‘Nigeria Is Building Castles Around People Who Can’t Afford to Eat’ — Commentator Questions Tinubu’s ‘Age of Prosperity’

A commentator has questioned the Federal Government’s declaration that Nigeria has entered an “age of prosperity,” arguing that economic policies must provide immediate relief to households struggling with food, transport, energy and other basic needs.

The comments followed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s October 1 Independence Day address, in which he declared that the country had moved from a period of difficult economic reforms into a new phase focused on shared prosperity.

Tinubu said the government’s reforms had corrected the country’s economic direction and that the next priority was to reduce the cost of living, create productive jobs and ensure that economic growth translated into improved living conditions.

However, the commentator argued that government should not simply wait for the benefits of longer-term reforms to filter down to citizens, but should consider temporary measures capable of cushioning households against the immediate effects of high living costs.

Drawing a comparison with Germany, the commentator argued that governments can temporarily intervene when extraordinary economic conditions put households under severe pressure.

The argument came as Germany announced a temporary reduction in energy taxes on petrol and diesel from October 1 to December 31, 2026, as part of measures intended to cushion consumers and businesses against elevated energy costs.

According to reports, the German measure reduces energy taxes by about 14 cents per litre, with the combined effect of tax adjustments reaching roughly 17 cents per litre and an estimated public relief of about €2.5 billion.

The commentator argued that Nigeria could similarly consider targeted, temporary interventions rather than assuming that existing policies would automatically ease the pressure on households.

The position was that changing or temporarily adjusting a policy that is not producing the desired immediate result should not necessarily be interpreted as failure, particularly where the objective is to stabilise the economy and protect vulnerable citizens.

Transportation was highlighted as one area where Nigerians continue to experience varying levels of relief.

President Tinubu had directed state governments to accelerate implementation of the National Affordable CNG Transit Programme and instructed that Nigerians should begin to see measurable reductions in transportation costs from October 1.

However, implementation has been uneven.

A review published on October 3 found that Lagos, Kwara, Ekiti, Plateau and Enugu had adopted different approaches involving CNG buses or subsidised transport, but that differences in infrastructure, vehicle availability, conversion costs and operating expenses meant that the impact on commuters varied from state to state.

This has strengthened the argument from critics that policy announcements need to translate into measurable changes in household expenses.

Another major point raised by the commentator was the purchasing power of Nigerians earning around the current ₦70,000 national minimum wage.

The argument was that a nominal increase in wages does not necessarily represent an improvement in living standards when food, transportation, electricity, rent and other essential expenses rise faster than household income.

The issue has also featured prominently in the political debate following the President’s Independence Day address.

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, for example, compared the purchasing power of the ₦70,000 minimum wage with the previous ₦30,000 wage and argued that Nigerians could afford substantially less petrol with their wages despite the nominal increase. That comparison is part of Atiku’s criticism of the administration and should therefore be understood as a political argument rather than an independent assessment.

The broader question raised by the commentator was simple: what does economic growth mean to a household that still cannot comfortably pay for food, shelter, transportation, healthcare and electricity?

The commentator also challenged the idea that Nigeria still has a sufficiently broad middle class capable of absorbing the current economic pressures.

According to the argument, experiences in Lagos and the Federal Capital Territory can sometimes differ significantly from those of Nigerians in other parts of the country because of the concentration of embassies, multinational companies, government institutions and private-sector opportunities in those locations.

The implication, the commentator argued, is that economic hardship may be more severe and less visible in areas where formal employment and high-income opportunities are limited.

The commentator warned that prolonged hardship could become normalised if Nigerians gradually accept high food prices, expensive transportation, unaffordable housing and declining purchasing power as unavoidable features of everyday life.

Using an analogy, the commentator said Nigeria was effectively “building castles” while surrounding those castles with people who could not afford to eat, arguing that economic development would be difficult to sustain if large sections of the population remained unable to meet basic needs.

The argument was linked to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which places basic physiological and safety needs at the foundation before higher-level aspirations can realistically be pursued.

In that context, the commentator questioned how Nigerians could meaningfully discuss an “age of prosperity” when many households remain primarily concerned with obtaining food, shelter, transportation and basic security.

In his October 1 address, President Tinubu acknowledged that millions of Nigerians were still struggling with food, school fees, medical bills and transportation.

He said the government’s next phase would focus on reducing the cost of living by lowering production and transportation costs, expanding mechanised agriculture, improving infrastructure, supporting businesses and creating productive employment.

The President also said government was strengthening social support programmes, education financing, consumer credit and essential public services for vulnerable Nigerians.

Tinubu described these programmes as a bridge toward prosperity rather than a substitute for it, saying the ultimate objective was to defeat poverty through sustained economic growth and the creation of productive opportunities.

The debate therefore remains centred on whether the government's reported macroeconomic improvements can translate quickly enough into lower household costs and stronger purchasing power.

For millions of Nigerians, the measure of the promised prosperity may ultimately be less about economic statistics and more about whether they can afford food, transport, housing, healthcare, education and energy without falling deeper into financial hardship.