By Kayode Oladipupo
Nigeria may be approaching one of the most consequential economic tests in its democratic history: Can a country sustain difficult economic reforms when an election makes reversing them politically attractive?
That question is no longer theoretical. With the 2027 presidential election approaching, proposals to reverse some of the defining reforms of the past three years—particularly petrol subsidy removal—have entered the political conversation. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, now the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, has pledged to restore the petrol subsidy if elected.
The debate, however, should be bigger than Tinubu versus Atiku, APC versus ADC, or government versus opposition. The real question is whether Nigeria’s economic policy should be determined by the long-term national interest or the short-term requirements of presidential ambition.
There is no denying that the reforms have imposed serious hardship. Millions of households have experienced declining purchasing power, while food, transportation and energy costs remain painful. The World Bank says that although macroeconomic stability has improved, household incomes have yet to recover fully and poverty remains extremely high.
But hardship does not automatically make reform wrong.
Nigeria’s economic fundamentals have strengthened. The Federal Ministry of Finance reports real GDP growth of 4.43 percent in the second quarter of 2026, headline inflation of 15.39 percent in August, external reserves of $54.7 billion in September and significant improvement in the country’s trade balance. The IMF similarly acknowledges that reforms over the past three years have improved macroeconomic outcomes and strengthened resilience.
These gains are not a licence for complacency. They are an argument for consolidation rather than reversal.
The central failure of the reform programme would be to stabilise the macroeconomy without transforming the microeconomy. Nigerians do not eat foreign reserves, GDP figures or fiscal balances. They need jobs, affordable food, reliable electricity, functioning transport systems, accessible credit and rising real incomes.
That is where the next phase of reform must concentrate.
A presidential candidate seeking to reverse existing policies should therefore answer five questions.
First, what replaces the reform? If subsidy is restored, where will the money come from and what expenditure will be sacrificed?
Second, what is the fiscal consequence? Can the Federal Government and states sustain the proposed policy without returning to excessive borrowing and monetary financing?
Third, how will productivity improve? What specific measures will reduce the cost of producing food, manufacturing goods and delivering services?
Fourth, how will ordinary Nigerians benefit? What measurable mechanism will convert economic growth into higher household incomes?
Fifth, what is the implementation timetable? Nigerians should no longer be satisfied with political promises without measurable targets.
This should become the minimum presidential economic scorecard.
Nigeria needs political competition, but it does not need economic policy competition based on who can promise the cheapest relief. The country has repeatedly paid the price for policies that were politically popular today but economically destructive tomorrow.
The alternative is not to defend every government decision. Where reforms have produced hardship, government must correct, compensate and improve them. Where implementation has failed, it must be fixed. Where the poor have borne disproportionate costs, targeted social protection must be strengthened.
But reform correction is different from reform reversal.
The IMF has specifically urged Nigeria to preserve macroeconomic stability while protecting priority and social spending, strengthening public financial management and accelerating reforms in electricity, agriculture, infrastructure, governance and human capital.
That should be the national conversation.
Nigeria’s next president should inherit an economy—not a political time bomb. The objective should be to make the reforms work better for Nigerians, not to dismantle them simply because dismantling them may win votes.
Presidential ambition must serve national economic transformation, not the other way around.
The ultimate test of the 2027 election should therefore not be who can promise Nigerians the easiest road, but who can credibly lead them from economic stabilisation to shared prosperity without sacrificing tomorrow for today’s votes.
Oladipupo, a Public Policy Advocate is the MD and CEO Kemkay Consult. He writes from Akure Ondo State Nigeria