By Chuks Oyema
Three years into his administration, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has emerged as one of the most consequential leaders in Nigeria’s democratic history. Whether he ultimately becomes Nigeria’s best president remains a subject of intense debate, but few would dispute that he has undertaken some of the most ambitious and politically risky reforms since the return to democracy in 1999.
The central question is not whether Tinubu has introduced reforms. The evidence shows that he has. The real question is whether those reforms will produce lasting benefits that outweigh the hardship millions of Nigerians have endured during the transition.
For decades, successive governments acknowledged that Nigeria’s economic structure was unsustainable. Fuel subsidies consumed trillions of naira annually, multiple exchange-rate windows encouraged arbitrage and corruption, and a highly centralized security architecture struggled to contain insecurity across the federation. Yet many administrations avoided fundamental changes because of their political cost.
Tinubu chose a different path. On his inauguration day in May 2023, he announced the removal of fuel subsidy, ending a policy that had survived numerous administrations. The decision immediately triggered increases in fuel prices, transportation costs, and inflation, causing significant hardship for households and businesses.
Supporters argue that subsidy removal was unavoidable because the system had become a major drain on public finances. Government officials estimate that trillions of naira previously spent on subsidies can now be redirected toward infrastructure, social programmes, education, healthcare, and security.
Critics, however, contend that the reform was poorly sequenced. They argue that subsidy removal should have been accompanied by stronger social safety nets, improved public transportation, stable electricity, and targeted support for vulnerable citizens.
Many Nigerians continue to question whether the savings generated are translating quickly enough into visible improvements in their daily lives.
Another landmark decision was the unification and floating of the naira exchange rate. For years, Nigeria operated multiple exchange-rate windows that created distortions and discouraged investment. Tinubu’s administration dismantled much of that framework and allowed market forces greater influence in determining the value of the naira.
The immediate consequences were painful. The naira depreciated sharply, imported goods became more expensive, and inflation surged. Businesses dependent on foreign exchange faced major challenges, while ordinary Nigerians saw their purchasing power decline dramatically.
Yet advocates of the policy maintain that the old system was unsustainable. They argue that exchange-rate unification has improved transparency, reduced opportunities for rent-seeking, and restored confidence among investors who previously viewed Nigeria’s currency regime as unpredictable.
Recent economic indicators suggest that some stabilization may be occurring. Government officials point to improved foreign reserves, stronger investor confidence, moderating inflation, and increased capital inflows as evidence that the reforms are beginning to produce results.
If there is one reform that could reshape Nigeria’s governance structure for generations, it is the push for state police. For decades, security experts, governors, and constitutional scholars have argued that Nigeria’s centralized policing model is inadequate for a country of over 200 million people.
Tinubu has strongly backed constitutional amendments to permit state police, arguing that security challenges are local and require local solutions. His administration has supported efforts in the National Assembly to decentralize policing powers.
The proposal recently achieved significant legislative progress, bringing Nigeria closer than ever to establishing state-controlled police forces alongside the federal police structure.
Supporters believe state police could improve intelligence gathering, community engagement, emergency response times, and accountability. Governors and local authorities would possess greater capacity to respond to security threats specific to their regions.
Opponents worry about potential abuse by state governments. They fear that governors could deploy state police against political opponents, while financially weaker states might struggle to fund professional security institutions. These concerns ensure that the debate remains far from settled.
Beyond these flagship reforms, Tinubu has also embarked on tax reforms aimed at improving revenue collection and modernizing fiscal administration. Supporters view these initiatives as essential for reducing dependence on oil revenues and creating a more efficient tax system.
The administration has also emphasized infrastructure development, claiming significant progress in roads, rail projects, and investments designed to stimulate long-term growth.
However, the presidency continues to face criticism over persistent insecurity, high food prices, unemployment, and the rising cost of living. Many Nigerians judge governments primarily by conditions in their households rather than by macroeconomic indicators, and for many families the economic pain remains severe.
This is perhaps the greatest challenge confronting Tinubu’s legacy. History often rewards leaders who undertake difficult reforms, but only when citizens eventually experience tangible benefits. Economic theory alone rarely wins public approval.
Comparisons with previous presidents reveal the uniqueness of Tinubu’s approach. While former leaders frequently introduced reforms, few attempted such a broad combination of subsidy removal, exchange-rate liberalization, tax restructuring, and constitutional changes simultaneously.
Some analysts compare the moment to major economic turning points in other countries, where painful reforms initially generated public dissatisfaction before eventually producing stronger economies. Others warn that successful reform requires effective implementation, transparency, and visible improvements in citizens’ welfare.
The verdict on Tinubu’s presidency therefore remains unfinished. His supporters see a leader willing to confront structural problems that previous governments postponed for decades. His critics see a government that has imposed enormous hardship without delivering sufficient relief.
What is beyond dispute is that Tinubu has altered the policy direction of Nigeria more dramatically than most of his predecessors. Whether those changes ultimately transform the nation or deepen existing frustrations will determine how history remembers him.
If the fuel subsidy removal, floating of the naira, tax reforms, and the emerging state police framework eventually produce greater prosperity, stronger security, and a more competitive economy, future historians may well rank Bola Tinubu among Nigeria’s greatest presidents. If the promised gains fail to materialize, however, these same reforms could become examples of bold policies that imposed heavy costs without delivering the expected rewards.
For now, the question remains open. But few presidents in Nigeria’s history have wagered so much of their political legacy on the success of fundamental reforms. The answer to whether Bola Tinubu becomes Nigeria’s best president may depend less on the courage of the reforms themselves and more on whether ordinary Nigerians ultimately feel the benefits in their everyday lives.
Chuks Oyema wrote in from Abuja
