President Bola Ahmed Tinubu brings a vast reservoir of political experience to this moment, spanning his distinguished tenure as Governor of Lagos State to his central role in Nigeria’s democratic evolution. That history of leadership naturally raises, rather than lowers, expectations. Nigerians are not looking for policy experimentation from a novice; they are looking for results that are clear, consistent, and impactful. While there is broad consensus that the administration has tackled major structural problems—most notably the removal of fuel subsidies and the unification of the foreign exchange market—the challenge lies not in the economic logic of these reforms, but in their acute social impact.
By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
In a recent appearance on the Mic on Podcast on 28 June 2026, Sunday Dare, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Communications, offered a robust defence of the Tinubu administration’s public standing and its current reform agenda. Responding to the widespread, often caustic, commentary regarding the government’s allegedly declining popularity, he argued that much of the negative narrative circulating on social media platforms fails to capture the authentic, lived realities of the average Nigerian. Dare’s central thesis was that public opinion should not be reduced to the fleeting, often distorted, nature of online sentiment or politically motivated rhetoric.
According to him, assessments of government popularity must be grounded in credible, scientific polling methods rather than anecdotal impressions or what he termed “opposition-driven noise”. He noted that his own frequent, informal interactions with citizens across the country reveal a far more complex reality than social media portrayals would suggest. In his view, many Nigerians acknowledge the inherent hardship associated with ongoing reforms but still express a degree of cautious support, viewing these immediate sacrifices as necessary steps toward long-term national recovery.
READ ALSO:
Obi questions Nigeria’s leadership priorities, calls for transparency in electoral process
He further cautioned that critics often engage in “selective perception”, focusing disproportionately on negative indicators while ignoring areas of progress or the structural necessity of the administration’s difficult decisions. Dare’s position ultimately rested on a broader governance argument, that a country aspiring to serve as a “bellwether for Africa” must rely on data-driven decision-making rather than the volatility of non-scientific public moods.
I find myself broadly aligned with his caution against reducing national sentiment to the often-insular confines of social media echo chambers. Like him, I move through the everyday spaces where national policy meets lived reality—motor parks, roadside tea joints, informal markets, and community gatherings where official narratives are constantly tested against the rigours of direct experience.
In those settings, a more nuanced picture emerges, that many citizens do acknowledge the difficulty of the current reforms, yet they still express a willingness to endure present hardship if they can see a clear, credible path towards meaningful improvement. However, agreement on the existence of this public patience does not resolve the more fundamental question of by what standard this administration should be judged.
The issue is not whether difficult decisions are being taken—they clearly are—but whether those decisions are translating into visible, sustained improvements in the lives of ordinary Nigerians. Governance cannot be assessed by the mere activity of reform; it must be judged by its tangible outcomes, and in the current climate, the absence of these outcomes is becoming a significant political risk.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu brings a vast reservoir of political experience to this moment, spanning his distinguished tenure as Governor of Lagos State to his central role in Nigeria’s democratic evolution. That history of leadership naturally raises, rather than lowers, expectations. Nigerians are not looking for policy experimentation from a novice; they are looking for results that are clear, consistent, and impactful. While there is broad consensus that the administration has tackled major structural problems—most notably the removal of fuel subsidies and the unification of the foreign exchange market—the challenge lies not in the economic logic of these reforms, but in their acute social impact.
For the vast majority of our people, daily life remains defined by rising transport costs, relentless food inflation, declining purchasing power, and the persistent strain of surviving in a tightening economy. In such a context, reform risks being experienced merely as prolonged, purposeless hardship unless it is accompanied by visible relief and effective, well-structured cushioning mechanisms that protect the most vulnerable.
This widening gap between macroeconomic policy and the harsh reality of microeconomic survival is now the central test of this administration’s governance. While fiscal indicators may suggest that necessary adjustment is underway, households and small businesses continue to bear the immediate, daily burden without yet experiencing sufficient offsetting benefits. Consequently, the conversation must shift from the mere justification of reform to its proactive management.
To bridge this divide, three priorities stand out as essential. First, social protection must become more visible, structured, and reliable; interventions such as cash transfers, food support, transport relief, and targeted assistance for small and medium-sized enterprises must be consistently felt at the grassroots level, as they cannot remain abstract policy commitments or periodic, distant announcements. Second, communication must be more empathetic and firmly grounded in the lived experience of citizens. While technical explanations have their place in boardrooms and policy circles, they cannot substitute for communication that resonates across the country’s diverse social fabric.
The government must utilise major Nigerian languages—Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, and Pidgin English—to ensure messages are not only widely understood but also contribute to the building of genuine public trust. Third, national security must remain central to the success of economic recovery. No reform agenda can succeed in an environment where insecurity consistently disrupts agriculture, weakens critical supply chains, restricts the free movement of people and goods, and undermines investor confidence.
None of these observations is an argument against the necessity of reform. On the contrary, it is a clarion call for making that reform sustainable. Policy change is only truly durable when it is socially absorbed—when citizens can feel not only the inevitable costs but also the tangible compensations of a changing economy. Public patience in Nigeria is real, but it is not infinite; the willingness of our citizens to endure difficulty must be matched by a steady, credible, and visible pathway toward improvement in their daily living conditions.
This administration will not be judged by the boldness of its public announcements or the sophistication of its economic theories, but by whether ordinary Nigerians can feel a measurable difference in their daily lives without needing it explained to them by a spokesperson. Nigeria does not merely need reforms that are correctly designed; it needs reforms that are visibly working. That remains the true test—not only the courage to pursue difficult change, but the discipline to ensure that such change produces outcomes that every citizen can recognise.
