Nigerians, the promise of economic reform lies in the prospect of more jobs, thriving businesses, improved purchasing power and better living standards. As the policies continue to be implemented, their impact will be judged by whether these benefits reach households and communities across the country. The journey towards economic recovery and prosperity may require patience and perseverance, but sustained progress remains possible if reforms deliver tangible improvements in people’s lives.

Rwanda offers an example of how sustained economic reforms, infrastructure investment and institutional development can contribute to economic progress. Its experience demonstrates the importance of consistent policies and a long-term commitment to development, even in countries facing profound challenges. Malaysia also offers valuable lessons in economic diversification, having transformed its economy over several decades through industrialisation, export expansion and investment in manufacturing and services.

Nigeria can draw lessons from these experiences while pursuing a development path suited to its own circumstances. Through sustained economic reforms, investment in productive sectors and effective implementation of development policies, the country can work towards unlocking its resources, expanding employment opportunities and improving living standards. The experiences of Rwanda and Malaysia underline the importance of continuity, institutional capacity and long-term planning in building a more diversified economy.

Ultimately, the success of President Tinubu’s economic agenda will be measured by its impact on the lives of ordinary Nigerians. The Renewed Hope Agenda represents an ambition to transform the economy and create opportunities for broader prosperity. Its lasting significance will depend on whether economic growth translates into tangible benefits, prosperity becomes more widely shared and citizens have greater opportunities to thrive.

The post Tinubunomics: Bold Decisions, A Stronger Economy, A Greater Nigeria appeared first on The Lagosian Magazine.

In the noisy theatre of Nigeria’s social media, reputations are often built—and battered—at breakneck speed. But every so often, a plot twist forces a pause. The recent public apology by a prominent blogger, popularly known as Aunty Adunni, to Dr. Daniel Olukoya, founder of the Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries (MFM), is one such moment.

It is not just the apology that has stirred conversation. It is what the apology represents: a rare reversal in a digital culture that too often rewards certainty over truth, virality over verification.

From Amplifier to Apologist

For months, the name Aunty Adunni featured prominently in online narratives critical of Dr. Olukoya and MFM. Through her platform, she amplified allegations—many of them serious—originating from figures such as Funke Ashekun and Maureen Badejo.

Her voice carried weight. Her audience listened.

But in a startling turn, she went live to retract, reflect, and repent.

In her own words, she admitted three crucial points:

She had never met Dr. Olukoya.

He had never personally offended her.

She propagated claims she could not independently verify.

That admission alone cuts to the heart of a growing problem: the industrial scale at which unverified narratives are circulated in Nigeria’s digital ecosystem.

Her apology was not hedged. It was direct, emotional, and unusually introspective. She acknowledged harm—not just to a public figure, but to a ministry and its followers. And in a media culture where doubling down is often the default, that moment of reversal is significant.

A Fracture Within the Accusers’ Camp

Even more consequential than the apology itself is what followed.

Aunty Adunni did not merely withdraw her earlier stance—she distanced herself from her former allies and went a step further: declaring readiness to testify in court against Funke Ashekun.

That is no small escalation.

If carried through, it signals a breakdown of what once appeared to be a coordinated front. It raises uncomfortable questions:

Were these allegations independently sourced or collectively orchestrated?

To what extent were platforms used as instruments rather than forums?

And how many others, knowingly or unknowingly, became conduits for narratives they did not fully interrogate?

In her own account, she hinted at pressure, persuasion, and hindsight regret—suggesting that what began as advocacy may have drifted into something less defensible.

The Human Cost of Digital Battles

Lost in the noise of accusations and counter-accusations is the collateral damage.

By her admission, lives were disrupted. Families strained. Jobs reportedly lost. Legal consequences—particularly in jurisdictions like the United States—loomed large.

This is the often-overlooked reality of digital crusades: behind every trending topic are real people, real institutions, and real consequences.

And once reputational harm is done, apologies—however sincere—rarely rewind the clock completely.

Faith, Power, and Public Perception

For supporters of Dr. Olukoya and MFM, this development reinforces a familiar narrative: that truth, eventually, asserts itself. Within religious circles, it is already being framed as vindication.

For critics, however, the episode raises a different concern: not necessarily about the innocence or guilt of individuals, but about the mechanisms through which public opinion is shaped—and reshaped—online.

The silence, so far, from Dr. Olukoya and the MFM leadership adds another layer of intrigue. Acceptance or rejection of the apology will carry symbolic weight. It will signal whether reconciliation is possible—or whether this saga is far from over.

A Teachable Moment for the Media Age

Beyond personalities, this episode offers a broader lesson.

Nigeria’s digital public square is powerful—but dangerously unregulated in practice. The barriers to publication are low; the incentives for sensationalism are high.

And yet, as this case illustrates, the consequences—legal, reputational, and moral—are very real.

Aunty Adunni’s closing reflection may well be the most important takeaway: that being “quick to listen but slow to speak” is not just moral advice—it is a professional necessity in the age of instant broadcasting.

What Happens Next?

Several questions remain unanswered:

Will her testimony materialize in court?

How will Funke Ashekun respond to this public rupture?

Will MFM formally respond—or allow events to speak for themselves?

For now, the story sits at a delicate intersection of law, media, and morality.

One thing, however, is certain:

In a landscape where narratives shift overnight, credibility—once lost—may be the hardest thing to recover.

And in that sense, this is more than a scandal.

It is a cautionary tale.

The post When Accusers Turn: A Public Apology, A Fractured Alliance, and the Lessons for Nigeria’s Digital Square appeared first on The Lagosian Magazine.

In a searing analysis that has sent ripples through diplomatic circles, renowned American political scientist Professor John J. Mearsheimer has peeled back the layers of President Donald Trump’s recent threat to invade Nigeria, revealing that the episode is far more complex than Washington’s official rhetoric suggests.

According to Mearsheimer, the issue “is not merely about oil or currency” but about a fading superpower confronting a newly assertive African giant determined to define its destiny on its own terms.

“We are witnessing an extraordinary situation unfolding before our eyes,” Mearsheimer wrote. “Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa, is standing resolutely against threats from President Trump, who has suggested a potentially severe military response. But this is not just another headline—it reveals a deeper transformation in global affairs.”

Behind the Threat: A Struggle for Control

The University of Chicago professor—one of America’s most respected voices on international relations—argues that Trump’s hostility stems from Nigeria’s growing economic independence, especially its decision to accept oil payments in currencies other than the U.S. dollar.

“The immediate spark for Trump’s threat,” Mearsheimer noted, “was Nigeria’s announcement that it would accept payment for oil exports in currencies other than the U.S. dollar… Trump’s warning was blunt, even menacing: nations moving away from the dollar could face ‘vicious’ consequences.”

In Mearsheimer’s reading, this is Washington’s panic over a shifting world order. For decades, America’s economic and political dominance rested on dollar hegemony, military projection, and compliant allies. Nigeria’s defiance—its choice to trade sovereignty for partnership, not submission—challenges that system.

Nigeria’s Quiet Resistance

While Trump’s remarks triggered outrage globally, Abuja’s response was remarkably calm but deliberate. President Bola Tinubu addressed the nation with composure:

“Nigeria seeks partnership, not confrontation. Our economic sovereignty is non-negotiable.”

Mearsheimer interprets this as strategic restraint: “Behind those words, Abuja was busy weaving diplomacy, coordinating with the African Union, engaging BRICS, and consulting European nations uneasy about American coercion. The goal: make any U.S. intervention politically and diplomatically toxic.”

China, Energy, and the New Balance

The scholar also points to Nigeria’s deepening ties with China as a major irritant in Washington. Massive Chinese-backed projects—from railways to refineries—represent an era of tangible infrastructure, a sharp contrast to what Mearsheimer described as “decades of World Bank reports and feasibility studies that never led to meaningful change.”

Equally threatening to Washington is Nigeria’s new leverage in global energy politics. Following the Ukraine crisis, Europe’s desperate search for gas made Nigeria indispensable. Yet, instead of yielding, Abuja “negotiated hard,” insisting on technology transfers and local ownership—a move that, to Mearsheimer, “is what sovereignty looks like in action.”

The Deeper Reality

The unfolding confrontation, Mearsheimer suggests, “isn’t about Nigeria alone. It is about the fading of American primacy.”

“For decades, the U.S. dictated global terms. Now it faces an ascendant Asia and a confident Africa. China, India, Brazil, and Nigeria are asserting multipolar realities that no amount of threats can reverse. Trump’s anger, in this light, is not policy—it is nostalgia.”

Nigeria’s posture represents more than quiet defiance—it marks a philosophical and geopolitical awakening across Africa. As Mearsheimer observed, “Africa’s most powerful nation has joined the global chorus demanding a fairer, multipolar world. The West’s old playbook of coercion is losing its effect.”

A Moral and Strategic Reckoning

In his final remarks, Mearsheimer issued a rare moral rebuke to Washington:

“Threatening war over currency decisions is wrong, strategically foolish, morally indefensible, and historically counterproductive. True security comes not from domination, but from respect, and respect cannot be forced.”

He warned that America’s reaction to Nigeria’s independence will define its global image for years to come. “Nigeria is not our enemy,” he stressed. “Its people are not our rivals. Their success strengthens the world; it does not weaken it.”

More Than Meets the Eye

What is unfolding between Washington and Abuja is not a passing quarrel. It is the latest tremor in a world shifting from unipolarity to shared power—where African nations, led by Nigeria, are beginning to speak in their own voice.

For once, the world’s attention is not on Nigeria’s troubles, but on its tactical maturity and quiet defiance. As Mearsheimer aptly put it, the stakes could not be higher—not just for Nigeria’s sovereignty, but for America’s moral and strategic maturity.

The post TRUMP VS NIGERIA: American Professor Mearsheimer Drops Bombshell: U.S. ‘Vicious Threat’ to Nigeria Is About Dollar Control appeared first on The Lagosian Magazine.

In recent months, the narrative of “religious genocide” in Nigeria has gained traction in certain circles in the United States, with some prominent American voices — including former President Donald Trump — suggesting possible intervention to “save Christians” from annihilation. While the concern for human life and religious freedom is noble, the framing of the Nigerian situation as an outright religious war is dangerously misleading and oversimplified.

Yes, it must be admitted with candor that many Christian communities in parts of Northern Nigeria have suffered incessant invasions, appalling killings, and the destruction of places of worship. These tragedies are undeniable and deeply painful. Entire villages have been attacked, clergymen murdered, and congregations dispersed. Yet, while these realities evoke justifiable outrage, they do not tell the whole story. What is unfolding in Nigeria is more of a territorial and economic war than an outright religious war targeted solely at Christians.

The Nigerian conflict is being driven by a complex mix of terrorism, land disputes, resource competition, and climate-induced migration. Armed groups — including Boko Haram, ISWAP, and various splinter organizations — are attempting to impose an extremist ideology that spares neither Christians nor moderate Muslims. In truth, many of their victims have been Muslims who reject their violent doctrines. These insurgents and bandits have also destroyed mosques, schools, and markets, leaving both faiths traumatized and divided.

This is why the crisis must be understood as part of the larger global war on terror, not as a sectarian war between Christians and Muslims. Many of these deadly incursions have external roots, linked to international terrorist networks operating across the Sahel — from Libya to Mali to Chad. These transnational elements have exploited local grievances, poverty, and weak borders to infiltrate Nigerian territories, destabilize communities, and provoke religious and ethnic hatred.

What Nigeria needs now is partnership and understanding, not condemnation or threats. The Nigerian Government, despite enormous challenges, has been fighting on multiple fronts — countering terrorism in the North East, banditry in the North West, and communal clashes in the Middle Belt. The complexity of this warfare demands support, intelligence sharing, and capacity building from international partners like the United States — not military ultimatums or talk of invasion.

Efforts should instead be focused on:

Targeting the real enemies — terrorists and violent extremists propagating chaos and hatred.

Supporting the Nigerian Government in its counterterrorism and deradicalization strategies.

Promoting inter-ethnic and inter-religious tolerance to heal divisions exploited by extremists.

Addressing the economic and environmental roots of the conflicts, including desertification, displacement, and youth unemployment.

The approach reportedly being considered by the Trump administration — threatening to invade a sovereign nation under the guise of humanitarian protection — would be both reckless and counterproductive. It would erode America’s moral standing, violate Nigeria’s sovereignty, and risk igniting the kind of chaos witnessed in Libya, Somalia, or even Vietnam, where intervention without deep understanding led to long-term instability and humanitarian disaster.

The Nigerian experience is complex — a mix of faith, ethnicity, poverty, and external terrorism. It must be handled with tact, respect, and intelligence, lest even America, with all its good intentions, gets its fingers burnt.

The world must recognize that Nigeria’s struggle is not between Christians and Muslims but between civilization and barbarism, between peace and chaos. The terrorists’ goal is to divide; the global community’s duty is to unite.

America must therefore take a second look — to listen before acting, to understand before intervening, and to help build peace rather than deepen divisions. The time has come for diplomacy, partnership, and truth — not threats of war.

The post THE LAGOSIAN MAGAZINE EDITORIAL: America Must Look Again — Nigeria’s Crisis Is Not a Religious War but a Complex Terror Challenge appeared first on The Lagosian Magazine.

What Washington is seeking is not a broad-based engagement with Africa’s key players, but a niche entry into coastal corridors that are less politically complicated, less economically assertive, and more open to extractive partnerships. Nigeria, by contrast, is neither a pushover nor a pawn. Its absence from this summit is a signal not of neglect, but of strength.

The Real Agenda: Minerals, Maritime, and Migration

The summit’s attendees are not random selections. All five are Atlantic-facing nations with underexploited mineral wealth and relatively modest regional clout. Gabon, for instance, is rich in manganese and uranium — two commodities vital to global energy and technology sectors. Guinea-Bissau has become a cocaine transshipment hub, with recent U.S. collaboration on anti-drug operations. Senegal faces a debt crisis and ballooning emigration numbers, particularly to the U.S.–Mexico border. These nations were chosen not for their geopolitical influence but for their vulnerabilities — and exploitable assets.

Washington is not reorienting towards Africa as a gesture of solidarity or strategic alliance-building. Rather, it is pivoting away from multilateral engagement in favor of transactional diplomacy. Trump’s summit is built on promises of private investment, security cooperation, and migration management — not long-term partnerships or mutual development.

Nigeria: Too Big to Manipulate

Nigeria is not on the invitation list because it does not need to be. It is already a strategic partner of the United States across multiple dimensions — from counterterrorism and energy cooperation to tech investment and democratic diplomacy. Its stature is such that its engagements with the U.S. require structured bilateral frameworks, not hastily convened photo-ops.

Furthermore, Nigeria’s assertiveness on sovereignty, trade equity, and multilateral negotiations often puts it at odds with Trump’s zero-sum view of diplomacy. The U.S. administration may find it easier to court smaller states where influence can be bought cheaply and without resistance — unlike Nigeria, which has consistently championed African agency in global forums.

A Response to China and Russia, Not a Rejection of Nigeria

Let us be clear: this summit is also a reactionary move in the new scramble for Africa. With China’s Belt and Road Initiative entrenching Beijing’s economic presence, and Russia’s military footprints expanding in fragile states, Trump is scrambling to assert relevance. The five countries selected are not yet saturated by Eastern influence — a critical factor in their selection.

In contrast, Nigeria, like South Africa, Egypt, and Kenya, has already diversified its international partnerships and is no longer dependent on Western patronage. The U.S. knows this. Trump knows this. That is why he is fishing where the waters are calmer, the leaders are more pliable, and the resistance to American corporate interests is lower.

Conclusion: Nigeria Was Not Snubbed — It Simply Doesn’t Fit This Strategy

The narrative that Nigeria was “snubbed” is based on a flawed understanding of U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump. This was not a summit of equals or a council of continental leaders. It was a calculated outreach to secure U.S. footholds in economically stressed, politically malleable, and resource-rich coastal nations.

Nigeria’s exclusion is not a loss — it is liberation from a transactional gathering where African agency is subordinated to American self-interest. In a global landscape where true partnership is increasingly rare, Nigeria should be glad not to have been summoned as a pawn in Washington’s latest game of geopolitics.

Let others chase crumbs. Nigeria must continue to assert itself at the table where policies are made — not merely where photos are taken.

Published by the Editorial Board of The Lagosian Magazine 
July 9, 2025

The post EDITORIAL: No, Nigeria Was Not Snubbed — Trump’s Africa Gambit is Purely Transactional appeared first on The Lagosian Magazine.