Various Nigerian political organisations and leaders have responded to President Bola Tinubu’s New Year’s address. The president’s speech was lauded by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), which highlighted his bold 2025 agenda items, including cutting the price of food and medications, reviving refineries, and bringing Inflation down from 36.4% to 15%. Despite global economic concerns, APC officials voiced confidence in Tinubu’s capacity to fulfil these commitments. The opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) attacked the speech, saying Tinubu was out of touch with the suffering of Nigerians and had failed to offer tangible answers to pressing problems including gasoline costs, unemployment, and poor economic management.
The speech, according to the PDP, was self-serving and lacked concrete measures to deal with issues like infrastructure, food insecurity, and inflation. Among the other reactions was the Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP), which criticised the government for its hasty decisions that resulted in greater Poverty and questioned the viability of the suggested proposals. The administration has been criticised by the Pan-Yoruba sociopolitical group Afenifere for policy blunders such currency depreciation and subsidy elimination, which they claim exacerbated poverty and inflation. The President’s goal was emphasised by supporters, including APC leaders and popular celebrities, who also called on Nigerians to support his government.
Immediate result of subsidy removal was a spike in petrol prices.
Instead of making promises, critics demanded quick fixes. Some urged the president to admit the negative consequences of his actions and turn his attention to economic improvements that would benefit people. The administration of President Bola Tinubu put in place a number of important economic measures in 2024 with the goal of stabilising Nigeria’s economy. The elimination of the long-standing fuel subsidy on his first day in office was one of his most significant measures. The nation’s Economy had been heavily burdened financially by this subsidies. The immediate result of its removal was a spike in petrol prices, which raised Nigerians’ expenses for living and transportation.
As a response to the growing cost of living, the government declared its intention to introduce buses that run on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) instead of fuel. The goal of this program was to lessen the population’s dependency on pricey gasoline and offer more reasonably priced public transit options. As of late 2024, however, the lack of necessary staff and fuelling Infrastructure caused delays in the deployment of these vehicles. The administration also negotiated a higher national Minimum Wage with labour unions.
Nigeria encountered severe economic difficulties in 2024.
Following negotiations, a new minimum salary of ₦70,000 was decided upon, with plans for evaluations every three years. The goal of this action was to lessen the financial burden that inflation and the growing Cost Of Living were placing on employees. Nigeria encountered severe economic difficulties in 2024 in spite of these policy changes. November 2024 saw inflation hit a 28-year high of 34.6%, which reduced buying power and raised the price of necessities. Another urgent issue was the poverty rate, which is predicted to rise to 38.8% by the year’s conclusion.
Organisations and independent specialists offered their perspectives on certain economic metrics. Nigeria was starting to experience some positive effects from fiscal reforms, according to the World Bank, with the fiscal deficit falling from 6.2% of GDP in the first half of the previous year to 4.4% in the same time in 2024. However, the country still faced several obstacles. In order to attain macroeconomic stability, the Bank stressed the necessity of ongoing reforms, but it also forecasted Economic Growth of 3.3% for the year and 3.6% in 2025.
Related Article: Country’s 2024 GDP Growth Revised Downward
In order to lessen the financial difficulties that Nigerians are experiencing, the administration’s detractors made a number of recommendations. A more gradual approach to subsidy reduction was urged in order to mitigate the immediate impact on citizens. The implementation of targeted Cash transfer programs and the reinforcement of social safety nets were advocated in order to assist the most vulnerable groups. The necessity of diversifying the economy away from reliance on oil by investing in industries like manufacturing, technology, and Agriculture in order to boost employment and economic growth was also underlined by critics.