Nigeria’s fiscal crisis is not a matter of debate; it is a lived reality. The numbers tell a sobering story: a federal government that spends more on running itself than on building the nation; a public payroll that deserves pruning, in the opinion of many economists; and a debt profile that grows faster than revenues. Beneath these figures lies a deeper truth, Nigeria’s fiscal instability is as much a governance problem as it is an economic one.
For years, experts have warned that Nigeria’s cost of governance is unsustainable. Yet, successive administrations have treated it as an inconvenient detail rather than a national emergency. The 2024 budget, like those before it, allocated well over 70 per cent of recurrent expenditure to salaries, allowances, overheads, and administrative costs — leaving little for capital projects that could stimulate growth or improve citizens’ lives. The irony is striking: a nation struggling to fund infrastructure and healthcare spends lavishly on bureaucracy and political convenience.
For 2025, the Tinubu administration deserves commendation for increasing capital expenditure to 43.57 percent, which is a marked reduction in the recurrent and capital expenditure gap. But while the president should be commended for this feat, there I is still a large room for improvement.
The imbalance has far-reaching consequences. The Central Bank of Nigeria’s monetary tightening and the government’s fiscal adjustments can only go so far when the structure of spending remains lopsided. As oil revenues fluctuate and debt servicing consumes an alarming share of income, the gap between what Nigeria earns and what it spends continues to widen. In effect, the nation is financing consumption, not development.
Behind the numbers lies a bloated state apparatus. Nigeria’s three tiers of government maintain overlapping agencies, redundant commissions, and hundreds of political offices, many serving little public purpose beyond rewarding loyalty. Reports such as the Oronsaye Committee on public service reform have long recommended merging or scrapping dozens of agencies to save billions of naira annually. Yet, more than a decade later, implementation remains half-hearted, blocked by political inertia.
The cost of governance is not merely an accounting issue; it is a moral test of leadership. Every naira spent maintaining unnecessary offices or duplicating functions is a naira denied to a school, a hospital, or a road. The persistence of high recurrent spending sends a signal that Nigeria’s ruling class may have chosen comfort over reform.
Reining in the cost of governance is therefore not an option but a necessity for fiscal survival. The government must show courage to implement structural reforms, enforce accountability, and adopt technology to streamline operations. States and local governments, too, must cut the excesses of political appointments and travel allowances that drain their treasuries.
In addition, transparency must become the anchor of Nigeria’s fiscal policy. Citizens deserve to see how public money is spent, not through obscure line items, but through open, accessible data. The Fiscal Responsibility Act must be enforced with real penalties for budgetary indiscipline.
Nigeria cannot continue to borrow to fund an expensive government while its infrastructure crumbles and its youth remain unemployed. The real test of reform will come not from new taxes or borrowing ceilings, but from the willingness to make government lean, efficient, and accountable.
The time for half measures is over. To restore fiscal stability and rebuild public trust, Nigeria must finally confront its most enduring economic weakness, a government that costs too much and delivers little.
