The exchange between President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria last week revealed something far more troubling than a disagreement over economic policy. It exposed what appears to be an increasing disconnect between the government and the people it governs.
The bishops did not arrive at the Presidential Villa to score political points. Their message was simple: Nigerians are hurting. They spoke of rising hardship, worsening insecurity and growing concerns about the country’s democratic direction. According to Cardinal John Onaiyekan, they merely relayed what ordinary Nigerians had been telling them.
President Tinubu’s response was equally emphatic. He rejected the assessment, insisting that his administration had rescued the economy from collapse and that Nigerians should appreciate the reforms already undertaken.
The disagreement itself is not unusual. Democracies thrive on competing interpretations of reality. What is concerning is the government’s apparent unwillingness to entertain any interpretation other than its own.
Only days before the bishops’ meeting, the Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II, a former Central Bank governor and long-time supporter of economic reforms, offered a remarkably similar assessment. While acknowledging progress in certain areas, Sanusi argued that no economic policy can be considered successful if it fails to improve the welfare of ordinary citizens.
When respected voices from different backgrounds independently reach the same conclusion, dismissing them outright should not be the government’s first instinct. It should be an invitation to reflect.
The Tinubu administration has repeatedly pointed to improving macroeconomic indicators as evidence that its policies are working. GDP growth has strengthened, foreign exchange markets appear more stable, investor confidence has improved and states now receive larger allocations from the Federation Account.
Those are important developments. But economic statistics are not the same as lived experience.
For millions of Nigerians, the economy is measured less by GDP figures than by the cost of food, transport, electricity, rent and healthcare. A stock market rally offers little comfort to families struggling to afford three meals a day. Likewise, larger FAAC allocations mean little if they do not translate into better public services or improved living standards.
This disconnect between statistical success and everyday hardship is at the heart of the growing criticism facing the administration.
The government’s challenge is not simply that its reforms are painful. Most economists agree that difficult reforms are sometimes necessary. The greater concern is that stabilization measures appear to have become the destination rather than the starting point.
Removing fuel subsidies, liberalising the exchange rate and adjusting electricity tariffs may correct market distortions, but they do not automatically create jobs, revive industries or expand agricultural production. Those outcomes require deliberate investment, coherent industrial policy and strong institutions capable of protecting vulnerable citizens during periods of economic adjustment.
That is where many critics believe the administration has fallen short.
Equally worrying is the shrinking space for meaningful domestic scrutiny. Labour unions have become less vocal, opposition parties remain fragmented, civil society has struggled to sustain pressure, and public institutions that should hold government accountable appear increasingly subdued. In such an environment, there is a real danger that government begins to mistake the absence of loud opposition for public approval.
No administration benefits from governing inside an echo chamber.
The Catholic bishops and Emir Sanusi did not claim that every government policy has failed. Neither suggested that Nigeria’s economic challenges can be solved overnight. Their message was more measured: reforms should ultimately improve the lives of citizens, not merely produce favourable economic indicators.
History rarely judges governments by the elegance of their economic theories. It judges them by whether ordinary people felt safer, lived better and found greater opportunities under their leadership.
If Tinubunomics is to succeed, it must become more than a programme of fiscal correction. It must evolve into an agenda that places equal emphasis on production, employment, social protection and human welfare. More importantly, it must remain open to criticism, especially when that criticism comes from credible voices speaking on behalf of millions of Nigerians.
The real test of leadership is not convincing people that everything is working. It is having the humility to listen when they say it isn’t.
