October 25, (THEWILL) – The National Economic Council’s endorsement of a 90-day economic action plan to reduce the cost of living has raised a critical question for the Bola Tinubu Administration: Can emergency policies fix a structural economic crisis for millions of Nigerians whose incomes have been battered by rising food, transport and other essential expenses over a long time?
In other words, will the Federal Government’s proposed 90-day economic relief plan translate into measurable improvements in Nigerians’ lives, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of a recent United Nations report highlighting the country’s worsening poverty?
The UNDP–Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative report released on October 12, 2026, highlights deprivation across health, education, and living standards. It also identifies particularly severe poverty in rural communities and northern Nigeria. According to the report, 113 million Nigerians, or 48.7 per cent of the population, are classified as multi dimensionally poor.
Economic experts therefore emphasise that the poverty crisis is too deep for a 90-day short-term intervention. They argue that poverty is not simply a shortage of money to buy food today. It can also mean unreliable electricity, inadequate healthcare, poor sanitation, interrupted schooling, limited employment opportunities and the absence of productive assets.
They argue that a temporary transfer or price intervention may help a household buy food this week. It cannot, by itself, provide a sustainable livelihood, restore lost purchasing power or improve access to essential services.
With food inflation still near 20 per cent, cash transfers struggling to reach millions of vulnerable households and the CNG transport initiative facing implementation gaps, the latest emergency intervention confronts a deeper crisis of policy execution, fiscal transparency and public trust.
The ambitious plan
The proposal, presented by the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, at the council’s 161st meeting on October 22, 2026, promises a coordinated response to food affordability, multiple taxation, ineffective regulation, inadequate household support and delayed infrastructure projects.
It also introduces a joint federal-state financing framework for compressed natural gas (CNG) and electric mass transit, alongside a national project-tracking dashboard intended to improve transparency in the use of proceeds from petrol subsidy removal.
On paper, the priorities are difficult to fault, say, experts. They argue that the measures address several of the most persistent obstacles confronting households and businesses. Yet the plan arrives against a background of previous relief promises, uneven state-level implementation and a growing disconnect between official economic recovery narratives and the financial reality of ordinary Nigerians.
Speaking on Arise News TV Friday, an economist and CEO of Cowry Assets Limited, Johnson Chukwu, emphasised that the concern is not necessarily that the plan cannot succeed. It is that the government has yet to demonstrate, in sufficient detail, how its latest intervention will overcome the very institutional weaknesses that have limited the impact of earlier programmes. He also expressed concern about the timing of the initiative.
Consequently, at the heart of the problem is a missing link between policy approval and delivery. Nigerians are being promised relief within 90 days, but the decisive questions bordering on funding, implementation schedules, measurable targets, institutional responsibilities and enforceable accountability linger. Without these elements, the plan risks becoming another ambitious policy framework whose intentions are more visible than its benefits.
An economist and financial analyst, Mike Akannor, likened the plan to the reaction of one who woke up from a disturbing dream and wants to hold on to something to have a settled mind. He wondered why emergency solutions have become the answer to deep, lingering challenges, especially when previous antidotes did not offer the expected relief.
“Where are the promised CNG mass transit vehicles? Has the recently announced 30-day fuel price discount at the NNPC Retail petrol stations across the country delivered? How would anyone believe that the latest 90-day economic relief plan is practicable in a system that is immersed in deep poverty – the rate never experienced in the history of this nation? How is it going to be measured? Who is going to implement it – those occupied with the re-election campaign of President Bola Tinubu?” Akannor asked.
A promising plan, but where is the delivery framework?
According to reports of the NEC meeting, the five priority areas are food affordability, tax harmonisation, regulated household support, removal of investment bottlenecks and completion of high-impact projects. The council also backed the development of cheaper mass transit through CNG and electric vehicles.
However, the public announcement does not, by itself, establish the amount of money committed to each intervention, the precise number of households expected to benefit, the commodities targeted for immediate price relief or the projects scheduled for completion within the 90 days. Neither does a broad policy endorsement automatically establish the administrative machinery required to execute it across 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.
These omissions matter because the proposed programme is not a single intervention that one ministry can deliver independently. It is a collection of interdependent policies involving federal ministries, state governments, local authorities, transport operators, tax agencies, agricultural institutions and infrastructure contractors.
Efforts to get further details from the Minister failed as repeated calls to his phone went unanswered. So too was a message sent to his confirmed WhatsApp platform. Senior Special Assistant to Vice-President Kashim Shettima, who stated the measures, did not answer calls made to his phone.
Food affordability: treating the symptoms without fixing supply
Food affordability is the most immediate and politically sensitive pillar of the plan. It is also one of the most difficult to deliver quickly.
Nigeria’s food-price problem is not simply a consequence of excessive demand or insufficient government intervention. It reflects a combination of high production costs, insecurity, inadequate rural infrastructure, expensive transportation, storage deficiencies, exchange-rate pressures and weaknesses across agricultural value chains.
Farmers who cannot safely cultivate their land cannot supply markets consistently. Producers who lack affordable fertiliser, machinery, irrigation, finance and reliable energy face high unit costs. Even where harvests are adequate, poor roads, limited storage and expensive logistics can make food unaffordable in distant urban centres.
The World Bank’s work on agricultural value chains has identified inadequate storage and weak rural road networks as important contributors to post-harvest losses, with losses estimated at 30–50 per cent of total crop output in some contexts.
This is a substantial structural problem. A government that wants food prices to fall must increase the quantity of marketable produce, reduce the cost of getting it to consumers and limit avoidable losses between farm and market.
However, THEWILL gathered that the government may embark on massive food importation as a short -term measure to crash food prices for the period, since previous attempts by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission tried without success to get price-fixing cartels and hoarders of produce to stop unfairly inflating prices. Another measure is to grant import waivers to boost food supply.
Even so, Chukwu argued that granting import waivers to boost food supply must not override the need to boost domestic production, and that is why the ravaging insecurity across the country must not be overlooked.
A credible food-affordability programme should combine immediate relief with measures to increase supply, he said. It must connect farmers to markets, improve storage and logistics, protect agricultural communities and reduce the costs of processing and distributing food. Without that combination, temporary interventions may soften hardship in selected locations while leaving the national food economy fundamentally unchanged.
Tax harmonization as added source of pressure
Tax harmonisation is one of the five priorities. Properly designed, it can simplify compliance, reduce overlapping demands and make the business environment more predictable. However, its impact will depend on what the government actually changes.
If harmonisation removes duplicate taxes, experts say, arbitrary charges and multiple levies, it could reduce the costs faced by manufacturers, traders and transport operators. If implementation introduces confusion, uneven enforcement or additional compliance burdens, businesses could pass those costs on to consumers.
There is also a critical distinction between improving tax administration and increasing the tax burden on households and productive businesses. The government needs to explain which taxes or levies will be harmonised, which agencies will be affected, how states and local governments will participate, and how the reforms will reduce actual business costs. The outcome should be assessed through measurable reductions in compliance costs and overlapping levies—not merely through the publication of new guidelines
Similarly, tax harmonisation requires agreement among multiple tax-collecting authorities and practical measures to eliminate overlapping levies, rather than merely a declaration that businesses should no longer face multiple taxation.
Chukwu said the policy appears difficult to implement. Beyond those whose taxes are already streamlined under the PAYE system, which can be adjusted based on a specific framework, implementation of tax harmonization under the 90-day economic relief programme may be uneasy to determine.
The government therefore needs to publish an operational document explaining what will happen, who will do it, how much it will cost, where the funding will come from and how the public will verify the results.
The absence of such publicly verifiable particulars would make it difficult to distinguish an executable emergency programme from a statement of policy aspirations.
THEWILL had reported that small businesses at the sub-national level are still writhing in the throes of multiple taxes, excess levies and overreaching arms of the law created by authorities of these tiers of government, despite the new tax reform. Often, the laws are enforced in the most brutal manner, which has been the culture over the years. Consequently, on a daily basis, these people are confronted with the realities of an abnormal order, raised to state priority and executed willfully by officials of government without restraint.
READ ALSO:
Inadequate household support – a lingering sour thumb
The plan’s household-support component raises another difficult issue: the government’s capacity to identify vulnerable citizens and deliver assistance reliably.
Targeted cash transfers can be more effective than universal subsidies because they direct limited public resources towards people who need them most. However, their success depends on accurate beneficiary records, functioning payment channels, adequate funding, effective grievance procedures and safeguards against political interference. Nigeria’s recent experience provides grounds for concern.
In its 2026 assessment, the IMF reported that 9.2 million households had been enrolled in the cash-transfer system, against a target of 15 million. It also stated that enrolled households had received no more than three transfers of N25,000 each since 2023. The significance is not that cash transfers have no value. For a household struggling to buy food or pay for transport, even limited support can make a difference. The concern is that the scale and regularity of assistance may be inadequate relative to the size of the hardship the programme is intended to address. Also, the system has not exhibited the desired transparency since inception.
The new 90-day initiative must therefore explain whether it will expand the existing system, introduce a separate intervention or combine cash assistance with food vouchers and other targeted support.
It should specify the number of households to be reached, the value and frequency of payments, the source of funding, the verification process and the mechanism for correcting exclusion or fraudulent enrolment. There must also be an accessible way for citizens to report missing payments, duplicate beneficiaries and demands for unofficial fees.
The cash transfers scheme is already a subject of controversy following a revelation in the Auditor General’s 2025 report, which flagged N33.75 billion in electronic cash transfers made by the National Cash Transfer Office (NCTO) in 2023, indicting officials for being unable to account for receipts and unable to identify persons or households that were beneficiaries.
A programme cannot be described as successful merely because money has been appropriated or a beneficiary database has been updated. Success means eligible households actually receive assistance, in full and on time, and that the support makes a measurable difference to their ability to meet essential needs.
Ineffective regulation and delayed infrastructure projects
Chukwu identified this aspect of the 90-day plan as one that may be difficult to implement because of existing structural challenges and time limitations.
The government must identify the specific bottlenecks to be removed within 90 days and name the agencies responsible. It should publish baseline processing times for key permits and report the number of applications cleared, the number of unresolved cases, and the economic activities enabled by the changes.
The World Bank has repeatedly warned about this disconnect between macroeconomic improvement and household welfare. Its October 2025 assessment of Nigeria noted that poor households could spend as much as 70 per cent of their income on food, while the cost of a basic food basket had increased fivefold between 2019 and 2024.
The International Monetary Fund’s June 2026 Article IV assessment also estimated that poverty had reached 63 per cent under Nigeria’s national poverty line and that 27 million Nigerians faced food insecurity in the autumn of 2025 and beyond.
These figures reveal the scale of the challenge facing the 90-day programme. The government is not simply trying to moderate the next round of price increases. It must also help households whose purchasing power has already been severely eroded.
A 90-day plan covering food affordability, household support, tax coordination, investment and project completion could involve significant public expenditure or require substantial coordination of existing resources, details which the announcement did not provide. Akannor asked, “Given the lack of a budget implementation report by the government, how will the policy be funded? Will the Federal Government redirect existing expenditure, use subsidy-removal proceeds, release budgeted funds or rely on state governments and private investors? If relief programmes are financed by cutting essential healthcare, education, agricultural support or other productive expenditure, immediate gains could create longer-term costs.”
Akannor further noted that a programme that takes most of its 90-day window to secure approvals, release funds and procure services may have little time left to deliver meaningful results. The government needs to publish the cost of each intervention, the funding source, the release timetable and the agency accountable for spending. Otherwise, it will be difficult to distinguish a funded programme from a policy aspiration.
Political timing could weaken public confidence
The plan was announced in October 2026, ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election. This timing has already prompted political criticism.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has described the Federal Government’s 90-day cost-of-living relief plan as election bait, saying its timeline extends beyond the 2027 presidential election.
Atiku stated this in an address delivered on his behalf by Phrank Shaibu, Director of Strategic Communication of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) Presidential Campaign Council, during a world press conference on Friday at the ADC Secretariat in Abuja. Shaibu said the presidential election was 86 days away, while the National Economic Council had announced a 90-day plan.
“The arithmetic is plain: the plan ends after Nigerians have voted. After three and a half years of hardship, this government is asking families to carry another promise into the polling booth and wait for relief until the votes are counted,” he said.
According to him, the plan’s five priorities are issues Nigerians had been asking the government to address. He said that the removal of the petrol subsidy had predictable effects on transport, food and production costs.
“The first dividend of prosperity should be the confidence to plan a life. Our task is to make such confidence less dependent on fortune,” Vice-President Shettima said while addressing the NEC meeting last week, adding that “Nigerians deserve institutions on which they can organise their lives. Providing that assurance is among the most consequential uses of public authority. That is the assurance we owe them.”
Sam Diala is a Bloomberg Certified Financial Journalist with over a decade of experience in reporting Business and Economy. He is Business Editor at THEWILL Newspaper, and believes that work, not wishes, creates wealth.
