The controversy triggered by Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga’s assertion that he does not see hunger at the scale portrayed by critics has once again exposed the gulf between perception and reality in Nigeria’s economic discourse.
There is little disagreement that hardship exists. Food prices have risen, transportation costs have increased, inflation has eroded purchasing power and insecurity has disrupted agricultural production. Yet the data suggest that the situation, while serious, is more nuanced than narratives portraying either a nation in collapse or one unaffected by hardship.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and Cadre Harmonisé projections, approximately 34.7 million Nigerians are expected to face acute food insecurity in 2026. In a country with an estimated population exceeding 230 million, this translates to roughly 15 per cent of the population rather than 80 per cent. The situation is particularly severe in conflict-affected states in the North-East where insurgency, banditry and displacement have crippled farming activities.
The challenge is therefore substantial but not one of nationwide famine.
Indeed, despite widespread complaints over the cost of living, Nigerians continue to spend billions of naira annually on beer, alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, entertainment, weddings, birthdays, naming ceremonies, burials and religious celebrations. Event centres remain busy and domestic air travel, hospitality and telecommunications continue to enjoy patronage. This suggests that hardship is unevenly distributed and that many households are adjusting rather than collapsing.
Compared with Sudan, South Sudan and parts of Yemen, where over 40 per cent of populations face severe food emergencies, Nigeria’s challenge is better described as a cost-of-living and food affordability crisis.
However, supporters of the Tinubu administration argue that the debate over hunger often ignores the context in which the reforms are taking place.
The removal of fuel subsidy, exchange-rate reforms and tax reforms coincided with a difficult global environment marked by the Russia-Ukraine war, tensions in the Middle East and disruptions to global supply chains. These have contributed to inflationary pressures across many countries, not just Nigeria.
To cushion the impact, federal allocations to states and local governments have risen dramatically following subsidy removal and improved revenues. Analysts note that subnational governments are receiving more resources than at any other period in Nigeria’s democratic history. The intention was clear: to empower states and local governments to establish social safety nets, support agriculture, improve healthcare, education and transportation and provide palliatives to vulnerable citizens.
Yet critics point to the lack of accountability over how these funds are being utilised. While Abuja is often blamed for hardship, state and local governments share constitutional responsibility for the welfare of the people. Many Nigerians are asking whether the unprecedented revenues being received by the subnationals are translating into visible benefits.
The administration’s push for local government autonomy is also intended to ensure that development reaches communities directly and that grassroots populations experience the dividends of democracy.
Another often overlooked aspect is consumer protection.
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), established to protect consumers from exploitative practices, has stepped up interventions against price manipulation, anti-competitive conduct and hoarding.
At the peak of inflation, consumers complained that prices of staples such as garri and other food products rose sharply, partly because of insecurity and supply shortages but also because of speculative activities and profiteering by middlemen and off-takers. There were widespread accusations that some traders and service providers exploited the situation to impose extortionate prices.
Following regulatory engagements, improved supply conditions and market adjustments, prices of some staples moderated significantly. Supporters of the administration argue that FCCPC interventions helped discourage artificial scarcity and exploitative practices, thereby preventing the crisis from worsening.
Indeed, one uncomfortable truth often overlooked in discussions about inflation is that Nigerians themselves sometimes contribute to rising costs through hoarding, arbitrary price increases and artificial scarcity. Such practices have been observed during fuel shortages, food crises and foreign exchange volatility, with some traders exploiting difficult situations for excessive profits.
Economists warn that inflation is driven not only by macroeconomic factors but also by inefficiencies, insecurity, poor infrastructure and unethical market practices.
The Tinubu administration has also introduced tax reforms aimed at reducing burdens on vulnerable citizens while seeking to widen revenue streams needed to support student loans, healthcare, infrastructure and social interventions.
Supporters contend that the broader vision behind these reforms has not been well understood by many Nigerians and has been overshadowed by political narratives and opposition criticisms. They argue that insecurity affecting food production and the unavoidable pains associated with long-delayed reforms have combined to create a negative perception of the administration.
Yet even supporters concede that communication alone is insufficient.
The administration must ensure that the benefits of reforms are visible and measurable. It must hold the three tiers of government accountable for the resources at their disposal and ensure that safety nets, palliatives and social investments reach those most affected by hardship.
Perhaps the disagreement between critics and the Presidency is not whether hardship exists, but how severe it is and how best to address it.
The facts show that millions of Nigerians are struggling and require support. They also show that the country is not experiencing the kind of catastrophic hunger seen in war-torn nations.
What Nigerians need now is less politics and more accountability.
The success of reforms will not ultimately be measured by economic theories or political arguments. It will be measured by whether ordinary citizens can feed their families, educate their children, access healthcare and live with dignity.
For millions of Nigerians, the question is no longer whether reforms are necessary. It is whether the dividends of those reforms will arrive before patience runs out.
That responsibility rests not only with Abuja but equally with governors, local government chairmen, market operators, businesses and citizens themselves. Economic recovery, like hardship, is a shared responsibility.
The National Patriots Movement of Nigeria acknowledges the hardship facing millions of Nigerians and urges all three tiers of government to make safety nets and palliatives more visible and impactful. We call for greater accountability for increased revenues accruing to states and local governments. Economic reforms require patience, but citizens deserve tangible relief. Nigerians must reject profiteering, artificial scarcity and divisive politics, and work together to build a resilient and prosperous nation.
Princess Gloria Adebajo-Fraser MFR
President, The National Patriots.
